pay what you want and donations, commercial licence?

[KittyWills]

I'm ignoring the previous comments above, since in my opinion they are kinda both right and wrong. This is where I stand on the issue.

PWYW is a no go. This is 100% commercial, the FREE option is basically a reaaly steep discount you are giving.

As for donations. This should be fine as long as you aren't accepting donations for said game with the items in them. If you post your game on your website and stick a donation right below it, some might be irked, some may not care. Legally this will be harder to argue and in some cases you may win. But it falls under what I like to call "A Dick Move".

NOW, if you post your game on your website, but have a donation page over on your tumblr promoting for a new game. You are golden and this is fine. But like Fleet said, make sure there are no items in your new game that could get you in trouble.

Push comes to shove, you really should use your own assets. I know they are expensive, but game are to make. You get the quality you pay for and you have to be willing to work for it. But good luck to you either way. :)

[firecat]

An asset holder cannot demand that you never take donations for something that doesn't include/isn't connected to their assets. The tricky part is deciding when there isn't much of a connection anymore between their assets and why people are donating.

wrong, again as always you fail to prove anything, while i showed pictures, videos, and articles. the creator has every right to sue you for obtaining money, the donation money does in needed count as commercial. you are not a lawyer (if so a bad one), you falsely claim stuff, and you trying to get people into trouble. just stop what you are doing you are not helping the OP in anyway shape or forum, only confusing OP even harder.

[VimislikArt]

the creator has every right to sue you for obtaining money, the donation money does indeed(sic) count as commercial.

I think the issue that Goobaboga was getting to was degrees of separation, namely:

At what point does a non-commercial endeavor become separate from your commercial work?

Now, if I have a big donate button in my free game that uses assets I've obtained with a CC-non commercial license, I believe general consensus was that it's a no-no, for moral reasons if not legal ones.

However, what if that free game links to a store page, or kickstarter for a different game (with all original assets) the user can buy or pledge for? Does using your free game to move traffic to a separate site with purchasable items turn it into a commercial product?

Going further, what if the free game links to your blog, which chronicles the making of a second game you're doing (but no donate buttons or purchasing options), but on the side of THAT page it links to a third page that DOES give you the option to pledge, donate or purchase the second game. Is that far enough removed to consider the free game non-commercial?

EVEN FURTHER, let's say the most famous, best game you ever make is a free game using CC-Non Commercial licensed assets; art, music, the works. Everyone loves it, and it gives you a lot of press, and people are saying what a wonderful game creator you are. A year or two after you finish that game, you decide, "Hey, I should make another completely different game that uses all new assets." You set up a kickstarter, and at the top write "FROM THE CREATOR OF THE FREE GAME THAT USES CC-NON COMMERCIAL LICENSE ASSETS". Does this make your free game a commercial endeavor, since you're now using it primarily to promote a new game?

NOW TO THE EDGE OF IMPOSSIBILITY, you make a free game that has a small, but dedicated audience, and an animation studio wants to make an adaptation of it. You wrote it, but you didn't do the art or music, instead grabbing CC-Non Commercial licensed assets. The anime studio says, "We love the story, but we're gonna completely change the art and music, gonna do a complete 180 on the art style and musical tone." They hire you on, and promise you 5% of the gross for the anime series, but no money upfront. By some weird coincidence, one of the artists of one of the tracks in your game who KNOWS you used their music in your game, sees the anime on tv, recognizes their music is not used and how little resemblance the series has to it's origins, turns to their friend and asks, "Does this make the original game a commercial endeavor?" Does it?

If we play the game of "what's legally allowed or not allowed", the proof will often be in the details, but we have to keep those broad strokes in mind at the beginning of a project to determine how to approach producing a free game.

(Also, if people have answers for my scenarios, I'd be interested to see what ya think.)

[firecat]

the creator has every right to sue you for obtaining money, the donation money does indeed(sic) count as commercial.

I think the issue that Goobaboga was getting to was degrees of separation, namely:

At what point does a non-commercial endeavor become separate from your commercial work?

Now, if I have a big donate button in my free game that uses assets I've obtained with a CC-non commercial license, I believe general consensus was that it's a no-no, for moral reasons if not legal ones.

However, what if that free game links to a store page, or kickstarter for a different game (with all original assets) the user can buy or pledge for? Does using your free game to move traffic to a separate site with purchasable items turn it into a commercial product?

