I'm sorry Shreddie, but that is also not completely correct.
I don't believe the misunderstanding is over asset cost or failure to appreciate free assets. The misunderstanding is cropots was assuming that other assets on another site under apparently different terms would affect the status of these assets here. They don't. They look the same. the author is the same, the license is different on the other site. Even the same assets distributed on different platforms can have different licenses. This is allowed and does not change the fact that these assets here are CC0. The author did not place restrictions on these assets. They placed restrictions on the other assets on that other website, which is within the author's rights.
Yes, that is correct. The contents of the readme.txt reinforces the status of these assets I was trying to convey. Thank you.
You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. (Does not conflict with CC0)
You cannot claim to be the autor or the owner of the assets. (Sort of conflicts with CC0. This is non-enforcable, but also mostly irrelevant because credit is not required and any derivative, no matter how tiny, could be enough to grant new authorship of a new work based on assets where all claims are waived. This is against the spirit of CC0 so I will work to correct this portion. EDIT: Fixed!)
Giving attribution is not required, but is much appreciated! (Does not conflict with CC0)
Actually CC0 permits anyone to sell someone's work. The author does NOT have all rights to it. CC0 is specifically a waiver of those rights. The only rights not waived by CC0 are "no implied endorsement" and the author remains the author of the original unmodifed work.
I don't believe anyone is planning to take someone's hard work for free and selling it. The point was not that cropots intended to do so, the point was the author's restriction listed on that other site is a conflict with the CC0 license. My point was that conflict doesn't exist here, it only (possibly) exists on ipoly3d.com, in which case cropots should be addressing it there, not here.
Ace Studio: The "License Free" license says "use them for commercial or non-commercial purposes for free" but that is not the same as PD or CC0. Often such licenses have extra conditions like "...but you may not redistribute them as-is nor resell them". Reasonable terms, and you could use such assets in your own project, but it would make them ineligible for hosting on OGA as we are technically a stock asset hosting service and all licenses on OGA permit resale, et cetera. I don't actually know if those extra conditions are present because they don't list the actual license text. It seems you must "apply" for a copy of the full license text by filling out personal details, which I am unwilling to do. I'd love to take a look at the actual license text if anyone else is willing to apply for it and share it here.
However! The license granted by Ace Studio is not the same thing as a license (if any) granted by the owners of the training data. As is common in AI these days, AI trainers will scrape publicly available assets without obtaining permission for their use. "Publicly available" is not the same as "Public Domain". i.e. images from Google Image Search are publicly available, but 90% are copyrighted and non-free. As eugeneloza mentioned, this may be considered Fair-Use.... Buuuuut 1) Fair-Use is not Public Domain and it comes with caveats on how it can be used, and 2) This Fair-Use defense is an assumption being generally made by AI trainers. Everyone is just assuming the courts will conclude its ok to not ask permission from the owners of the training data. OGA can make no such assumptions.
Voca DB: I can't seem to find any clear indications on the terms of use nor any information about their training data. That doesn't mean it isn't there, I just didn't find it. If you see what I'm missing, by all means direct me to the details. However, in the absence of that information, we must assume the terms are "non-free" despite blurbs or license deeds simply saying "it's free!". As with Ace Studio, we can't trust statements of freedom without seeing the full license text.
Vsinger: I wasn't able to find any terms of use at all. In fact, the page scared my malware protection system and halted the site from fully loading. Not a great endorsement of trust to start with, but let me know if anyone else has better luck locating the details of the licensing and training data origins.
These are assessments from the perspective of OGA policy and do not neccessarily mean individual users would be unable to legally use such assets in their projects. What OGA is allowed to do is not the same as what you are allowed to do. That being said, until we have more details on those licenses and training dataset origins, the answer to this question:
"Would it be possible to share cloned voices as assets in this site...?"'
I understand the desire, but there is no legal way to enforce that without also making it so people can't use it in their games. If you don't want to forego that requirement, that is your prerogative, but it means it can't be hosted here.
Asking people not to resell CC0 assets is unenforcable, and in fact, would make the assets unusable if it were. Would you be willing to omit that requirement?
Then you're free to change the license from CC-BY 4.0 to CC0 with no conflicts. It is up to the user of the asset to decide if they want to continue using the assets under the old terms or switch to the new terms.
@Byzmod3d, you mention programming, but there is no game code here. That's fine (preferred, in fact; OGA is not a code repository) but why are you mentioning game code programming? Is there a link you could provide where people could play or download your game?
bumped for new content.
I'm sorry Shreddie, but that is also not completely correct.
You cannot claim to be the autor or the owner of the assets.(Sort of conflicts with CC0. This is non-enforcable, but also mostly irrelevant because credit is not required and any derivative, no matter how tiny, could be enough to grant new authorship of a new work based on assets where all claims are waived. This is against the spirit of CC0 so I will work to correct this portion. EDIT: Fixed!)I don't believe anyone is planning to take someone's hard work for free and selling it. The point was not that cropots intended to do so, the point was the author's restriction listed on that other site is a conflict with the CC0 license. My point was that conflict doesn't exist here, it only (possibly) exists on ipoly3d.com, in which case cropots should be addressing it there, not here.
However! The license granted by Ace Studio is not the same thing as a license (if any) granted by the owners of the training data. As is common in AI these days, AI trainers will scrape publicly available assets without obtaining permission for their use. "Publicly available" is not the same as "Public Domain". i.e. images from Google Image Search are publicly available, but 90% are copyrighted and non-free. As eugeneloza mentioned, this may be considered Fair-Use.... Buuuuut 1) Fair-Use is not Public Domain and it comes with caveats on how it can be used, and 2) This Fair-Use defense is an assumption being generally made by AI trainers. Everyone is just assuming the courts will conclude its ok to not ask permission from the owners of the training data. OGA can make no such assumptions.
These are assessments from the perspective of OGA policy and do not neccessarily mean individual users would be unable to legally use such assets in their projects. What OGA is allowed to do is not the same as what you are allowed to do. That being said, until we have more details on those licenses and training dataset origins, the answer to this question:
... is "no", unfortunately.
Did you use parts of Zack's character to make this? Shape, frames, proportions, pixels?
I understand the desire, but there is no legal way to enforce that without also making it so people can't use it in their games.
If you don't want to forego that requirement, that is your prerogative, but it means it can't be hosted here.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Excellent reference animations.
Asking people not to resell CC0 assets is unenforcable, and in fact, would make the assets unusable if it were. Would you be willing to omit that requirement?
Then you're free to change the license from CC-BY 4.0 to CC0 with no conflicts. It is up to the user of the asset to decide if they want to continue using the assets under the old terms or switch to the new terms.
It depends. Is the content who's license is changing derived from anyone else's work?
@Byzmod3d, you mention programming, but there is no game code here. That's fine (preferred, in fact; OGA is not a code repository) but why are you mentioning game code programming? Is there a link you could provide where people could play or download your game?
Done.
Pages