FreeGameDev Forums < Art & Assets

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 20 Jun 2015, 22:47

Hi, Folks!

I've started a repository for free art, that cannot hosted at OGA
https://github.com/saniv/free-game-art

OGA has ethics policies, which disallow them hosting artwork plundered from repositories or http://commons.wikimedia.org, so it won't be okay to, for example, upload artworks from Wesnoth or FreeDoom to OGA. I have even been banned for submitting CC-BY-SA artworks from Wikimedia Commons. Hence this repository.

If you have such art, inappropriate for OGA, feel free to do a pull request.

I've contacted github support, they say they don't care, as long as these assets are legal and copyright holders are okay forking it there.

Regards,

Nikita Sadkov

by **Julius** » 21 Jun 2015, 03:37

Related thread on OGA:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/censo ... game-ready

If Bro-force wanted to release their sprites to be reused in another game, they would have released sprite sheets under that license.

These are screenshots for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia requires images with a free license.

Scraping Wikipedia screenshots for reusable art is technically legal, and ethically awful behavior. Regardless of chosen license, if the original owner/artist has not intended for her art to be used in other games, it shouldn't be on OpenGameArt.

Contact BroForce and see if they want their sprites to be reused in other games under CC-BY-SA. If the answer is yes, then we'll upload their original sprite sheets with all parties on the same page.
(...)

Put another way...

I never want an artist to come to OpenGameArt, see their own work, and become upset -- because they didn't intend to share their art to be reused in other games.

I don't want OpenGameArt to be despised because we're scraping Wikipedia articles for people to use in competing projects.

Or worse, we never want any OpenGameArt users sued for making a game that uses art from another game.

Even if the license says Okay, ask before uploading if you're Not Sure. If it's obvious the artist wants their art to be shared and reused in this way (in other game projects), then you probably don't have to ask. Wikipedia is definitely on the opposite end. Assume people there have NOT shared art with the intention of being used in competing games.

In the BroForce response from FB posted above, that's not confirmation they allow their art on OGA. They are sharing skepticism that anyone could build a whole game with just those parts. That's not consent from the original artist. Consent should be obvious and enthusiastic. "Yes! Please share my art on OGA."

by **Julius** » 21 Jun 2015, 03:52

My personal take on this:

Feel free to create such a repository, but I can understand OGA's reservations. Not so much because of "ethical" reasons but because the creative commons licenses have not been "tested" in courts much, and in such cases I believe (IANAL) many judges would rule in favor of the original copyright holder and against the creative commons license.

This is both bad for the user of such content (who, especially if they got their content from a "reputable" source like OGA, has been acting in good faith) and as a legal precedent for the actual application of the creative commons licenses.

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 21 Jun 2015, 04:45

Julius {l Wrote}:many judges would rule in favor of the original copyright holder and against the creative commons license.

Do you mean Creative Commons doesn't give any protection to the user at all and judges don't care about it? Then what is the point in CC-BY and CC0?

I've also asked the Wikimedia community:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... ce_sprites

but it seems they don't care and we can do anything we like with such content.

Broforce sprites is not an isolated case. For example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... Game_World has screenshots which can be ripped for building sprites and used with projects like Stratagus or interface elements with portraits can be easily ripped from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ipyat.jpeg

There is even a Fez tileset: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fez_(video_game)_trile_set.png which I believe pretty much defines the game.

Even more interesting case https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... t_Burg.jpg - includes half of art from the game.

by **andrewj** » 21 Jun 2015, 05:26

Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:I've contacted github support, they say they don't care, as long as these assets are legal and copyright holders are okay forking it there.

(emphasis is mine)

Have you contacted all the copyright holders of the art on your github repository to make sure they are ok with it?

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 21 Jun 2015, 05:45

andrewj {l Wrote}:Have you contacted all the copyright holders of the art on your github repository to make sure they are ok with it?

Nope. I don't have to, because CC-BY-SA license doesn't require that. Although Broforce developers have confirmed, that the use of CC-BY-SA was the mistake of their marketing.

