Creative Commons Forum Rules (2012-06-01)

[PyTom]

This forum is a place for generous creators to post assets that are either in the public domain or have a license that allows them to be used by other creators without having to ask permission.

This forum is mostly for game assets, either individually or in collections. Open-licensed games should have their own threads in the completed games section, but posting a link from the games thread in this forum will let people know your game is under an open license. Open-licensed Ren'Py code snippets should be placed in the Ren'Py Cookbook forum, rather than this one.

There are a few rules for this forum:

(1) Everything in this thread should either be in the public domain, or under a license that allows it to be re-used in all games. The following licenses are fine:

Creative Commons Attribution
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Some CC licenses are not okay:

Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs

That's because the no-derivative licenses prevent people from making a game with your assets. Other open licenses may be fine, as long as they do not require subjective decisions to be made. Post here and ask if a license is suitable.

The license you chose should be clearly indicated in your post. Otherwise, the thread will be moved to the appropriate asset forum.

(2) The subject should indicate the type of asset involved and the license it's under. For example "[CC BY-SA] High School Girl Sprites".

(3) The body should be relatively descriptive, so people using the forum's search function can find what you post.

[Alte]

I stumbled upon this article, Flickr scraps plan to sell users' photos as wall art after licensing row.

Yahoo says it is complying with the terms of Creative Commons by selling only images that permit commercial use. The licenses “are designed for the exact use case that we’re enacting through our wall-art product,” Bernardo Hernandez, vice president of Flickr, wrote in an email. -Source

Using Creative Commons Attribution/ ShareAlike allows people to sell assets.

Should there be a disclaimer?

[SundownKid]

I stumbled upon this article, Flickr scraps plan to sell users' photos as wall art after licensing row.

Yahoo says it is complying with the terms of Creative Commons by selling only images that permit commercial use. The licenses “are designed for the exact use case that we’re enacting through our wall-art product,” Bernardo Hernandez, vice president of Flickr, wrote in an email. -Source

Using Creative Commons Attribution/ ShareAlike allows people to sell assets.

Should there be a disclaimer?

If anyone takes a more than cursory glimpse at it they will realize that people can make products featuring those images that can be sold. In addition the other license clearly says "NonCommercial". So I don't think a disclaimer is really necessary.

[Alte]

If anyone takes a more than cursory glimpse at it they will realize that people can make products featuring those images that can be sold. In addition the other license clearly says "NonCommercial". So I don't think a disclaimer is really necessary.

All right then, I was under the assumption that some creators are not aware what they get themselves when choosing a "commercial" license. Actually means "all out" regardless of morals or work value since purposes of commercial exploitation is allowed.

While there's NonCommercial, it seems to be for NonCommercial only at a glance until when reading the full license states the exception of asking the creator for permission to make profit with the asset. Not many people would realize this since the glance of the license button is all it takes to know what it is but not in full detail. If the creator were to make their own terms, it would grasp the attention of how the material is used for.

If there's an alternative to MIT License, that would be DBAD. (github) The license is inspired by WTFPL. (similar to Public Domain) However, the licenses shouldn't be taken seriously from the way they sound...
- - -
@PyTom

Not all Creative Commons licenses are going to be used and there's creations with or without license indication. That's all right. Is it possible to rename the forum "Creative Commons" to "Pre-Made Assets"? Terms of Use and Creative Commons are two different licenses, with Pre-Made Assets would blend together without confusion. Creators can still use Creative Commons as well as making their own terms.

[PyTom]

I like the idea of this being a CC asset forum, which exists to promote the creation of such assets.