If each texture is licensed differently or has different attribution, then yes they should remain separate submissions. Also, if several textures are significantly different from one another (one is a tree texture, another is a particle effect texture) then it wouldn't make much sense to bundle them together.
Other than that, it is often useful for people looking for your assets to search by entire collections or batches of textures. For that reason it might be a good idea to bundle many similar textures together into one submission.
Users are able to take advantage of textures individually even if they're bundled together, so that should not be a concern. As http://opengameart.org/content/100-seamless-textures demonstrates, a zip file containing many textures still displays each texture as a preview under "Textures In This Pack"
There is nothing explicitly wrong with uploading tons of textures as individual submissions, but it often buries other peoples submissions under the hoard of textures. It may make it somewhat difficult to browse the recent submissions since users must go through several pages to get to anything other than the textures. The closest thing there is to a "best practice" or rule about this is the blerb in the General Art Submission Guidelines: http://opengameart.org/content/art-submission-guidelines
OGA reserves the right to combine groups of small, similar submissions by the same author in order to keep the archive organized.
You haven't broken the rules or anything. By all means, keep submitting quality stuff! But if you want, it might be cool if large texture packs were bundled. :)
Kenny, Magic105, what are you talking about? Submissions can be licensed GPL and CC so users can choose which license they prefer. As far as I can tell, Varkalandar is correct. From the FAQ: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-multilicense
SOME ARTISTS HAVE MULTIPLE LICENSES LISTED. DOES THAT MEAN YOU NEED APPLY THE RULES OF ALL LICENSES OR CAN WE PICK THE ONE LICENSE WE PREFER?
You must follow only one of the licenses. However, when you re-distribute/edit, you are encouraged to include/use all of the licenses, so the license spectrum (and thus sum of people/projects who can use the art) doesn't shrink.
Emphasis mine.
License your submissions with as many licenses as you want. The user may choose ONE that best suits their project.
If there is confusion about attribution, it should be clarified in the attribution instructions. Having more than one license to choose from is a fantastic thing! Some have CC By-(SA) projects, other people have GPL projects. Why discourage this?
There are some nuances to these licenses that are discussed a lot. Namely, the "No Additional Restrictions" clause. It basically says the person using the asset cannot encrypt or hide or otherwise block the asset from being freely copied out of one project and used in another per the terms of the license.
It is often argued this clause means the asset cannot be used in games that are put on platforms like the apple app store since they may impose a form of DRM that prevents people from opening up the package and extracting the assets easily.
The debate is ongoing with no sign of ever arriving at a solid conclusion. If you're unsure, the best practice is to ask the artist who licensed the asset if they mind you using their work in such a fashion. Several artists have given a blanket waiver to this clause and don't need to be asked: http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/anti-drm-waiver
Alternatively, assets may be licensed under OGA-BY, which is essentially the same as CC-BY but without the No Additional Restrictions clause.
Another aspect of these licenses that is often discussed is whether or not the "Share Alike" clause of CC-BY-SA licenses requires a developer to share their game's entire source code or just the artwork derived directly from the asset. Again, the best practice is to ask the artist if you're unsure.
As long as your submissions here on OGA make those free assets available for download in a useable form (people aren't required to click the link to the unity appstore before they are able to use the free assets) you're all good. See Submission Guidelines for more information.
Here is an example of this very practice: http://opengameart.org/content/explosion-effects-and-more. Soluna Software shared 5 animations for free, with a link to their other commercial works on their website. Note the files listed in the "File(s)" section are the complete and useable animations spritesheets, not just a non-usable preview. However, the website has many more assets available for purchase.
It's a great way to get the word out about your work! :)
Select an Art Type on the left side of the page (probably Texture, Sound Effect, or 3D art in this case)
Select a license you like (or many. The user only has to adhere to one of the licenses you select, not all of them simultaneously) Click on each of the license images for more details on that license.
Fill out all the other fields in the middle of the page. If you don't understand anything, just ask. :)
That is a fringe case but it is indeed a valid question. I think admins here have done a pretty good job of assessing each case under its own individual merits by the spirit of the law and not the letter.
In the case of the WikiCommons example Clint provided, I imagine derivatives of that would also be taken down since the derivatives, albeit compliant with the license, would not have been in the spirit with which the ripped graphics were shared. Considering everyone except the person uploading those ripped graphics felt it was an obviously uncool move, I don't think we'll have much of a problem with similar situations.
In the case of an author requesting specific derivatives be removed but wish their original to remain on the site, I think the admin's assessment may initially sound something like "are you freaking kidding me?". If the original author licensed it for derivatives, but demands derivatives be taken down, that would call for taking the original artist into a sidebar and discussing the intricacies of Wheaton's Law. Also, I'm betting the artist would be asked to change the license to something that complies with their wishes... like CC-BY-ND... which isn't a license allowed on OGA.
I can't imagine such fringy cases ever being a reality, but even if they do happen, I'm confident in the case-by-case mitigation powers of our admins to produce a just and equitable solution for all. :)
Still, though... I'm also curious what the admins think about this.
