You would have to remove all components that used audio clips from Breaking Bad or any other commercially copyrighted source. From what I gather, the entire song is made from such audio clips, recognizable or not.
Correct. CC-BY 4.0 would be the common license except for the content licensed CC-BY 3.0, which are not adaptable to CC-BY 4.0. However, if they are assets on OGA, it is possible the author preemptively agreed to include the latest version of the CC-BY license "when it becomes available", and now version 4.0 is available.
If you can provide a list of urls to each of the assets used, I will be able to determine if the authors made such an allowance.
The various submissions you see on OGA that list multiple licenses are to indicate that the entire submission can be used under the terms of any one of the licenses listed, whichever the user prefers.
For example, if a submission contains asset 1, 2, and 3, and it lists license A, and license B. That means a developer is allowed to use asset 1, 2, and 3 under the terms of license A if they want... OR they can use asset 1, 2 and 3 under the terms of license B if they prefer. This is not the scenario you are dealing with.
If you want to submit assets where some assets are under license A, and some assets are under license B, you either need to:
split it into multiple submissions, OR...
Adapt compatible licenses to a single license common to all the assets in the submission.
As you said, option 1 would defeat the purpose, so let's look at option 2.
Many licenses can be adapted (changed) to a different license, but the adaptation is usually one-way. For instance. CC0 can be adapted to almost any license you want, including OGA-BY. Similarly, OGA-BY can be adapted to CC-BY. In turn, CC-BY can be adapted to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is pretty open, but still the most restrictive license of the four. There are other licenses to consider, but that should give us a place to start.
CC0 -> OGA-BY -> CC-BY -> CC-BY-SA
What licenses are the various parts in your collection of folders? Once we know that, we can figure out if there is a common license you can use to submit them all together.
P.S. the Cabbit collection you mentioned had a problem because- just like you discuss above- it contained multiple assets with various licenses, but it included a license that was not common to all assets in the submission. Asset-1 used OGA-BY and CC-BY, but Asset-2 only used CC-BY. By listing both OGA-BY and CC-BY, a problem arose becuase OGA-BY was not common to both assets, so either the OGA-BY license needed to be removed, or Asset-2 needed to be removed. The latter option was chosen. I doubt you'll need to remove assets to acheive a common license in your case, but we'll see. :)
The CC-BY licenses forbid adding extra stipulations like "reselling at any price is strictly forbidden". In fact, that stipulation may make it unusable; anyone who sells their game while using these assets would count as "resale at any price". I know that's not what you mean, but it still creates legal complications that you don't intend.
Would you be willing to forgo that stipulation? Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue in order to protect your assets from being used in a way you do not approve of.
You would have to remove all components that used audio clips from Breaking Bad or any other commercially copyrighted source. From what I gather, the entire song is made from such audio clips, recognizable or not.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Correct. CC-BY 4.0 would be the common license except for the content licensed CC-BY 3.0, which are not adaptable to CC-BY 4.0. However, if they are assets on OGA, it is possible the author preemptively agreed to include the latest version of the CC-BY license "when it becomes available", and now version 4.0 is available.
If you can provide a list of urls to each of the assets used, I will be able to determine if the authors made such an allowance.
I'm afraid you don't have permission to use voice clips from breaking bad. That makes this derivative of copyrighted content.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Nice! Thanks for sharing. Can you include links to the VCSL and VSCO libraries?
The various submissions you see on OGA that list multiple licenses are to indicate that the entire submission can be used under the terms of any one of the licenses listed, whichever the user prefers.
For example, if a submission contains asset 1, 2, and 3, and it lists license A, and license B. That means a developer is allowed to use asset 1, 2, and 3 under the terms of license A if they want... OR they can use asset 1, 2 and 3 under the terms of license B if they prefer. This is not the scenario you are dealing with.
If you want to submit assets where some assets are under license A, and some assets are under license B, you either need to:
As you said, option 1 would defeat the purpose, so let's look at option 2.
Many licenses can be adapted (changed) to a different license, but the adaptation is usually one-way. For instance. CC0 can be adapted to almost any license you want, including OGA-BY. Similarly, OGA-BY can be adapted to CC-BY. In turn, CC-BY can be adapted to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is pretty open, but still the most restrictive license of the four. There are other licenses to consider, but that should give us a place to start.
CC0 -> OGA-BY -> CC-BY -> CC-BY-SA
What licenses are the various parts in your collection of folders? Once we know that, we can figure out if there is a common license you can use to submit them all together.
P.S. the Cabbit collection you mentioned had a problem because- just like you discuss above- it contained multiple assets with various licenses, but it included a license that was not common to all assets in the submission. Asset-1 used OGA-BY and CC-BY, but Asset-2 only used CC-BY. By listing both OGA-BY and CC-BY, a problem arose becuase OGA-BY was not common to both assets, so either the OGA-BY license needed to be removed, or Asset-2 needed to be removed. The latter option was chosen. I doubt you'll need to remove assets to acheive a common license in your case, but we'll see. :)
No. Multiple licenses on a submission is not to indicate each license used by the content. More information to follow.
Thank you for the edit.
AND thank you for the generous CC0! That isn't necessary to achieve your goal, but it is very nice of you.
And now under CC0! Woo! Thanks for your generosity, VSG!
If it "cannot be sold" then it cannot be CC-BY. No one would be able to sell the game they used it in. Would you be willing to forgo that stipulation?EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
The CC-BY licenses forbid adding extra stipulations like "reselling at any price is strictly forbidden". In fact, that stipulation may make it unusable; anyone who sells their game while using these assets would count as "resale at any price". I know that's not what you mean, but it still creates legal complications that you don't intend.Would you be willing to forgo that stipulation? Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue in order to protect your assets from being used in a way you do not approve of.Pages