Regarding github, they are know to censor content by orders of Russian and Chinese governments, despite content being legal in America:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/05/to-get ... t-suicide/
https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/jan/ ... ll-take-us

The exact response I got from github, regarding the newly created repo:

github {l Wrote}:"GitHub does not actively police user content for objectionable material, but we do investigate reports that we receive regarding content that may violate the GitHub Terms of Service. Activity which is illegal in the US and/or your own jurisdiction (including violating intellectual property rights) is against [section A8](https://help.github.com/articles/github ... ount-terms) of our ToS; activity which is abusive towards other users or otherwise objectionable may be in violation of [section G7](https://help.github.com/articles/github ... conditions).

Without being pointed to specifics, I'm not sure what part of your repository you believe might be controversial. However, if we were to receive a complaint regarding the content, we would need to investigate and respond according to our policies, which would include notifying you with more details about the specifics and how you might be able to correct it."

But if they block it, I'll just re-upload it to different hosting, which doesn't care about ethics and public relations that much.

by **Andrettin** » 21 Jun 2015, 13:16

Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:
Julius {l Wrote}:many judges would rule in favor of the original copyright holder and against the creative commons license.

Do you mean Creative Commons doesn't give any protection to the user at all and judges don't care about it? Then what is the point in CC-BY and CC0?

I've also asked the Wikimedia community:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... ce_sprites

but it seems they don't care and we can do anything we like with such content.

"Prosfilaes" said there:
"If you release something under a license, you should understand what that license entails. If a company releases something under a license, I have absolutely no sympathy for not having read it and understood it."

So they seem to be of the same opinion as you in regards to the law.

To be honest though, I don't think screenshots would be of much use for someone to make game graphics.

by **Andrettin** » 21 Jun 2015, 13:18

andrewj {l Wrote}:Have you contacted all the copyright holders of the art on your github repository to make sure they are ok with it?

If they licensed it under the CC-BY-SA, then they've already given permission. I would say the question here is whether one can consider them to have actually licensed the assets under the CC-BY-SA or not.

by **Julius** » 21 Jun 2015, 14:47

Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:
Julius {l Wrote}:many judges would rule in favor of the original copyright holder and against the creative commons license.

Do you mean Creative Commons doesn't give any protection to the user at all and judges don't care about it? Then what is the point in CC-BY and CC0?

Read up on how the legal system works in most countries

A license is not a law, and unless a license agreement has been accepted in court several times and in several instances a judge can pretty much decide however he wants and under what circumstances it is valid or not (and all that can be done is to take it to the next instance).

The creative commons lawyers did their best to come up with a license that should offer the protection in court and there have been a few cases in a few countries where the judges ruled in favor, so the license is pretty good as far as international license go. But if such a questionable case would be brought to court, I am not sure how a judge would rule and it is IMHO not worth it trying to find out just to make some petty point about having to stick to a license. It's a lose-lose situation, and for what?

by **onpon4** » 21 Jun 2015, 14:50

One thing that should be noted about screenshots is that it's perfectly possible to put the screenshot itself under CC BY-SA, but be using proprietary art works in a way that qualifies as fair use. That is to say, the screenshot itself is copyrighted by whoever took the screenshot, which may not necessarily be the same entity that holds the copyrights to the sprites contained within. So the author of the screenshot might permit use under CC BY-SA, while the sprites composing the screenshot would still be under whatever terms the copyright holder placed on them. There could even be varying, incompatible licenses on those works.

Kind of like when you take a photo, and a part of the photo shows a guy wearing a shirt with Micky Mouse on it. You have every right to release that photo under CC BY-SA, but that doesn't mean you or someone else can come along, crop out that image of Micky Mouse, and use it under CC BY-SA.

The same goes for videos, too (though there's even less reason to try to rip sprites from videos than there is to try to rip sprites from screenshots, given lossy compression). I've released videos of a game I currently maintain under CC0, but that doesn't put the various sprites, which are under CC BY and CC BY-SA usually, into the public domain; it's just the video itself which is in the public domain.

