@rgsdev: This is a fantastic tool! However, this download doesn't have any assets in it. It is fine to link to the generator in the description, but there should be actual assets available here. Use the generator to make several good examples of assets, and share them here, please. This is a game asset repository, not a tool repository nor a link repository.
If you are submitting an art asset, you must upload the whole art asset in a usable form.
Specifically, if someone must go to a different website to obtain a usable version of your submitted work, we cannot accept it (however, it is perfectly fine to request that someone go to your website).
Your title and preview images must be descriptive of the content you actually uploaded. Specifically, if what you uploaded is a sample of a larger pack, the preview image must describe the art you actually uploaded to OGA, and not the additional art that you are advertising. It is fine to link to the larger pack in your description.
Yeah, I really hate how fuzzy it is. Fortunately, I've gotten pretty good at knowing where it is. Unfortunately, I have no good way to convey it to others other than to have them tell me what they did and I can say "yeah that's inspiration" or "nope that's derivation".
@Dream_search_repeat: I failed to address your response.
I took photos of a DS and a switch, for both reference and texturing (and i modify the images to remove logos, and buttons)
The copyrighted object in this scenario is the photograph, not the DS or switch. Fortunately, you are the photographer and I assume you gave yourself permission to make a derivative of your own work, so there is no copyright concern with how that reference was used.
I didn't knew a shape could be copyrighted...
It can't be copyrighted. Not in this sense, anyway. However, they can be trademarked, and that is more of the crux of the issue. I know you already removed them, so it isn't really a problem at this point, but I want to make sure you're satisfied with your understanding of it so you can feel confident in the work you do and that it won't be trouble for you. The TV and smartphone look fine to me, both from a copyright perspective and a trademark perspective (they're too generalized to be mistaken for any one brand) but the DS and Switch should (remain) removed OR altered in shape and/or color scheme to avoid people thinking they're official Nintendo models.
Note that nearly every console company has allowances for how their trademarked consoles or controllers can be depicted by off-brand parties. How else would games be able to show a controller diagaram indicating the button mapping? Every non-sony playstation game company would be sued for trademark violations just for showing a playstation controller in their playstation game. However, those brand usage terms are considered a proprietary license, and are rarely compatible with any of the licenses used on OGA.
TL;DR: You can use such models in your own projects, but they couldn't be hosted on OGA without making them distinct from the trademarked brand... which kind of defeats the purpose of having a model that is supposed to be recognizable as the brand-named device. Sorry :/
Haha! It sounds like you are "disagreeing" but saying the same thing; tracing = derivative. I believe the point Ragnar was making is that you can use an object "as a reference" without actually tracing its shape or detail. Looking at my avatar as inspiration for creating an asset featuring an inverted pyramid, lightning, and a cloud... a new work could be created that is not a derivative of my logo so long as my logo was not materially used to copy the shape, texture, proportion, etc. but instead just provides a visual "reference" to inspire.
(Arguably, it is possible to still create a derivate by looking to one asset, and attempting to replicate it without actually overlaying the two or splicing pieces of the original into the new asset, but the point is that making a similar looking asset does not in-and-of-itself constitute derivation... Also my logo is trademarked, so yes it could be used as inspiration, but if the resultant "inspired asset" looked too similar, it would still be IP trouble, just not copyright trouble. :P More on that below.)
When you look at some existing peice of art and use that as inspiration for your own art, I shy away from calling that "using a reference". It may fit the term, but it confuses the discussion. "reference" in this sense applies to both inspiration and derivation, so I recommend defining how the "reference" is being used so the distinction between derivation and inspiration is not lost.
As to Dream's question "I can't model/draw using references?" I have to give the typical Lawyer Answer™ it depends. As Umplix said, You can use a reference, as long as that reference is not copyrighted... but furthermore, how are you using the reference to create your model/drawing? If by "reference" you mean you looked at it and liked certain features of it and that inspired you to make your own similar asset, then yes, that is fine, even when that "reference" is copyrighted. However, if by "reference" you mean you carefully studied it and imitated minute details, comparing them side-by-side to make sure the two match on some or several features, then no you should not use any copyrighted assets as a "reference", as that constitutes derivation.
Again, this only covers the difference between inspiration vs. derivation of copyrighted works. Trademarks are another beast and they don't care if it is derived or inspired; if it looks so similar that a reasonable person might mistake yours for the officially trademarked asset, then it violates trademark. Most assets are not trademarked, but the Nintendo Switch look-and-theme are.
the flatscreen TV and smartphone are safe from trademark concerns. As long as you didn't use a copyrighted image or model to copy off of for those, they're also safe from copyright concerns.
Most devices don't have a strong enough design asthetic to have a solid trademark associated with the shape and theme of the device itself, but Nintendo's stuff is often an exception; Because the device itself is often the product logo (especially the switch) they have a strong trademark based on the very shape and look of their devices. The DS is possibly too close to Nintendo Trademark and definitely the Switch is too close to Nintendo Trademark, unfortunately.
If you are able to change both the color scheme and some of the underlying shape of those, it should help. However, as the gentlemen indicated above, the question of derivation still remains; what other objects/images/assets where used in the creation of those models and how were they used, if any?
