Open Art

#101 It isnt. The only requirement is that you re-distribute any altered forms of open-art. If you change a texture making it "better" the license requires that any open-art remain free, unless the original and sole author of a work offers a seperate license. Im still working on a license ATM.

The goal is that as people modify and improve art it becomes public domain, under the open-art license. Which allows anyone to use anything for any purpose.

#102 Isn't that basically the GPL? or do you mean free as in beer also?

#103

Quote:license offers an incentive for people to pay artists by requiring that any altered forms of media be re-distributed for free.

This is a bit hard to enforce.

#104 I illegally reverse engineered and re-wrote the lgpl license :/
Listen people can use this stuff anyway they want i dont have a lawyer. Im not going to sue or enforce the license unless someone gets personal. And i think most other people will think the same way. It dosnt remove any rights from the author, except he cant stop people from using his art. ie your enemies use your own weapon against you. But lets face it thats cheap and lame. If i had to lie and break a legally binding license by stealing work, im pretty much a ingrate and degenerate. So if you want to use open-art just dont edit it, and you wont have to share anything. The license is there to scare away lamers and mega-corps. Not to prevent you from using it. The idea and objective is that you put my art altered or un-altered into your game. We both win. Your game gets better and open-art gets more popular. Yes it is like giving away free beer. except instead of everyone sharing a 40 oz were all throwing in on a keg :D My game project (mercs) didnt work out, Im working on actionrpg now. But i can still succeed in founding a community for interactive game art production. For programmers this is a big thankyou for creating the systems and engines the art is used by. Open source software has improved EVERY ASPECT OF COMPUTING. I think open art will or can improve the general face of indie development projects. Like the Art pack request thread says, people need place holders as much as real art. And there are so many other applications.

#105 Tim since by your own admission you simply hacked the liscense together without the help of a lawyer, I would highly recommend that you go back and get a lawyer to look through what you have mungled up to ensure that your liscense is actually legally enforcable. The less loop-holes that you leave the more that people might actually want to use it (or work produced under it) on their own work, you can protect "Open Art" it from those "evil mega-corps", and possibly stand a better chance of succeeding with this rehash of an old idea.

But thats just my two cents, please do not go overboard by feeling as though it is a personal attack or insult upon you because I do not want to start some juvenile commenting in this thread. I am just making a very strong point based on your own facts that you have freely admited.

Logan

#106 I need help. I do NOT know normal operating procedure for license semantics. If you would like to enlighten the terrain in which we currently find ourselves deployed, I would be very greatful.

BTW-does it not reason that i am aware of the shortcomings of my efforts in some areas? I admit the flaws and gaps becuase i need someone to assist me in completing the task's required. Its also delaying me releasing my material in bulk, due to the still un-certain legal issues that you speak of. Copyright laws etc.

#107 I think an open/free art source such as the one discussed here shows merit, like Jeff had stated, as being free as any other open source and limited only by those who don't wish to contribute.

As for people and their rights to their work, which appears to be the main concern by the posts here, if you want to display your work for sale then that would be a different matter than submitting it as free/open materials, which could be it's own discussion entirely.

Here's how I see it, and I believe this is what Jeff had in mind as well:

- A listing full of free artwork to be used by developers at their discresion and without limitation; free/openly submitted source materials.
- Listings can be sorted among different categories or by keyword.
- Each listing provides information on the artist, including any contact information this artist would like to accompany their artwork, links to other artwork by this artist, and also maybe an image of the artwork.
- ANYONE, reguardless of implementation, may use the art resources for whatever means they feel are deemable and that also constrict to general guidlines (i.e. - not using images to cause harm, deface, etc.).
- Should a developer who obtained artwork consider contacting the original artist for their work, to propose or discuss business matters, or to offer team membership or possibly employment, it would be their decission.
- Those who do use a credible piece of art in a finished product should be expected to credit the original artist in their game. Though not manditory givin the free/open art material, this would be expected by the community. GG, if supporting said source, could enforce this in an agreement to have access to such source, but at their option.

Again, the main focus of such a source would and should be considered a tool for the community to share.

This would also be pliable for any types of art.

This tool would benifit any who used it, at their option, and as per agreement if any. Artists themselves reserve the right to submit materials to the source, again, at their option, and as per agreement if any.

