My marking this as having a licensing issue was not as punishment. I didn't enumerate the issues with this submission to attack you or your work. Your honesty about where the assets came from is commendable and you should continue to be forthright. Being less honest about it would not have prevented this from being flagged with licensing issues. It would only have delayed it and pissed people off in the process.
"...and have had to fight you guys every step of the way to keep things up."
I'm sorry if that has been your experience. I guess I'm not seeing that fight. Out of your 37 other submissions, only 2 even mentioned copyright, one of which agreed with you and the other you didn't respond to. Everything else is nothing but people complementing your work and saying they'll use it in a game.
You are free to take on the risk of copyright violations if you so choose (I don't recommend it) but when assets are posted here, others are taking on that risk without choosing to do so or even knowing about it.
We want you to share your work, but in this case, the work isn't yours to share. The asset you've created here is good work and would be very useful, but the parts used to make it are not allowed to be shared in this way. I even understand your desire to disregard copyright and share stuff anyway, but we cannot do that. It undermines the trust developers need when selecting assets for their game. I agree that copyright law needs to be reformed, but violating current copyright law is not the way to accomplish that.
I think the attitude about 'spending all this time working on this, but now you say I can't use it!? That's bullsh*t! If I had known I couldn't use it I would never have bothered with it at all!' should really illustrate exactly what we are trying to avoid. If someone came here, used this asset, only to find out after they spent a lot of time and effort incorporating them into a game that they have to rip them all back out again, they would be just as pissed as you are.
Game Character Hub is in violation of the law because they are using artwork derived from Enterbrain IP (the owner of all RPG Maker assets) Mack is also in violation of the law by distributing derivatives of Enterbrain IP. Like I said, we can't host it here even if other people have used it without getting in trouble (yet). They might not even know they're violating Enterbrain's copyright, but we do.
This wasn't an attack on you. Your songs are good. Your spaceships and planets are good. Your desire to share artwork and music is good. I urge you to continue sharing, just be sure everyone else is allowed to share it, too.
I'm afraid this asset is definitely NOT in the clear for several reasons:
MACK/looseleaf requires attribution. Saying where you got the original asset isn't attribution until you make it clear that anyone else using these assets must also attribute the original author in the way they've requested. You can ask that people attribute you as well, but at the very least the original author must be attributed. That would make the license closer to CC-BY, not CC0. However, changing the license and adding attribution instructions wouldn't fix it because...
The terms of the MACK/looseleaf license are nebulous, but it certainly isn't compatible with any license on OGA. It says the assets can be used in commercial projects but distributing them as a collection of assets is forbidden. Although you might have satisfied that requirement, by changing the license (also not really allowed) you've implied that anyone using the art from here can distribute these independently of a game project. However, even MACK/looseleaf's license may be invalid because...
Derivatives of RPGMaker artwork cannot be relicensed to any license on OGA. Even if they're modifications of modifications of modifications of a very old version of RPGMaker artwork. Even if MACK/looseleaf believe it's ok to use them. Even if other people have used them outside of RPGMaker and didn't get in trouble.
I have to mark this as having a licensing issue. I wish this asset could stay here. If anyone has better information on this, please speak up.
You licensed this OGA-BY. That means people can use this without asking you. Actually, all the licenses on OpenGameArt.org allow people to use this asset without contacting you.
I hope you still want to keep this asset here, but I thought you should know that saying "If you wonna use, you can ask me..." is not really enforceable.
The importance of the name change is not really about parody in this case (although that's part of it). It's more about substantial similarity. Due to the style of the art, no reasonable person would mistake this for an actual photograph of trump, but a character's visual similarity is not the only thing covered by IP law.
If someone submitted artwork called "Sonic the Hedgehog" describing a character that loves to go fast and collect golden rings, but the picture looked nothing like Sonic the Hedgehog, it would still be a licensing issue. Not because the artwork looks like a character protected by IP, but because the name and description describe a character that is protected.
A name change is probably not absolutely necessary, but "Donald Trump" describes a trademarked brand name, even if the portrait does not. When victorkunai changed the name to something that "a reasonable person" won't mistake for a trademark, he granted potential users of the asset some measure of surity against IP issues.