Agreed.@rgsdev: This is a fantastic tool! However, this download doesn't have any assets in it. It is fine to link to the generator in the description, but there should be actual assets available here. Use the generator to make several good examples of assets, and share them here, please. This is a game asset repository, not a tool repository nor a link repository.Per the submission guidelines:If you are submitting an art asset, you must upload the whole art asset in a usable form.Specifically, if someone must go to a different website to obtain a usable version of your submitted work, we cannot accept it (however, it is perfectly fine to request that someone go to your website).Your title and preview images must be descriptive of the content you actually uploaded. Specifically, if what you uploaded is a sample of a larger pack, the preview image must describe the art you actually uploaded to OGA, and not the additional art that you are advertising. It is fine to link to the larger pack in your description.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Yeah, I really hate how fuzzy it is. Fortunately, I've gotten pretty good at knowing where it is. Unfortunately, I have no good way to convey it to others other than to have them tell me what they did and I can say "yeah that's inspiration" or "nope that's derivation".
@Dream_search_repeat: I failed to address your response.
The copyrighted object in this scenario is the photograph, not the DS or switch. Fortunately, you are the photographer and I assume you gave yourself permission to make a derivative of your own work, so there is no copyright concern with how that reference was used.
It can't be copyrighted. Not in this sense, anyway. However, they can be trademarked, and that is more of the crux of the issue. I know you already removed them, so it isn't really a problem at this point, but I want to make sure you're satisfied with your understanding of it so you can feel confident in the work you do and that it won't be trouble for you. The TV and smartphone look fine to me, both from a copyright perspective and a trademark perspective (they're too generalized to be mistaken for any one brand) but the DS and Switch should (remain) removed OR altered in shape and/or color scheme to avoid people thinking they're official Nintendo models.
Note that nearly every console company has allowances for how their trademarked consoles or controllers can be depicted by off-brand parties. How else would games be able to show a controller diagaram indicating the button mapping? Every non-sony playstation game company would be sued for trademark violations just for showing a playstation controller in their playstation game. However, those brand usage terms are considered a proprietary license, and are rarely compatible with any of the licenses used on OGA.
TL;DR: You can use such models in your own projects, but they couldn't be hosted on OGA without making them distinct from the trademarked brand... which kind of defeats the purpose of having a model that is supposed to be recognizable as the brand-named device. Sorry :/
Haha! It sounds like you are "disagreeing" but saying the same thing; tracing = derivative. I believe the point Ragnar was making is that you can use an object "as a reference" without actually tracing its shape or detail. Looking at my avatar as inspiration for creating an asset featuring an inverted pyramid, lightning, and a cloud... a new work could be created that is not a derivative of my logo so long as my logo was not materially used to copy the shape, texture, proportion, etc. but instead just provides a visual "reference" to inspire.
(Arguably, it is possible to still create a derivate by looking to one asset, and attempting to replicate it without actually overlaying the two or splicing pieces of the original into the new asset, but the point is that making a similar looking asset does not in-and-of-itself constitute derivation... Also my logo is trademarked, so yes it could be used as inspiration, but if the resultant "inspired asset" looked too similar, it would still be IP trouble, just not copyright trouble. :P More on that below.)
When you look at some existing peice of art and use that as inspiration for your own art, I shy away from calling that "using a reference". It may fit the term, but it confuses the discussion. "reference" in this sense applies to both inspiration and derivation, so I recommend defining how the "reference" is being used so the distinction between derivation and inspiration is not lost.
As to Dream's question "I can't model/draw using references?" I have to give the typical Lawyer Answer™ it depends. As Umplix said, You can use a reference, as long as that reference is not copyrighted... but furthermore, how are you using the reference to create your model/drawing? If by "reference" you mean you looked at it and liked certain features of it and that inspired you to make your own similar asset, then yes, that is fine, even when that "reference" is copyrighted. However, if by "reference" you mean you carefully studied it and imitated minute details, comparing them side-by-side to make sure the two match on some or several features, then no you should not use any copyrighted assets as a "reference", as that constitutes derivation.
Again, this only covers the difference between inspiration vs. derivation of copyrighted works. Trademarks are another beast and they don't care if it is derived or inspired; if it looks so similar that a reasonable person might mistake yours for the officially trademarked asset, then it violates trademark. Most assets are not trademarked, but the Nintendo Switch look-and-theme are.
Oh, fantastic! Exactly what I was looking for. And I found it due to the sky tag, so good call on that.
"Attribution not required"? Why the CC-BY license then? No complaints, just confused since CC-BY requires attribution.
lol!
Since I didn't make out of the desert, I was 'required' to give attribution. That was the imagry that came to mind as I listened to the song.
"This is Eldricth Grim's doing! CC0!" She shouts into the haboob, knowing she will never find her way across the scorching sand.
^Solid advice from Umplix and Ragnar.
the flatscreen TV and smartphone are safe from trademark concerns. As long as you didn't use a copyrighted image or model to copy off of for those, they're also safe from copyright concerns.
Most devices don't have a strong enough design asthetic to have a solid trademark associated with the shape and theme of the device itself, but Nintendo's stuff is often an exception; Because the device itself is often the product logo (especially the switch) they have a strong trademark based on the very shape and look of their devices. The DS is possibly too close to Nintendo Trademark and definitely the Switch is too close to Nintendo Trademark, unfortunately.
If you are able to change both the color scheme and some of the underlying shape of those, it should help. However, as the gentlemen indicated above, the question of derivation still remains; what other objects/images/assets where used in the creation of those models and how were they used, if any?
Haha!
Seriously though, Shadewing; this elephant is adorable.
Pages