Added a warning on the registration page. See image below. Verbiage suggestions welcome. Hopefully this will serve as a stop-gap for now. I can always rename your nick to the one you really wanted in the event it becomes unaccessible due to this issue.
EDIT: Issue is fixed, warning removed from registration page.
I figured it might be better to keep this in the same thread?
Correct. Thread necromancy is impossible here: if there is more content to share on a given topic, then the topic isn't actually dead. Sharing the new content isn't resurrecting it.
If a topic is locked, it's dead, but then resurrecting it by making another post isn't possible.
The first question is: what are your players using the screenshots/footage for?
In all likelihood, those screenshots are covered by fair-use, but that's assuming they're not planning to make their own game from the screenshots. Blogs and let's-play videos (even commercial ones) are generally considered fair use, but it's still up to the blogger/twitch-streamer/YouTuber to make that determination, not you. I will say that CC-BY et al is almost certainly less risky for such 3rd party content creators than ANY proprietary licensed content such as the stuff in AAA commercial games. So if they are making content from Minecraft gameplay footage, making the same or similar content from your game that uses CC-BY(-SA) is even safer for them.
Fair-Use aside, yes your players would have to give proper attribution to all the appropriate artists for any screenshots or footage they use in a non-fair-use context. However, it is not your responsibility to patrol what other people do with assets you also happen to use. If you follow the terms of the license, but your players violate copyright, you won't get in trouble for it. They will. You aren't encouraging them to violate copyright just by (properly) using assets.
I can't speak about proprietary licenses. They're all different so no generalized information provided here would apply to such licenses or EULAs.
fish? largemouth bass, fish? rainbow trout, tigerfish salmon, catfish, carp, dark wizard, dark wizard (dead), harpy, amalgamated monster (a la "Frankenstien's"), gargoyle
small fish? largemouth bass, small fish? rainbow trout, small tigerfish salmon, small catfish, small carp, gargantuan purple worm, naga (or more likely a nure-onna), lizardman, dragonkin, drakonkin jr. kobold
If you want to have flexibility in licensing, I recommend continuing to select both OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0. Although 4 is more forgiving, having both lets the user decide. Why would they choose to use a less forgiving license? Because their other assets may already use OGA-BY 3. They can choose to keep all assets under one license instead of having some be 3 and others be 4.
As for the notice, I would say change it to indicate "the base parts seen in the preview are not included. See ULPCCG <link>" or something. Not a requirement, though. Your call.
"...I have added both OGA-BY 3 as well as the new OGA-BY 4. I don't really know the difference..."
FYI: the difference between OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0 is, in short, brevity and a cure clause. If someone fails to credit you for using these under OGA-BY 3.0, they are immediately in violation and must cease the use of your assets. Under 4.0, they have 30 days to fix the problem. By including both, you have left it up to the users which one they want to apply to their project. Very generous of you, so thank you.
Added a warning on the registration page. See image below. Verbiage suggestions welcome. Hopefully this will serve as a stop-gap for now. I can always rename your nick to the one you really wanted in the event it becomes unaccessible due to this issue.EDIT: Issue is fixed, warning removed from registration page.
Correct. Thread necromancy is impossible here: if there is more content to share on a given topic, then the topic isn't actually dead. Sharing the new content isn't resurrecting it.
If a topic is locked, it's dead, but then resurrecting it by making another post isn't possible.
Thanks for the update!
The first question is: what are your players using the screenshots/footage for?
In all likelihood, those screenshots are covered by fair-use, but that's assuming they're not planning to make their own game from the screenshots. Blogs and let's-play videos (even commercial ones) are generally considered fair use, but it's still up to the blogger/twitch-streamer/YouTuber to make that determination, not you. I will say that CC-BY et al is almost certainly less risky for such 3rd party content creators than ANY proprietary licensed content such as the stuff in AAA commercial games. So if they are making content from Minecraft gameplay footage, making the same or similar content from your game that uses CC-BY(-SA) is even safer for them.
Fair-Use aside, yes your players would have to give proper attribution to all the appropriate artists for any screenshots or footage they use in a non-fair-use context. However, it is not your responsibility to patrol what other people do with assets you also happen to use. If you follow the terms of the license, but your players violate copyright, you won't get in trouble for it. They will. You aren't encouraging them to violate copyright just by (properly) using assets.
I can't speak about proprietary licenses. They're all different so no generalized information provided here would apply to such licenses or EULAs.
@JORAX: Credited where?
Here's some of them as an animated preview:
Well that's Miqo'te covered, but now I need a feline base to make me some khajiit/tabaxi/catfolk. Nice going, Jaidyn. Now there's MORE work to do! /s
(yay!)
Yuss! I love them all! The bugbear had me stumped for a bit. I was thinking "oh, what's that monster that looks like Huge Jackman!"
Hahah! I hadn't even considered the talkative point system as a venue for awarding fictional internet points. Wonderful. Thank you.
This is a testament to your art skills that such a diverse set of creatures are so clearly identifiable at
16x1612x12 pixels. Excellent work, Clint.in order of tilemap.png:
I'm certain I didn't interpret all of them right. Let me know which ones are incorrect. I want those bonus points! EDIT: corrections
Nice.
If you want to have flexibility in licensing, I recommend continuing to select both OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0. Although 4 is more forgiving, having both lets the user decide. Why would they choose to use a less forgiving license? Because their other assets may already use OGA-BY 3. They can choose to keep all assets under one license instead of having some be 3 and others be 4.
Fantastic. All is good, then. :)
As for the notice, I would say change it to indicate "the base parts seen in the preview are not included. See ULPCCG <link>" or something. Not a requirement, though. Your call.
FYI: the difference between OGA-BY 3.0 and OGA-BY 4.0 is, in short, brevity and a cure clause. If someone fails to credit you for using these under OGA-BY 3.0, they are immediately in violation and must cease the use of your assets. Under 4.0, they have 30 days to fix the problem. By including both, you have left it up to the users which one they want to apply to their project. Very generous of you, so thank you.
Pages