If each texture is licensed differently or has different attribution, then yes they should remain separate submissions. Also, if several textures are significantly different from one another (one is a tree texture, another is a particle effect texture) then it wouldn't make much sense to bundle them together.
Other than that, it is often useful for people looking for your assets to search by entire collections or batches of textures. For that reason it might be a good idea to bundle many similar textures together into one submission.
Users are able to take advantage of textures individually even if they're bundled together, so that should not be a concern. As http://opengameart.org/content/100-seamless-textures demonstrates, a zip file containing many textures still displays each texture as a preview under "Textures In This Pack"
There is nothing explicitly wrong with uploading tons of textures as individual submissions, but it often buries other peoples submissions under the hoard of textures. It may make it somewhat difficult to browse the recent submissions since users must go through several pages to get to anything other than the textures. The closest thing there is to a "best practice" or rule about this is the blerb in the General Art Submission Guidelines: http://opengameart.org/content/art-submission-guidelines
You haven't broken the rules or anything. By all means, keep submitting quality stuff! But if you want, it might be cool if large texture packs were bundled. :)
Kenny, Magic105, what are you talking about? Submissions can be licensed GPL and CC so users can choose which license they prefer. As far as I can tell, Varkalandar is correct. From the FAQ: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-multilicense
Emphasis mine.
License your submissions with as many licenses as you want. The user may choose ONE that best suits their project.
If there is confusion about attribution, it should be clarified in the attribution instructions. Having more than one license to choose from is a fantastic thing! Some have CC By-(SA) projects, other people have GPL projects. Why discourage this?
"separated shadow layer."
^this! More of this everywhere!
What resource are you requesting?
Interesting... In the meantime, does replacing [] with %5B%5D work?
[url=http://opengameart.org/art-search-advanced?keys=&field_art_type_tid%5B%5D=12]OGA sound effects![/url]
Here are some additional details for that overly simplified explanation:
Read up on both http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
There are some nuances to these licenses that are discussed a lot. Namely, the "No Additional Restrictions" clause. It basically says the person using the asset cannot encrypt or hide or otherwise block the asset from being freely copied out of one project and used in another per the terms of the license.
It is often argued this clause means the asset cannot be used in games that are put on platforms like the apple app store since they may impose a form of DRM that prevents people from opening up the package and extracting the assets easily.
The debate is ongoing with no sign of ever arriving at a solid conclusion. If you're unsure, the best practice is to ask the artist who licensed the asset if they mind you using their work in such a fashion. Several artists have given a blanket waiver to this clause and don't need to be asked: http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/anti-drm-waiver
Alternatively, assets may be licensed under OGA-BY, which is essentially the same as CC-BY but without the No Additional Restrictions clause.
Another aspect of these licenses that is often discussed is whether or not the "Share Alike" clause of CC-BY-SA licenses requires a developer to share their game's entire source code or just the artwork derived directly from the asset. Again, the best practice is to ask the artist if you're unsure.
Yes. It is perfectly acceptable to share some of your assets here on OGA for free, with a link to your unity appstore page with additional assets non-free. See FAQ "I'm a commercial artist. Can I use OpenGameArt.org to advertise my paid work?" for more information.
As long as your submissions here on OGA make those free assets available for download in a useable form (people aren't required to click the link to the unity appstore before they are able to use the free assets) you're all good. See Submission Guidelines for more information.
Here is an example of this very practice: http://opengameart.org/content/explosion-effects-and-more. Soluna Software shared 5 animations for free, with a link to their other commercial works on their website. Note the files listed in the "File(s)" section are the complete and useable animations spritesheets, not just a non-usable preview. However, the website has many more assets available for purchase.
It's a great way to get the word out about your work! :)
Why not make these textures available on OGA instead of just discussing them in the forum?
That is a fringe case but it is indeed a valid question. I think admins here have done a pretty good job of assessing each case under its own individual merits by the spirit of the law and not the letter.
In the case of the WikiCommons example Clint provided, I imagine derivatives of that would also be taken down since the derivatives, albeit compliant with the license, would not have been in the spirit with which the ripped graphics were shared. Considering everyone except the person uploading those ripped graphics felt it was an obviously uncool move, I don't think we'll have much of a problem with similar situations.
In the case of an author requesting specific derivatives be removed but wish their original to remain on the site, I think the admin's assessment may initially sound something like "are you freaking kidding me?". If the original author licensed it for derivatives, but demands derivatives be taken down, that would call for taking the original artist into a sidebar and discussing the intricacies of Wheaton's Law. Also, I'm betting the artist would be asked to change the license to something that complies with their wishes... like CC-BY-ND... which isn't a license allowed on OGA.
I can't imagine such fringy cases ever being a reality, but even if they do happen, I'm confident in the case-by-case mitigation powers of our admins to produce a just and equitable solution for all. :)
Still, though... I'm also curious what the admins think about this.
Pages