Sara is the official mascot for OGA, but she is allowed to be used elsewhere since she is licensed CC-BY and GPL. The original character and artwork is by Mandi Paugh, which I believe was commissioned by bart, the site owner. There have since been many derivatives made. I'm not sure exactly how many there are total, but here are some of them.
A search for the keyword "sara" may also reveal a few others. Many submissions of sara in differing styles are the result of an art challenge a while back.
Stopping us from sharing this asset? Enterbrain for one. Enterbrain is stopping us. Their license legally compels us not to share it.
My marking this as having a licensing issue was not as punishment. I didn't enumerate the issues with this submission to attack you or your work. Your honesty about where the assets came from is commendable and you should continue to be forthright. Being less honest about it would not have prevented this from being flagged with licensing issues. It would only have delayed it and pissed people off in the process.
I'm sorry if that has been your experience. I guess I'm not seeing that fight. Out of your 37 other submissions, only 2 even mentioned copyright, one of which agreed with you and the other you didn't respond to. Everything else is nothing but people complementing your work and saying they'll use it in a game.
You are free to take on the risk of copyright violations if you so choose (I don't recommend it) but when assets are posted here, others are taking on that risk without choosing to do so or even knowing about it.
We want you to share your work, but in this case, the work isn't yours to share. The asset you've created here is good work and would be very useful, but the parts used to make it are not allowed to be shared in this way. I even understand your desire to disregard copyright and share stuff anyway, but we cannot do that. It undermines the trust developers need when selecting assets for their game. I agree that copyright law needs to be reformed, but violating current copyright law is not the way to accomplish that.
I think the attitude about 'spending all this time working on this, but now you say I can't use it!? That's bullsh*t! If I had known I couldn't use it I would never have bothered with it at all!' should really illustrate exactly what we are trying to avoid. If someone came here, used this asset, only to find out after they spent a lot of time and effort incorporating them into a game that they have to rip them all back out again, they would be just as pissed as you are.
Game Character Hub is in violation of the law because they are using artwork derived from Enterbrain IP (the owner of all RPG Maker assets) Mack is also in violation of the law by distributing derivatives of Enterbrain IP. Like I said, we can't host it here even if other people have used it without getting in trouble (yet). They might not even know they're violating Enterbrain's copyright, but we do.
This wasn't an attack on you. Your songs are good. Your spaceships and planets are good. Your desire to share artwork and music is good. I urge you to continue sharing, just be sure everyone else is allowed to share it, too.
I'm afraid this asset is definitely NOT in the clear for several reasons:
I have to mark this as having a licensing issue. I wish this asset could stay here. If anyone has better information on this, please speak up.
How did you make these?
I thought
good stuff.
You licensed this OGA-BY. That means people can use this without asking you. Actually, all the licenses on OpenGameArt.org allow people to use this asset without contacting you.I hope you still want to keep this asset here, but I thought you should know that saying "If you wonna use, you can ask me..." is not really enforceable.EDIT: thanks. good animation.
The importance of the name change is not really about parody in this case (although that's part of it). It's more about substantial similarity. Due to the style of the art, no reasonable person would mistake this for an actual photograph of trump, but a character's visual similarity is not the only thing covered by IP law.
If someone submitted artwork called "Sonic the Hedgehog" describing a character that loves to go fast and collect golden rings, but the picture looked nothing like Sonic the Hedgehog, it would still be a licensing issue. Not because the artwork looks like a character protected by IP, but because the name and description describe a character that is protected.
A name change is probably not absolutely necessary, but "Donald Trump" describes a trademarked brand name, even if the portrait does not. When victorkunai changed the name to something that "a reasonable person" won't mistake for a trademark, he granted potential users of the asset some measure of surity against IP issues.
Those nid's correspond to the following submissions:
Sara is the official mascot for OGA, but she is allowed to be used elsewhere since she is licensed CC-BY and GPL. The original character and artwork is by Mandi Paugh, which I believe was commissioned by bart, the site owner. There have since been many derivatives made. I'm not sure exactly how many there are total, but here are some of them.
A search for the keyword "sara" may also reveal a few others. Many submissions of sara in differing styles are the result of an art challenge a while back.
Lol! "Doland Prunt"
Unflagged.
Pages