My take on this is that it looks like it's technically fine (assuming that the "your permission" thing is a typo), but he shouldn't have put that stuff in the attribution instructions, since it's not really an attribution related thing. I'm going to leave the content up and try to get ahold of the artist to ask them to move the request into the main description block so as to avoid confusion.
There are two big issues with this post, one of which is easily fixed (the title), the other of which is not (the fact that the image clearly has almost exactly the same layout as the one it's based on).
I don't know for sure about the legality of something like this (my impression is that it may be legal, although I'm not sure). What I do know is that, even without the title, a reasonable person would look at both images and come to a conclusion that the submission is clearly a copy of the original, and that there's no chance that it's because they're both generic images.
What I want to avoid are these cases where we have to quibble about whether something might be legal. People making games need to be able to use the media hosted on OGA without worrying that it might be an unlicenced copy of a work. Even if it's not something that's legally actionable, it might look bad for someone to use this in a game and then have the community discover later that it's a nearly exact copy.
As such, I'm going to depublish this image, with apologies to the artist and submitter. I wish I felt comfortable with keeping it, since it's a beautiful piece of art. If the buildings were placed differently (and that distinct red building toward the back weren't such a precise match), I'd be okay with keeping it on the site.
P.S. With respect to qubodup's Pikachu example: While he's probably right about the legality of it, that character is very clearly Pikachu regardless of the title. I'm going to establish an official policy here and now that we won't accept something that's obviously supposed to be a piece of media we don't have a license to, even if it wasn't traced and there are minor differences.
Honestly, I'd just reply to one of their art submissions or forum threads. If they're using a non-primary email address, they won't see my emails either. :)
I don't know offhand. Sometimes people sign up for their accounts with an email that's not their main email address (this is totally fine, by the way), so it could be that the message is getting there okay but they haven't seen it.
Please remove the [PAID] tag from the subject -- $15 isn't enough to consider this a paid job, and you aren't even promising the money on completion. The tag is misleading and just there to get people to read your post.
My take on this is that it looks like it's technically fine (assuming that the "your permission" thing is a typo), but he shouldn't have put that stuff in the attribution instructions, since it's not really an attribution related thing. I'm going to leave the content up and try to get ahold of the artist to ask them to move the request into the main description block so as to avoid confusion.
Those are really nice. :)
What was your process for making them?
Something like that would definitely work.
Hey folks, here's the final answer on this:
There are two big issues with this post, one of which is easily fixed (the title), the other of which is not (the fact that the image clearly has almost exactly the same layout as the one it's based on).
I don't know for sure about the legality of something like this (my impression is that it may be legal, although I'm not sure). What I do know is that, even without the title, a reasonable person would look at both images and come to a conclusion that the submission is clearly a copy of the original, and that there's no chance that it's because they're both generic images.
What I want to avoid are these cases where we have to quibble about whether something might be legal. People making games need to be able to use the media hosted on OGA without worrying that it might be an unlicenced copy of a work. Even if it's not something that's legally actionable, it might look bad for someone to use this in a game and then have the community discover later that it's a nearly exact copy.
As such, I'm going to depublish this image, with apologies to the artist and submitter. I wish I felt comfortable with keeping it, since it's a beautiful piece of art. If the buildings were placed differently (and that distinct red building toward the back weren't such a precise match), I'd be okay with keeping it on the site.
P.S. With respect to qubodup's Pikachu example: While he's probably right about the legality of it, that character is very clearly Pikachu regardless of the title. I'm going to establish an official policy here and now that we won't accept something that's obviously supposed to be a piece of media we don't have a license to, even if it wasn't traced and there are minor differences.
We're working on it, aiming for the end of the month.
Wow, very nice work, as always! :)
Honestly, I'd just reply to one of their art submissions or forum threads. If they're using a non-primary email address, they won't see my emails either. :)
I don't know offhand. Sometimes people sign up for their accounts with an email that's not their main email address (this is totally fine, by the way), so it could be that the message is getting there okay but they haven't seen it.
Could be procedural?
Please remove the [PAID] tag from the subject -- $15 isn't enough to consider this a paid job, and you aren't even promising the money on completion. The tag is misleading and just there to get people to read your post.
Pages