Artists get to show their talent, developers get decent artwork to share/modify/learn with.

- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus

#108 I have not written an author receieves credit portion yet. But i think i will. I dont think use should be restricted in anyway though. I guess if someone used the art in a hate crime and credited the author though, that would mean trouble for the unexpecting artist. More license ideas that will have a positive impact are appreciatted and will expediatte the process.


Edit- The entire license is written to ensure the art stays under this license unless the original author offers otherwise to buyers or the public. The idea being the altered forms of media become public in everyway and indesputably free and open.

#109 Just one more quick post :)

I noticed the stressful remarks on the differences of coding and modeling.

They aren't too different in some ways...

Coding and modeling both have an artistic and mathematical side to them. Both CAN be used to find a solution to a problem. Both should be used with respect to their artist/coder. Both are good materials to be considered for submital in open/free source in order to help the community grow.

One more note - If you are concerned about what could/could not be used with Torque, a basic description or even comments could be a part of a submitted material's contents. Also, the file type should be manditory.

Just some quick answers :)

#110 I will maintain torque exports for my work. I will also export some stuff to crystalSpace and nebula and maybe half-life aswell. I really want to support the engines people use not just torque.

#111 You can get some great free art here:

Many of the files are royalty free, the authors have given permission to anyone to use them.

This one was mentioned before: www.3dcafe.com/asp/meshes.asp

This one contains low poly 3d game art in various formats:
dynamic3.gamespy.com/~prefablab/3dmodels/ImageFolio3/imageFolio.cgi?direct=Prefa...

Any one else know of some good free sites?

#112 I may obtain a domain and web server. But im rather innexperienced with web development. some guy said he would make a open art web-page but he never did... I cant really host my files locally as it would take too much in bandwidth.
BTW- My most recent Open-art work includes buildings and and brindges. The problem with BOTH those resources is its extremely dubios as to whats usable and what isnt. And alot of 3dcafe's stuff isnt very good for game use.

#113 Why not just use the LGPL?

#114 I just ran across this one: http://avalon.viewpoint.com/

#115 Greetings!

Wow, it's been ages since I last heard of Avalon. I remember the days when I would FTP to the original Avalon site from University to see what people were building with Imagine. The good ol' Amiga days...

- LightWave Dave

#116 90% of that material isnt usable in its current state. And im sure the polycouts are way to high on the vast majority of mesh's available at avalon. Its too bad it looks like most of the stuff there is really old...
The LGPL license is copyrighted and dosnt adress the issues that are relevant to ART specificly. I agree the desired effect of Open art license and LGPL is very similar. I do not want to let another entity control the fate of open-art. Also the Lgpl license is a beast, and i really dont feel like disecting it, all 5000 words or whatever. I would be happy with someone else writing a license that had a positive effect on everyone.

About keeping altered forms of open-art private. I cannot understand peoples opposition to this. Your not going to open-art for 100% of your game material. And if it wasnt for this clause ALL the art would be original and un-altered un-improved and un-variated. I really dont want to put anyone out of work, so i cant see why having an author decide about duplication and alteration and privacy is a bad thing. I may sell alteration and duplication privacy rights to my entire portion of original art for like 10$ per application/person. There really wouldnt be a reason to purchase most of the art. The point being you can use it as-is, or contribute back what you took. its OPEN-art not 100% completely and totally free for any use without any restrictions. The idea is too promote giving and sharing. Like i said im not interested in prosecuting reasonable low profile breechings of the contract. If your not out and out agressively exploiting open-art i would consider enforcing the license but only if they were publicly breaking and profiting from exploiting artists.

#117 Tim, you wouldn't have legal standing to 'enforce' your license for anything but your own original works, so you don't have to worry about re-assuring people on that score.

Only the copyright holder(s) has legal standing to enforce license agreements.

#118 I dont want to ever take legal action becuase of open-art. I understand people retain the rights to there material, regardless. The license is to prevent people from copyrighting other peoples work.

#119

Quote:I do not want to let another entity control the fate of open-art

I thought that Open Art was here to server the community (or even multiple communities) so why would the issue of you not having control over the liscense be an issue? I would be more concerned over the copyright owners not having direct control over their work.

