IP owner of these characters has properly granted permission to create and share art of their characters. However, more information should be included in the description above so that others are able to determine this as well. For example: linking to the contest announcement and/or game this was made for. By sharing this art here, you are allowing people to use it however they want, including in stuff that has nothing to do with JTTS or Roblox. Not everyone on OpenGameArt has heard of JTTS, so it would also be helpful to tell us more about this character or how others might use this in their own games.
P.S. Despite the contest announcement saying that tagging with "just 'original' is fine", it is not. Please include as many tags as you can think of to describe what this art is. See https://opengameart.org/content/art-tags for more information.
The owner of the game Journey to the sun (or possibly the company who owns Roblox) owns the trademarks to the characters, so unless the owner gave you permission to share fan art, it sounds like this is very much a trademark violation. How would sharing it on OGA avoid legal trouble that would otherwise be present?
I agree: it is always ethical for anyone to reshare anyone's else's work (that is released under a free/libre license) even without asking. I hesitate to say "even against the author's will" because it depends on if the author shared it, then changed their mind vs. the author didn't share it, someone else did... or the "author" shared it but didn't have the authority to do so (derivatives, etc)
"...it doesn't consider the in-depth consequences..."
Such as? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I suspect the consequences are shallower that expected. An author's request to remove legitimately shared art does not halt anyone from continuing to use it. It only halts people from continuing to get it from OGA. It is still listed in every user's download collection (who had already obtained it) and is legally and ethically usable to everyone who aquired it elsewhere or here-but-earlier. It doesn't even halt people from re-sharing the assets as a derivative here on OGA. That rule is not a statement or stance about ethical use of assets, it is a choice made by the admins to promote good will with authors.
A parable: A young troubled teenaged girl is struggling with the vigors of life. Her parents and teachers, a bit overbearing but well-meaning, send her to a therapist. She hesitates to share how she feels with the therapist, because she has suffered undue consequences for sharing with others before. They all were "acting in her best interest", they worked for the greater good. Their actions weren't bad or wrong neccessarily, but the consequences were never-the-less undesireable to the young woman.
The therapist assures her that anything she says is kept in confidence and no one else will hear about the conversation. She opens up and shares her feelings of self harm and other dark things.
The parents and teachers come to the therapist and ask what she talked about. "I can't tell you; it is priveleged information." They insist that the therapist has an obligation to share what was discussed if it could prevent the young woman from harming herself! If they don't know how she feels, how can they help her!?
The point is not that depression and self-harm is an allegory for open culture. It is this: If authors think we will share their content even when they do not want us to, even if it is the ethical thing to do, they will choose instead never to share with us in the first place out of fear of the undesireable consequences they may face later when it is no longer within their control.
There have been about 20-50 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that were removed at the author's request. This rule has caused the loss of 20-50 good assets.
There have been about 200-500 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that would not otherwise have ever been shared here on OGA, except for this rule. The artists hesitated to share, but when they were told they could request them taken down, they had no reason to balk at phantom fears. They submitted, people loved the art, their fears of misuse were seen to be unfounded, and the authors decided to share even more. This rule has caused the net gain of 150 (200 less 50) to 450 (500 less 50) great assets to be shared openly. This rule pays more than it costs. Figures are estimates based on my 10+ years of administration here, but they are not hyperbole. Again, this is not to convince anyone to change how they feel about open/libre licensing and sharing. I am 100% in agreement with the stance of irrevokable licenses are legal and ethical in perpetuity. This rule is not intended as a philosophy or to be adopted by individuals. It is specific to OGA. It has reason and considerable forethought for its implementation.
Just wanted to clarify that we aren't anti-FLOSS and are aware of the differences between having this rule as a volutary choice vs. any legal adherence to license or ethical quibbles about it.
I wonder if this is a case of "right about the problem, wrong about the solution".
The issue is that dying as much as you have is incredibly punishing due to the XP pentalty.
Is reducing the XP penalty the right solution, though? What is causing all the dying? I am guessing that simply excercising additional caution is not a viable solution, right? Are there any mechanics of the game that would allow you to survive those same circumstances better? healing? defensive play? If those are not viable because the game demands you defeat an unrealistically difficult set of enemies before gaining access to such features, then that is where the solution should be adjusted; make those features accesable at a lower initial threshold. If not, then the solution may be to enhance methods of staying alive instead of reducing the penalty for dying. Yes, no, yes?
