If you never share or distribute any of the graphics you've made changes to (eg you keep them all on your own computer, never releasing them in a game) you don't really have to distribute them.
However if you do use them in a game or any other thing you share with even one other person or put on a website even if no one downloads it, yes you must "share alike" the recolored graphics.
I find this very helpful already. It remains nebulous (and it probably always will, as legal scenarios are almost never subject to generalization) but I feel I have a better understanding of CC BY-SA.
I beleive bart has intentionally left interpretation of this license up to both the asset user and asset producer to some degree. Because it is so situationally specific, each artist and each developer have to assess if this license is appropriate for their specific project.
As mdwh pointed out, only using SA stuff in open source games doesn't really safeguard you against the pitfall we're asking about, but I feel (moreso now than ever) that the pitfall is not as deep or dangerous as expected, and is only really risky in some rather fringe-y cases. But that still means you have to assess your project to see if it is one of those fringe cases.
I have spoken to an IP expert about my own project about this license. The information I was given is very specific to my project so I can't really share it in a general sense, but I'll give the basic gist of it:
<Standard-Issue "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer />It is highly unlikely (read: "Fringe-y") that game code is a derivative of artwork assets, so code is unlikely to ever be considered subject to the SA clause.
However, if artwork is fundamentally inseperable from the code, i.e. it could not be considered the same game if you subsituted that artwork for some other similar-but-not-derivative artwork, then the code may be considered a derivative of the artwork because it absolutely relies on that specific artwork in order to exist as a game.
e.g. A game called "Yo! Van Gogh! Can you hear me yet?" where you pin the ears on Vincent van Gogh's portrait; substituting some other portrait work of art like the Mona Lisa would pretty fundamentally change the nature of the game. Subject to judgment by the court, but risky still. (I think both paintings are public domain now, but it illustrates the point)
In addition, CC's response to Capbro's questions indicates to me that combining two separate assets where one is licensed CC BY-SA will probably require both assets be licensed -SA, but not the mechanism that combined them. e.g. Using the SpriteDisplayerPro website to animate a rabbit sprite and syncing a rabbit-hopping-sound with the animation would probably mean both the rabbit sprite and the hopping sound are derivatives of each other if you wanted to share the results, but SpriteDisplayerPro's web code would not be a derivative.
Furthermore, a bunny-hunter sprite would not be a derivative of the bunny sprite or the bunny hopping sound even though all three assets appear in the same game... Because the hunter asset is never combined with the bunny hopping sound effect, just displayed in a similar environment. Just like displaying two photographs in the same book doesn't constitute a derivative of each other.
In the meantime, you can always create a set of public collections. Pick a few templates you have in mind and add assets already on the site into each collection. Add each other as collaborators on the collections so you can all curate each template collection. Good way to showcase the idea and test reception.
"For example, in the scenario above with BY-SA music you would need to ShareAlike the moving image that uses the music, but you could license the source code to the game however you like. "
The response may not have been as detailed or directe as we all hoped, but I still find this part useful. The image and the sound may be subject to the SA clause in this case, but not the code. Interesting.
@DezrasDragons: I agree with pretty much everything you said, but section 2.iii is not even going to make it to court. Only the copyright holder can bring suit. Person C's claim would be dismissed before a hearing was even scheduled. However, i guess Person C could say "Hey Person A, this guy is totally not sharing like you wanted. You might have been generous at the time, but you should totally sue his pants off now!" to which Person A might be convinced to file a lawsuit. Not that it would hold up either if Person A specified they didn't care about entire project being -SA, but it might make it farther along in the legal system.
Eagerly awaiting your response with details on the CC folks response to your initial sponse.
Edit: Mostly because I'm curious how the CC folks think of it. I don't think it will be cause for concern either way. At least not for my project. What Redsrike says is true; I've seen some cases where the CC folks opinion on something disagrees with the court's view and... well, the court's decision is the one that's enforced. Still a useful endeavor, though. It's likely to be more reliable than the confusion we have now. :)
It's ok if the 3D models aren't optimized for 3D games. They're still useful for prerendered 2D games because it allows other artists and developers to adjust the model to better fit the constraints of their own games. If you are willing, I would encourage you to upload any 3D models you have of these, optimized or not. They'll be useful and appreciated.
