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."
Julius {l Wrote}:many judges would rule in favor of the original copyright holder and against the creative commons license.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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?
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?
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.
Andrettin {l Wrote}:To be honest though, I don't think screenshots would be of much use for someone to make game graphics.
Julius {l Wrote}:A license is not a law
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:1. "Fair use" doesn't allow licensing screenshot under CC-BY
Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:2. "Fair use" is not allowed at commons.wikimedia.org
Nikita_Sadkov {l Wrote}:Again, derivative works cannot be licensed under CC-BY-SA, unless original work is CC-BY-SA.
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.
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
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
Akien {l Wrote}:I wouldn't ever want to use such artwork in a game.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest