having brand names in the title and description is fine (they're trademarked, but not trademarked characters)
Logos and brand names in the artwork itself are not fine.
Sorry guys, mold has a point. I'm not saying this should be taken down or something, but we need to be careful about including brands and logos in this stuff. I would feel a lot better if those components were removed, which leaves the art still useful and in-tact. Not claiming ownership is not really a valid reason to release trademarked logos under an open license. Nor is the triviality of the IP violation or the unlikelyhood of getting sued for it.
Using the artwork with the logos in your games is indeed fair use, but the problem is not about fair use. By posting logos or brand names under an open license like CC0, you're not just saying "you can use these under fair-use conditions only", you're also saying "you can use these for whatever you want, like using them as your own brand for your game!". If there was a "fair-use only" license, this would work a bit better. Again, developers don't have to ask to use such logos in the games that are played on xbox or whatever because that is fair use.
Fortunately, in this case, the artwork itself contains no such brands or logos. This is fine. I recommend not using brand names to describe the art (after all, developers might use these buttons for non-platform games) but I'd say this is fine as it is. Mold's general point isn't wrong though.
Almost. The reason I used the url for this page as an example is because the copyright/attribution notice section is indicating what the user of this art should put on their credits page, which may be a plain text file or a game screen that doesn't interpret html tags. The url should be spelled out because the user won't be copying this entire page into their game's credits document; just the text in the copyright/attribution section. Otherwise the user's credit page would refer to "this" link, but that link wouldn't be anywhere on the game's credit screen for the player to click.
It's certainly acceptable as you have it now, but I do recommend spelling out the url, and using a url to this page instead of the original. That way the user can visit this page to see the modified version, which will lead them to the original page from here. :)
The original isn't by Andrettin, though. It's by b_o. It might be a good idea to explicitly give credit in the "copyright/attribution notice" section, too. Something like "Mangonel by b_o, modified by castelonia https://opengameart.org/content/siege-weapons".
The grass I was referring to isn't in the images you've posted on this thread. I was wondering about the grass on the preview images of the Lots of Trees... submission. I'll go wonder about that on the submission page, so disregard my question here. :P
RE. cave walls: Yeah, that drawn-in dark top area was experimental. I think it makes those areas seem like an elevated platform instead of inaccessable/unseen. Fortunately it's easy to just not draw (or change to a black fill) those areas of the tiles.
@Zabin: so are the grass/ground tiles in the Lots of trees and plants submission preview not CC0?
I like both the orthogonal tiles and the isometric DavidGervais stuff, but I probably won't use the Iso stuff in my own game. I like the idea of having wall tops. I think it makes a 3/4 view a lot more comprehensible. I've done some cave-like walls with tops in orthogonal style using DG art. I think it turned out pretty good, but I haven't actually heard anyone else's opinion on it:
(click to enlarge)
As for the palette thing, of all the reduced color palettes I've seen, I think the dawnbringer palette is the best, DB32 especially. Zabin's DB32+Zn8 even more. However, I really prefer having no palette at all. Rather, I prefer the 1.4 million color RGBA32 palette for my pixel art. I know a reduced color set is easier for artists to work with, and somewhat easier for the processer to display, but those benefits do not outweigh the vibrancy I feel is lost. This is, of course, personal preference on my part. I am strictly speaking about what I tend to use in my own games. I have no problem with the DB palette or games that use it. They tend to be the kind of games I like to play, actually.
This is cool. Although I don't really prefer DB palettes myself, I think a cohesive set (rather, a cohesive set of disparate cohesive sets... we've got a lot of great stuff to work with!) of RL art is a good idea.
I like .ogg for its versatility, personally. However, I'm using a framework that allows me to programmatically handle loop points (still, its a pain). I'm guessing you're using RPGMaker or a less code-heavy framework?
groovy. No problem then, but i recommend removing the mention of atlus, persona, and smt from the copyright section since they don't actually own the copyright to this art. :)
Showing buttons are fine.
A common shape of controller is fine.
having brand names in the title and description is fine (they're trademarked, but not trademarked characters)
Logos and brand names in the artwork itself are not fine.