If you never share or distribute any of the graphics you've made changes to (eg you keep them all on your own computer, never releasing them in a game) you don't really have to distribute them.
However if you do use them in a game or any other thing you share with even one other person or put on a website even if no one downloads it, yes you must "share alike" the recolored graphics.
@capbros: Good idea. They've all got a credit and license file in each package now.
Your latest revision for the FAQ entry looks good to me.
I find this very helpful already. It remains nebulous (and it probably always will, as legal scenarios are almost never subject to generalization) but I feel I have a better understanding of CC BY-SA.
I beleive bart has intentionally left interpretation of this license up to both the asset user and asset producer to some degree. Because it is so situationally specific, each artist and each developer have to assess if this license is appropriate for their specific project.
As mdwh pointed out, only using SA stuff in open source games doesn't really safeguard you against the pitfall we're asking about, but I feel (moreso now than ever) that the pitfall is not as deep or dangerous as expected, and is only really risky in some rather fringe-y cases. But that still means you have to assess your project to see if it is one of those fringe cases.
I have spoken to an IP expert about my own project about this license. The information I was given is very specific to my project so I can't really share it in a general sense, but I'll give the basic gist of it:
<Standard-Issue "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer />It is highly unlikely (read: "Fringe-y") that game code is a derivative of artwork assets, so code is unlikely to ever be considered subject to the SA clause.
However, if artwork is fundamentally inseperable from the code, i.e. it could not be considered the same game if you subsituted that artwork for some other similar-but-not-derivative artwork, then the code may be considered a derivative of the artwork because it absolutely relies on that specific artwork in order to exist as a game.
e.g. A game called "Yo! Van Gogh! Can you hear me yet?" where you pin the ears on Vincent van Gogh's portrait; substituting some other portrait work of art like the Mona Lisa would pretty fundamentally change the nature of the game. Subject to judgment by the court, but risky still. (I think both paintings are public domain now, but it illustrates the point)
In addition, CC's response to Capbro's questions indicates to me that combining two separate assets where one is licensed CC BY-SA will probably require both assets be licensed -SA, but not the mechanism that combined them. e.g. Using the SpriteDisplayerPro website to animate a rabbit sprite and syncing a rabbit-hopping-sound with the animation would probably mean both the rabbit sprite and the hopping sound are derivatives of each other if you wanted to share the results, but SpriteDisplayerPro's web code would not be a derivative.
Furthermore, a bunny-hunter sprite would not be a derivative of the bunny sprite or the bunny hopping sound even though all three assets appear in the same game... Because the hunter asset is never combined with the bunny hopping sound effect, just displayed in a similar environment. Just like displaying two photographs in the same book doesn't constitute a derivative of each other.
In the meantime, you can always create a set of public collections. Pick a few templates you have in mind and add assets already on the site into each collection. Add each other as collaborators on the collections so you can all curate each template collection. Good way to showcase the idea and test reception.
Site displays "No application seems to be running here!"
Darn. I was just getting into the flow of combat, too.
The response may not have been as detailed or directe as we all hoped, but I still find this part useful. The image and the sound may be subject to the SA clause in this case, but not the code. Interesting.
@DezrasDragons: I agree with pretty much everything you said, but section 2.iii is not even going to make it to court. Only the copyright holder can bring suit. Person C's claim would be dismissed before a hearing was even scheduled. However, i guess Person C could say "Hey Person A, this guy is totally not sharing like you wanted. You might have been generous at the time, but you should totally sue his pants off now!" to which Person A might be convinced to file a lawsuit. Not that it would hold up either if Person A specified they didn't care about entire project being -SA, but it might make it farther along in the legal system.
Eagerly awaiting your response with details on the CC folks response to your initial sponse.
Edit: Mostly because I'm curious how the CC folks think of it. I don't think it will be cause for concern either way. At least not for my project. What Redsrike says is true; I've seen some cases where the CC folks opinion on something disagrees with the court's view and... well, the court's decision is the one that's enforced. Still a useful endeavor, though. It's likely to be more reliable than the confusion we have now. :)
It's ok if the 3D models aren't optimized for 3D games. They're still useful for prerendered 2D games because it allows other artists and developers to adjust the model to better fit the constraints of their own games. If you are willing, I would encourage you to upload any 3D models you have of these, optimized or not. They'll be useful and appreciated.
Understood. Thanks for the response. Great resources.
Pages