Even if the author of the screenshot happens to be the author of the sprites as well, I don't think licensing the screenshot under CC BY-SA implies licensing the individual images that compose the screenshot under CC BY-SA. Intention matters here.

by **Andrettin** » 21 Jun 2015, 16:17

onpon4 {l Wrote}:One thing that should be noted about screenshots is that it's perfectly possible to put the screenshot itself under CC BY-SA, but be using proprietary art works in a way that qualifies as fair use. That is to say, the screenshot itself is copyrighted by whoever took the screenshot, which may not necessarily be the same entity that holds the copyrights to the sprites contained within. So the author of the screenshot might permit use under CC BY-SA, while the sprites composing the screenshot would still be under whatever terms the copyright holder placed on them. There could even be varying, incompatible licenses on those works.

Kind of like when you take a photo, and a part of the photo shows a guy wearing a shirt with Micky Mouse on it. You have every right to release that photo under CC BY-SA, but that doesn't mean you or someone else can come along, crop out that image of Micky Mouse, and use it under CC BY-SA.

The same goes for videos, too (though there's even less reason to try to rip sprites from videos than there is to try to rip sprites from screenshots, given lossy compression). I've released videos of a game I currently maintain under CC0, but that doesn't put the various sprites, which are under CC BY and CC BY-SA usually, into the public domain; it's just the video itself which is in the public domain.

Even if the author of the screenshot happens to be the author of the sprites as well, I don't think licensing the screenshot under CC BY-SA implies licensing the individual images that compose the screenshot under CC BY-SA. Intention matters here.

Very good points, thanks!

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 21 Jun 2015, 17:25

Andrettin {l Wrote}:To be honest though, I don't think screenshots would be of much use for someone to make game graphics.

Why not? Broforce screenshots contain several thousand dollars worth of graphics. Static sprites can be used right away. You may say characters miss animations, but animating a character can be several times cheaper than producing it from scratch (i.e. employing sketch artist to 10 sketches and top-level pixel-artist). I.e. you can get away with cheaper artist. In turnbased games it is okay to use non-animated characters. Then you can just do a 3d model from it, then project the sprite on such model as a texture.

Julius {l Wrote}:A license is not a law

Yet license is a written contract and most countries recognize contracts. America even recognizes oral contracts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract

onpon4 {l Wrote}:it's perfectly possible to put the screenshot itself under CC BY-SA, but be using proprietary art works in a way that qualifies as fair use.

No. It is not. Especially with Wikimedia Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Screenshots
>Screenshots are derivative works and as such subject to the copyright of the displayed content, may it be a video, television program, or a computer program.[1] Thus, screenshots must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons unless all content in them is under a free license or in the public domain.

I.e. authors explicitly give permission to everything depicted in screenshot.

onpon4 {l Wrote}:Kind of like when you take a photo, and a part of the photo shows a guy wearing a shirt with Micky Mouse on it. You have every right to release that photo under CC BY-SA, but that doesn't mean you or someone else can come along, crop out that image of Micky Mouse, and use it under CC BY-SA.

Nope. You don't have such rights and a photo with Mickey Mouse would be "derivative work". Even more, CC-BY-SA license explicitly require you to license anything made out of screenshot under CC-BY-SA, while Mickey Moues incorporated into the work would disallow that. To publish somebody's photo to Commons or other resource, you'll have to get model release. I.e. it is illegal to publish photos of your relative without his/her agreement. For example, Hollywood studio explicitly paid for permission to use a footage of t-shirt with trollface: http://kotaku.com/the-maker-of-the-trol ... 1696228810

I.e. even photo of trollface is illegal without permission.

onpon4 {l Wrote}:Even if the author of the screenshot happens to be the author of the sprites as well, I don't think licensing the screenshot under CC BY-SA implies licensing the individual images that compose the screenshot under CC BY-SA. Intention matters here.

It does imply. Because that is the only way to legally publish such screenshot under CC-BY-SA.

by **onpon4** » 22 Jun 2015, 00:52

Are you claiming that it is illegal to distribute a screenshot containing copyrighted components? I don't know where you live, so such a conclusion might be true in your jurisdiction. But the U.S. has the "fair use" doctrine specifically to deal with this problem. I think the fair use defense would be quite likely to succeed in the U.S. for a screenshot.