EDIT: sorry, just noticed your follow-up response where you suggested many of the same alternatives.
Unless you can give a better description of how the art was made, what the contest involves, and if it represents trademarked characters, I have to mark this as having a licensing issue.
IP owner of these characters has properly granted permission to create and share art of their characters. However, more information should be included in the description above so that others are able to determine this as well. For example: linking to the contest announcement and/or game this was made for. By sharing this art here, you are allowing people to use it however they want, including in stuff that has nothing to do with JTTS or Roblox. Not everyone on OpenGameArt has heard of JTTS, so it would also be helpful to tell us more about this character or how others might use this in their own games.
P.S. Despite the contest announcement saying that tagging with "just 'original' is fine", it is not. Please include as many tags as you can think of to describe what this art is. See https://opengameart.org/content/art-tags for more information.
Lovely! Thank you for the extra info.
I am trying to determine if they're in the wrong or not. Contacting contest host. I'll message you when I know more.
The owner of the game Journey to the sun (or possibly the company who owns Roblox) owns the trademarks to the characters, so unless the owner gave you permission to share fan art, it sounds like this is very much a trademark violation. How would sharing it on OGA avoid legal trouble that would otherwise be present?
I agree: it is always ethical for anyone to reshare anyone's else's work (that is released under a free/libre license) even without asking. I hesitate to say "even against the author's will" because it depends on if the author shared it, then changed their mind vs. the author didn't share it, someone else did... or the "author" shared it but didn't have the authority to do so (derivatives, etc)
Such as? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I suspect the consequences are shallower that expected. An author's request to remove legitimately shared art does not halt anyone from continuing to use it. It only halts people from continuing to get it from OGA. It is still listed in every user's download collection (who had already obtained it) and is legally and ethically usable to everyone who aquired it elsewhere or here-but-earlier. It doesn't even halt people from re-sharing the assets as a derivative here on OGA. That rule is not a statement or stance about ethical use of assets, it is a choice made by the admins to promote good will with authors.
The point is not that depression and self-harm is an allegory for open culture. It is this: If authors think we will share their content even when they do not want us to, even if it is the ethical thing to do, they will choose instead never to share with us in the first place out of fear of the undesireable consequences they may face later when it is no longer within their control.
There have been about 20-50 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that were removed at the author's request. This rule has caused the loss of 20-50 good assets.
There have been about 200-500 good (and legitimately shared) submissions that would not otherwise have ever been shared here on OGA, except for this rule. The artists hesitated to share, but when they were told they could request them taken down, they had no reason to balk at phantom fears. They submitted, people loved the art, their fears of misuse were seen to be unfounded, and the authors decided to share even more. This rule has caused the net gain of 150 (200 less 50) to 450 (500 less 50) great assets to be shared openly. This rule pays more than it costs. Figures are estimates based on my 10+ years of administration here, but they are not hyperbole. Again, this is not to convince anyone to change how they feel about open/libre licensing and sharing. I am 100% in agreement with the stance of irrevokable licenses are legal and ethical in perpetuity. This rule is not intended as a philosophy or to be adopted by individuals. It is specific to OGA. It has reason and considerable forethought for its implementation.
Just wanted to clarify that we aren't anti-FLOSS and are aware of the differences between having this rule as a volutary choice vs. any legal adherence to license or ethical quibbles about it.
I wonder if this is a case of "right about the problem, wrong about the solution".
The issue is that dying as much as you have is incredibly punishing due to the XP pentalty.
Is reducing the XP penalty the right solution, though? What is causing all the dying? I am guessing that simply excercising additional caution is not a viable solution, right? Are there any mechanics of the game that would allow you to survive those same circumstances better? healing? defensive play? If those are not viable because the game demands you defeat an unrealistically difficult set of enemies before gaining access to such features, then that is where the solution should be adjusted; make those features accesable at a lower initial threshold. If not, then the solution may be to enhance methods of staying alive instead of reducing the penalty for dying. Yes, no, yes?
EDIT: sorry, just noticed your follow-up response where you suggested many of the same alternatives.
Hey thanks for the updated info about Mindcramps.
Just noticed this seems more like a set of textures. Is that accurate? Less so "2D art" category.
ooh, spooky!
are... are you not playing it in the video?
Unless you can give a better description of how the art was made, what the contest involves, and if it represents trademarked characters, I have to mark this as having a licensing issue.
Would you like some help picking a useful title?
Pages