Sorry guys, mold has a point. I'm not saying this should be taken down or something, but we need to be careful about including brands and logos in this stuff. I would feel a lot better if those components were removed, which leaves the art still useful and in-tact. Not claiming ownership is not really a valid reason to release trademarked logos under an open license. Nor is the triviality of the IP violation or the unlikelyhood of getting sued for it.
Using the artwork with the logos in your games is indeed fair use, but the problem is not about fair use. By posting logos or brand names under an open license like CC0, you're not just saying "you can use these under fair-use conditions only", you're also saying "you can use these for whatever you want, like using them as your own brand for your game!". If there was a "fair-use only" license, this would work a bit better. Again, developers don't have to ask to use such logos in the games that are played on xbox or whatever because that is fair use.
Fortunately, in this case, the artwork itself contains no such brands or logos. This is fine. I recommend not using brand names to describe the art (after all, developers might use these buttons for non-platform games) but I'd say this is fine as it is. Mold's general point isn't wrong though.
Any time! :)
...and thanks.
Almost. The reason I used the url for this page as an example is because the copyright/attribution notice section is indicating what the user of this art should put on their credits page, which may be a plain text file or a game screen that doesn't interpret html tags. The url should be spelled out because the user won't be copying this entire page into their game's credits document; just the text in the copyright/attribution section.
Otherwise the user's credit page would refer to "this" link, but that link wouldn't be anywhere on the game's credit screen for the player to click.It's certainly acceptable as you have it now,
but I do recommend spelling out the url, and using a url to this page instead of the original. That way the user can visit this page to see the modified version, which will lead them to the original page from here.:)Thanks!
Cool. Good addition.
The original isn't by Andrettin, though. It's by b_o. It might be a good idea to explicitly give credit in the "copyright/attribution notice" section, too. Something like "Mangonel by b_o, modified by castelonia https://opengameart.org/content/siege-weapons".I trust your licensing validation. :)
The grass I was referring to isn't in the images you've posted on this thread. I was wondering about the grass on the preview images of the Lots of Trees... submission. I'll go wonder about that on the submission page, so disregard my question here. :P
RE. cave walls: Yeah, that drawn-in dark top area was experimental. I think it makes those areas seem like an elevated platform instead of inaccessable/unseen. Fortunately it's easy to just not draw (or change to a black fill) those areas of the tiles.
@Zabin: so are the grass/ground tiles in the Lots of trees and plants submission preview not CC0?
I like both the orthogonal tiles and the isometric DavidGervais stuff, but I probably won't use the Iso stuff in my own game. I like the idea of having wall tops. I think it makes a 3/4 view a lot more comprehensible. I've done some cave-like walls with tops in orthogonal style using DG art. I think it turned out pretty good, but I haven't actually heard anyone else's opinion on it:
(click to enlarge)
As for the palette thing, of all the reduced color palettes I've seen, I think the dawnbringer palette is the best, DB32 especially. Zabin's DB32+Zn8 even more. However, I really prefer having no palette at all. Rather, I prefer the 1.4 million color RGBA32 palette for my pixel art. I know a reduced color set is easier for artists to work with, and somewhat easier for the processer to display, but those benefits do not outweigh the vibrancy I feel is lost. This is, of course, personal preference on my part. I am strictly speaking about what I tend to use in my own games. I have no problem with the DB palette or games that use it. They tend to be the kind of games I like to play, actually.
This is cool. Although I don't really prefer DB palettes myself, I think a cohesive set (rather, a cohesive set of disparate cohesive sets... we've got a lot of great stuff to work with!) of RL art is a good idea.
What about David Gervais art? https://opengameart.org/content/roguelike-tiles-large-collection
I like .ogg for its versatility, personally. However, I'm using a framework that allows me to programmatically handle loop points (still, its a pain). I'm guessing you're using RPGMaker or a less code-heavy framework?
groovy. No problem then, but i recommend removing the mention of atlus, persona, and smt from the copyright section since they don't actually own the copyright to this art. :)
Pages