Going further, what if the free game links to your blog, which chronicles the making of a second game you're doing (but no donate buttons or purchasing options), but on the side of THAT page it links to a third page that DOES give you the option to pledge, donate or purchase the second game. Is that far enough removed to consider the free game non-commercial?

EVEN FURTHER, let's say the most famous, best game you ever make is a free game using CC-Non Commercial licensed assets; art, music, the works. Everyone loves it, and it gives you a lot of press, and people are saying what a wonderful game creator you are. A year or two after you finish that game, you decide, "Hey, I should make another completely different game that uses all new assets." You set up a kickstarter, and at the top write "FROM THE CREATOR OF THE FREE GAME THAT USES CC-NON COMMERCIAL LICENSE ASSETS". Does this make your free game a commercial endeavor, since you're now using it primarily to promote a new game?

NOW TO THE EDGE OF IMPOSSIBILITY, you make a free game that has a small, but dedicated audience, and an animation studio wants to make an adaptation of it. You wrote it, but you didn't do the art or music, instead grabbing CC-Non Commercial licensed assets. The anime studio says, "We love the story, but we're gonna completely change the art and music, gonna do a complete 180 on the art style and musical tone." They hire you on, and promise you 5% of the gross for the anime series, but no money upfront. By some weird coincidence, one of the artists of one of the tracks in your game who KNOWS you used their music in your game, sees the anime on tv, recognizes their music is not used and how little resemblance the series has to it's origins, turns to their friend and asks, "Does this make the original game a commercial endeavor?" Does it?

If we play the game of "what's legally allowed or not allowed", the proof will often be in the details, but we have to keep those broad strokes in mind at the beginning of a project to determine how to approach producing a free game.

(Also, if people have answers for my scenarios, I'd be interested to see what ya think.)

1) no because that is linking to another site that has rights to sell stuff, not gaining money for no reason. Many sites have done this and mostly this action is covered under fair use. you seen many youtubers do the same thing with videos on patreon, its no different than what you just said. the difference on what Impulse, SundownKid, and Goobaboga told is that you get the money scott free, no fees or anything. patreon is a commitment, so is kickstarter where the public gets something for people's hard work. this is what non-commercial is used for, a way to help the user.

2) its a gray area since the art is not being shown (or its shown?) and you using the art for commercial use? need more detail on it.

3) kickstarter has rules on this: https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use

Number 9. Your Intellectual Property
TL;DR- You must own the rights

so ya you can't use the non-commercial art directly onto kickstarter. funny since many VN developers always looks for artist for KS to build that page. There is no easy button when it comes to this kind of stuff.

4) had you heard of the infamous case that has been done and many others did too:
http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/05/1 ... lagiarism/

blurred lines lawsuit: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-es ... ily-854928

[VimislikArt]

2) its a gray area since the art is not being shown (or its shown?) and you using the art for commercial use? need more detail on it.

In both the first and second examples, we'll assume that once the user leaves the game, no other CC Non Commercial art will be seen. The store page only contains work you have the rights for, as well as the users blog.

so ya you can't use the non-commercial art directly onto kickstarter. funny since many VN developers always looks for artist for KS to build that page. There is no easy button when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Just to confirm, for the kickstarter example, it's completely fine as long as the CC Non-commercial art and/or music assets aren't shown nor heard, but the user can still refer to their original game via prose? I just want to make sure I'm understanding clearly.

4) had you heard of the infamous case that has been done and many others did too:
http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/05/1 ... lagiarism/

And regarding example four, are you saying the free game creator shouldn't sue the musician "seeking declaratory relief from a judge" to confirm they did not steal the music? (I'll be honest, I completely forgot that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams sued the Marvine Gaye estate first. That would be like if Vanilla Ice sued Queen for "Ice Ice Baby"!)

But to reiterate:

[the musician] recognizes their music is not used and how little resemblance the series has to it's origins

To say it explicitly, the art and music in this example was not used in the adaptation, and the only reused element of the series was the writing, which because of how adaptations go, probably only resembled the original text in broad strokes. I just want to be clear about that in case anyone else is confused by the example.

[Taleweaver]

Since this discussion is starting to get heated, may I remind everybody to keep it civil, please?