However, the stipulation "[you are] Not allowed [to] Repackage, redistribute, or resell the assets" conflicts with the license. CC-BY-SA (and all other licenses on OGA) allow these things, and in fact explicitly forbid extra restrictions like that. This is not because we like people taking your work and redistributing it without using it in their own projects. It's because forbidding those things creates a legal pitfall that makes the assets effectively unusable, even in free projects.
Would you be willing to remove that stipulation? Until then, I must mark this submission as having a licensing issue to prevent people from using it in a way you may not approve of. Please let me know if you have any questions.
LOL! that's barely different enough to count as derivative and not just a straight duplication. That's Jack abusing the Youtube ContentID system to scam people by taking TAD's free song and claiming he made it. That, or neither TAD nor Jack are the originator... in which case, well... TAD "stole" it first </sarcasm>. Interesting how there is no way to interact with him or ask why his music sounds like someone else's work from years prior.
It's hard to say without being able to compare the two ourselves. However, based on what you're saying, yes I think you should dispute it. You can show provenance. It was available here for free before Jack the Simple posted his.
This submission has been marked as having a potential licensing issue. Hopefully, this is temporary. This does not mean the submitter has done anything wrong or that there is even a licensing issue at all, but there is a potential licensing issue. As mentioned previously in various places on OGA, we said
"...Until that broader discussion [of the legality of AI assisted artwork] progresses closer to some form of conclusion, we'll go with the general consensus. ... [the] general precedent [is currently] that it's fine. If that general consensus changes, so will the decision to host such assets on OGA."
The general consensus is changing now. Changing to what is not yet clear, but there are several ongoing US court cases involving exactly this topic. The court's decision on these cases will inform how OGA hosts assets created with the use of AI assistance. See https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork for more information.
This is NOT any sort of final determination or a permanent flagging of this submission. Regardless of the court's decisions about these tools, there are a lot of factors to take into consideration. Not all submissions will be handled the same way.
Keep in mind OP was not asking about porn. The question was about nudity and gore, which are allowed conditionally.
Again, that question was answered above, specifically addressing the non-erotic components of NSFW.
The question is if the nude components are intended to titillate or if they are simply for anatomical accuracy. The former is not allowed on OGA, the latter is.
A lot of people misattribute three-quarters overhead view as "top-down". You could search for both top down and overhead, but that probably has the same issue. if you can provide some links to the assets listed as "top down" but are, in fact, 3/4ths overhead view, I'll try to correct the categorization.
Beautiful!
However, the stipulation "[you are] Not allowed [to] Repackage, redistribute, or resell the assets" conflicts with the license. CC-BY-SA (and all other licenses on OGA) allow these things, and in fact explicitly forbid extra restrictions like that. This is not because we like people taking your work and redistributing it without using it in their own projects. It's because forbidding those things creates a legal pitfall that makes the assets effectively unusable, even in free projects.Would you be willing to remove that stipulation? Until then, I must mark this submission as having a licensing issue to prevent people from using it in a way you may not approve of. Please let me know if you have any questions.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
LOL! that's barely different enough to count as derivative and not just a straight duplication. That's Jack abusing the Youtube ContentID system to scam people by taking TAD's free song and claiming he made it. That, or neither TAD nor Jack are the originator... in which case, well... TAD "stole" it first </sarcasm>. Interesting how there is no way to interact with him or ask why his music sounds like someone else's work from years prior.
It's hard to say without being able to compare the two ourselves. However, based on what you're saying, yes I think you should dispute it. You can show provenance. It was available here for free before Jack the Simple posted his.
This submission has been marked as having a potential licensing issue. Hopefully, this is temporary. This does not mean the submitter has done anything wrong or that there is even a licensing issue at all, but there is a potential licensing issue. As mentioned previously in various places on OGA, we said
The general consensus is changing now. Changing to what is not yet clear, but there are several ongoing US court cases involving exactly this topic. The court's decision on these cases will inform how OGA hosts assets created with the use of AI assistance. See https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork for more information.
This is NOT any sort of final determination or a permanent flagging of this submission. Regardless of the court's decisions about these tools, there are a lot of factors to take into consideration. Not all submissions will be handled the same way.
It doesn't say no porn.
Again, that question was answered above, specifically addressing the non-erotic components of NSFW.
@netfzmasterz: was that not already answered in https://opengameart.org/comment/95131#comment-95131 ?
Great song.
Those are some horrifying flesh-wad people in that album art
A lot of people misattribute three-quarters overhead view as "top-down". You could search for both top down and overhead, but that probably has the same issue. if you can provide some links to the assets listed as "top down" but are, in fact, 3/4ths overhead view, I'll try to correct the categorization.
Cool.
However, the android robot cannot be shared under CC0. Per the Brand guidelines, it should be CC-BY 3.0 and include the attribution text:https://developer.android.com/distribute/marketing-tools/brand-guideline...EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
@eugeneloza: That has too much attractive symmetry to be zelda-CDi art!
@some weirdo: So are you trying to match the awkward character art of the Zelda CDi games? On purpose?
Pages