Quote:I may sell alteration and duplication privacy rights to my entire portion of original art for like 10$ per application/person

Doesn't this inheritly make your Open Art idea invalid? You insulted other people for offering art as a service and then promote Open Art as a better alternative and then say that you might sell your models with another liscense to people as well. Something does not add up here, perhaps you can correct me (and likely many other) on this statement.

The following are questions I have after reading your Open-Art Liscense Note: you really should run this by someone who knows IP Law and through a spell and grammer checker.

Quote:You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the media complete, as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all the notices that refer to this license and to the absence of any warranty; and distribute a copy of this license along with the media.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option.

So essentially I could download all the open-art work and then offer a service where people can buy a CD from me or pay for membership to my site (for say $100 a user or a CD) and this would be legal because I am not charging for the art but I am actually charging for delivery costs of providing open-art to interested parties (just as long as I keep the copyright notices with the files)?

Quote:2. You may modify your copy or copies of the media or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the media, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The modified work must itself be game media or usefull to game art development.
b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files.
c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this license.
d) You must display the mediadepot logo prominently in any interactive use of media under this license and link to the http://www.mediadepot.org

Okay, so if we modify any of the art provided in open art, we can copy and distribute it (possibly once again charging for the service of transfering these assets) just as long as we ensure that we note where the original work came from?

Once again I have to ask, how do you define what is a derivative or modification of someone elses work? Yes you still need to reference to who the original author is, but if I take your barrels Open-Art pack and put a smiley face on each textrue, this is a derrivative of the work which I can distribute under open-art?

Also, how do you plan to keep track of the derrivatives of such work?

You should also define what "game media or useful for game media is" because someone could interpret this many ways.

Lastly, why should anyone have to display the mediadepot.org logo? Who runs/owns mediadepot and what is its purpose? Why do we have to show a mediadepot.org logo and not the logos of the companies from the authors whose assets we are using from this open-art package? My concern here is that mediadepot will be used as a way to profit off of the work of people who contribute to Open-Art by charging for a transfer fee and thus profiting off of the "giving and sharing" of contributors.

Quote:4. Only the original author of an altered or un-altered work of media may offer an alternate license for media under this license.

Is the original author allowed to also pull his work (and thus all derrivatives of it) from Open-Art at his/her choosing if they decide that they want to sell the asset? What happens to derrivatives of work that have been done if the original file is pulled? Wouldn't this not force all derrivatives of this work to be removed from Open-Art completely?

What about derrivatives of work that people are forced to resubmit into Open-Art, does the original author own these derrivatives since they are initially based off of his/her work? If so, are they then allowed to profit off of this since it is initially their work?

Lets say for example I take your barrels pack, alter it (with a smiley face on every texture) and maybe add some useless polys to the model, I am then legally allowed to take this derrivate that I made from your work, and then offer it for profit elsewhere? Because your liscense agreement does imply this.



Logan

#120 You could sell my stuff altered aslong as you re-distributed, BUT YOU COULDNT OFFER A ALTERNATIVE LICENSE FOR OUR WORK (NOTE "OUR"). ONLY YOUR OWN.
About selling duplication of altered material rights, I think its a good idea becuase some people would rather throw 10$ (the cost of hosting) than have to re-distribute there work. I couldnt include anyone elses work or any 3rd party media. thats the point of the license. I cant sell the rights to anyone elses stuff, if thats what your asking. I make all my own stuff from scratch, becuase im paranoid and cant worry about license issues. Yeah, if you were to take the best models and textures and maps and package them, that would be ideal use of the license and resource. There are several versions of the license floating around now... :( My copy is a LITTLE cleaner and ellaborates on some points. Anything that uses the Open-art license and gets altered must be re-distributed for free. This way it is FOREVER AND INDESPUTABLY FREE FOR USE IN ANYWAY. Yes if you alter it you would have to re-distribute it. I dont want to have people forced to re-contribute but you know what people are like.

An author is merely giving us a COPY of his work. By GIVING US the copy to distribute hes agreeing to the license. Which makes no mention of any artists rights to withdraw a work from the archive. I dont like having my enemies use my work, but thats petty and selfish. Look at open art like a publishing standard i guess, can U2 take back all there cd's from ther fans if they dont like there label? They can stop the factories from making more. But i beleive the people who owned the material before it was pulled would retain the licenses rights.