There is no law against applying a license to your own copyrighted work. A license is nothing more than an exception granted to copyright. It could be that a license grant is meaningless if your work is an infringing derivative work, but that's a matter of whether relevant fair use doctrine or fair dealing law applies to the use. For example, it could be that a fair dealing law might restrict you from commercially redistributing a screenshot in your jurisdiction even if the screenshot itself is under CC BY. Or your jurisdiction could restrict you from redistributing the work at all, perhaps because the relevant fair use doctrine or fair dealing law doesn't apply. But that doesn't mean it's illegal for the screenshot to be licensed that way in the first place.

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 22 Jun 2015, 03:57

onpon4 {l Wrote}:Are you claiming that it is illegal to distribute a screenshot containing copyrighted components? I don't know where you live, so such a conclusion might be true in your jurisdiction. But the U.S. has the "fair use" doctrine specifically to deal with this problem. I think the fair use defense would be quite likely to succeed in the U.S. for a screenshot.

1. "Fair use" doesn't allow licensing screenshot under CC-BY
2. "Fair use" is not allowed at commons.wikimedia.org

onpon4 {l Wrote}:There is no law against applying a license to your own copyrighted work. A license is nothing more than an exception granted to copyright. It could be that a license grant is meaningless if your work is an infringing derivative work, but that's a matter of whether relevant fair use doctrine or fair dealing law applies to the use. For example, it could be that a fair dealing law might restrict you from commercially redistributing a screenshot in your jurisdiction even if the screenshot itself is under CC BY. Or your jurisdiction could restrict you from redistributing the work at all, perhaps because the relevant fair use doctrine or fair dealing law doesn't apply. But that doesn't mean it's illegal for the screenshot to be licensed that way in the first place.

Again, derivative works cannot be licensed under CC-BY-SA, unless original work is CC-BY-SA.

by **onpon4** » 22 Jun 2015, 04:44

Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:1. "Fair use" doesn't allow licensing screenshot under CC-BY

Why do you say this? All licensing does is grant permission to other people to redistribute your work, an activity which is otherwise forbidden. If fair use "doesn't allow licensing", it doesn't allow you to distribute the work, either. Or in other words, you seem to be imagining some kind of fair use system which doesn't work.

Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:2. "Fair use" is not allowed at commons.wikimedia.org

I don't know if this is true, but it's only marginally relevant. I'm talking generally here.

Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:Again, derivative works cannot be licensed under CC-BY-SA, unless original work is CC-BY-SA.

Firstly, you can license your works however you want to. If the license doesn't make it legally distributable, e.g. the GNU GPL on a program with no source code available, that doesn't mean you can't do it. It just means doing so is pointless.

Secondly, I think you are misinterpreting copyleft provisions such as the one in CC BY-SA on two counts. First, copyleft prevents re-licensing from the copyleft license to another, not from another license to the copyleft license. Second, copyleft licenses don't require that every little part be under the copyleft license. They vary a bit, but in the case of CC BY-SA 4.0, for example, the relevant text is:

b. ShareAlike.

In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply.

1. The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License.
2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share Adapted Material.
3. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, Adapted Material that restrict exercise of the rights granted under the Adapter's License You apply.

None of this text stipulates what licenses parts of the work must use. They could be under CC BY, or in the public domain... or copyrighted, and fair use. CC BY-SA puts no restrictions on this, as long as the whole work remains under the same license, or a license that Creative Commons has deemed to be "BY-SA Compatible" (currently, the Free Art License version 1.3). The only caveat is that if you rely on fair use for your work to be legally distributable, people in jurisdictions that don't recognize the use as "fair" will not be able to distribute the work. This is true regardless of what license you use.

by **Julius** » 22 Jun 2015, 12:56

Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:
Julius {l Wrote}:A license is not a law

Yet license is a written contract and most countries recognize contracts. America even recognizes oral contracts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract

Yes, but contracts have to follow laws and many other exceptions have been put by judges over the years, for example if a license is intentionally misleading or is against "common decency" and so on... For example the EULAs (software licenses) Microsoft puts on their products have been mostly overturned by judges in Germany.
I am not saying that the creative common licenses are like that, but in borderline cases a judge might rule such and that would give a very bad legal precedence for the enforceability of the creative commons licenses for more clear cut cases, as the "culprit" in those cases can always point to this case where the license was interpreted differently.

by **onpon4** » 22 Jun 2015, 13:03

Licenses aren't contracts. Licenses are grants of exceptions to copyright. End-User Licensing Agreements aren't software licenses; they grant software licenses if you agree to them (albeit extremely limited ones). This is an important distinction.

by **Julius** » 22 Jun 2015, 13:17

ok, I guess you are right

I think my overall point is still valid though.

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 22 Jun 2015, 18:36

TLDR: Creative Commons license doesn't really give you much safety, because judge may decide that usage was unethical or just dislike your face. Especially when judge is german and the defendant is Microsoft.

In any case, Wikimedia Commons explicitly disallows fair use and require all depicted content to be under free license. Even screenshots of programs with default Windows GUI elements are disallowed there.

Wikipedia itself does allow fair use in rare cases (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WoW_Box_Art1.jpg), but these files ain't stored at Commons, which are intended specifically for reusable content.

by **Akien** » 22 Jun 2015, 20:13

I've read the topic at OGA and everything has been said. Scraping nonfree sprites from CC-BY-SA 3.0 is just plain nonsense IMO. I wouldn't ever want to use such artwork in a game.

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 22 Jun 2015, 20:51

Akien {l Wrote}:I've read the topic at OGA and everything has been said. Scraping nonfree sprites from CC-BY-SA 3.0 is just plain nonsense IMO

Again, if something is under CC-BY-SA, then it is free. Unless you have your own definition of "free".

Akien {l Wrote}:I wouldn't ever want to use such artwork in a game.

Nobody forces you. But, at the same time, you can't force others not to use them. Many people can use them just for provocation and "attention-whoring" purposes, because "people hate me using them".

Remember: "there is no such thing as bad publicity". I.e. had Hitler been alive today, he would be making millions from his publicity.

by **Julius** » 23 Jun 2015, 14:06

I think it is fine to have a seperate repository like that, which clearly warns possible users, but at the same time it is also totally understandable that such content has no place on OGA.

by **Cire** » 01 Aug 2015, 14:54

Hi Nikita!

Thanks for mirroring Zauberer on your FreeGameArt Github site!

Here are a few notes that I wish to point out about the project. While it's true that Zauberer was mostly based on Blasphemer resources to begin with, We're currently try to move away from this for the moment. It's correct that we wish to use the modified BSD license though. Also, if you could please update the readme file to reflect the change in theme to Egyptian mythology, that would be appreciated. Also, could you please add the new story (The Old Gods)? Feel free to keep the old story there as reference if you like. Good idea to add raymoohawk's sprites in there, although you seem to have missed a few. Adding more concept art, sound effects and other resources that's been made for Zauberer would also be something that I encourage.
I know I've been promising to upload a new demo, which I still intend to do, but it will probably not happen 'till after summer, (I'm on vacation currently). Rest assured that the project isn't dead. If you have a question to ask about Zauberer's intentions or goal's, please don't hesitate to ask. I'll do my best to answer.
Thanks for reading this!
PS. It's not my attention to derail the current discussion in the thread.

Best Regards

by **Nikita_Sadkov** » 02 Aug 2015, 00:06

Hi Cire!

I've updated Zauberer's story.

It would be cool, if you create a separate thread introducing Zauberer. The project is great.

Hexen was the first FPS game I've played. It had some cool puzzle solving elements, compared to more straightforward Doom. I think if you add more rogue-like RPG elements - it would be cool. Something like a random dungeon generation and looting gold from monsters, then buying items.

I think Zauberer's and Blashphemer's sprites could also serve as a temporary replacement for heroes2 and OpenXcom assets. Maybe even some crossover story-wise is possible, because using story of Wesnoth for OpenXcom/fheroes2 could be seen as stealing from Wesnoth Community, because all three games are turn-based.

by **Cire** » 03 Aug 2015, 22:43

Thank you!
I finally got around and released a new version.
I will make a new thread on this forum for Zauberer.
Your suggestion of more Rogue-like elements sounds good, though it will probably come later as the focus is to get a complete main game first.

FreeGameDev Forums < Art & Assets

FreeGameArt

FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Re: FreeGameArt

Who is online