this is good topic of discussion in general. i commented recently on buch's orthographic outdoor tiles about how incredibly similar the houses are to the ones from a link to the past on the snes. i really want to use those tiles in a game i'm working on, but when i zoom in on the door of buch's tile and i zoom in on the door of the same tile from the lttp tileset rip it is so very very close. it looks to my eye like derivative work. as i said in my comment, this is not intended to be an attack on buch's work or an indictment of the artist's ethical integrity, it is just my eye seeing something that looks like derivative work.
so what is derivative then? if i use the house from a link to the past as a "drawing reference" and my door that i created pixel by pixel looks identical or almost identical then it is still derivative legally is it not? even if i did not use any pixels from the door, am i not still opening myself up to cease and desist? will shigeru miyamoto come to my house and punch me in the nose?
i used to be into making fan games using ripped sprites from nintendo games, back when i was a kid. it was a great way to learn gamedev, but it was illegal too. and now (so many years later) alot of kids are doing the same thing and getting their projects dmca'ed into oblivion by nintendo. this is exactly what i am trying to avoid as i get back into hobbyist gamedev after a 15 year hiatus. i found this great resource that you guys and gals have put together, i love so much of the art work on here, but i wonder what kind of human oversight is going on (or even possible) to ensure that someone does not upload a stray nintendo pixel :p i jest somewhat, but seriously, this resource allows people to use this art commercially. if i make a game and sell it is it not my toosh that's on the line if that cc0 tileset i found actually had grass ripped and resized from some obscure korean rpg or something?
sorry to jump in on your post like vladimir, but i just joined and this is exactly the topic that i am struggling with as i navigate the art assets on this site.
are we 100% sure that these tiles are not at all derivative of a link to the past? i dont want to sound like a jerk, and i am not intending this as an attack on buch's integrity. the houses in particular look SO similar. really quite amazing and beautiful spritework, i just worry because i want to use them in a zeldalike freeware game i'm making and i want to be super careful to not used ANY ripped sprites because the big N is so scary and i dont want to get a cease and desist! please dont take this the wrong way. i am new here, and i really want to use these sprites cuz they are awesome.
this is good topic of discussion in general. i commented recently on buch's orthographic outdoor tiles about how incredibly similar the houses are to the ones from a link to the past on the snes. i really want to use those tiles in a game i'm working on, but when i zoom in on the door of buch's tile and i zoom in on the door of the same tile from the lttp tileset rip it is so very very close. it looks to my eye like derivative work. as i said in my comment, this is not intended to be an attack on buch's work or an indictment of the artist's ethical integrity, it is just my eye seeing something that looks like derivative work.
so what is derivative then? if i use the house from a link to the past as a "drawing reference" and my door that i created pixel by pixel looks identical or almost identical then it is still derivative legally is it not? even if i did not use any pixels from the door, am i not still opening myself up to cease and desist? will shigeru miyamoto come to my house and punch me in the nose?
i used to be into making fan games using ripped sprites from nintendo games, back when i was a kid. it was a great way to learn gamedev, but it was illegal too. and now (so many years later) alot of kids are doing the same thing and getting their projects dmca'ed into oblivion by nintendo. this is exactly what i am trying to avoid as i get back into hobbyist gamedev after a 15 year hiatus. i found this great resource that you guys and gals have put together, i love so much of the art work on here, but i wonder what kind of human oversight is going on (or even possible) to ensure that someone does not upload a stray nintendo pixel :p i jest somewhat, but seriously, this resource allows people to use this art commercially. if i make a game and sell it is it not my toosh that's on the line if that cc0 tileset i found actually had grass ripped and resized from some obscure korean rpg or something?
sorry to jump in on your post like vladimir, but i just joined and this is exactly the topic that i am struggling with as i navigate the art assets on this site.
cheers
are we 100% sure that these tiles are not at all derivative of a link to the past? i dont want to sound like a jerk, and i am not intending this as an attack on buch's integrity. the houses in particular look SO similar. really quite amazing and beautiful spritework, i just worry because i want to use them in a zeldalike freeware game i'm making and i want to be super careful to not used ANY ripped sprites because the big N is so scary and i dont want to get a cease and desist! please dont take this the wrong way. i am new here, and i really want to use these sprites cuz they are awesome.
Pages