Licensing Question [Answered]

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: Licensing Question

Postby Roszlishan » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:50 pm

moose o death wrote:my rule of thumb is

not yours then no.

i wouldn't use erfworld characters or story aspects without express written permission from both creators . no matter what the webcomics license for the non tools says. the tools h-ires licenses are very much copyright.

and honestly what right do you have to erfworld anyway? i'm sure more than a little effort has been invested into erfworld over the years. i fail to see why you should be allowed to capitalise off that hardwork for no cost to yourself.



Having created significant material, and having released it under exactly that license (Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution Sharealike 3.0), I think I can say with some confidence you're entirely, utterly, 100% wrong.

There's no need to release material under any particular license; in the USA, it's automagically copyrighted, all rights reserved, simply by being published. Anyone who goes to the effort of researching CC licenses, and releases something under such a license, is offering that material. Speaking for myself, I don't need persons to ask - but I do appreciate knowing what persons have done with that material (and I like to make sure that the license is complied with ... something I have had to request politely once). By publishing under that license, they're saying 'here. we think this is cool. do cool stuff with it, as long as you don't charge, and offer your efforts in a similar spirit, and let everyone know it's derived from our original cool stuff.' So, to answer your question about what 'right' I (or anyone) has to Erfworld - well, none. We do have a Noncommerical Attribution Sharealike license, however, and that's intensely cool.

Your next question was about daring to capitalize on the creative efforts that went into Erfworld. The license in question grants no monetary rights whatsoever ('noncommercial'). In a wider sense, of course, almost all creative efforts rely on the creative efforts that come before them. I can't speak to Rob's or Jamie's motivations, of course, but I was painfully aware of the corpus of work I'd enjoyed - and drawn on to create my work. Releasing it under that license was my way of trying not to give back, but to give forward. I've benefited from Tolkien, from Tim Burton, from Shakespeare ... the list is extremely long. I would think that Rob's and Jamie's motivations are similar.

As far as not using Erfworld, or Erfworld references, or Erfworld characters - don't use them. Actively pooh-poohing their use, though, under the CC license the creators have used ... well, again, I will not presume to speak for them. But I myself would be unhappy to hear one of my fans (yes, I have them) denigrate the use of what I'd made - not publicly, but freely - available for use. I put my stuff under that license not because I thought anyone would use it (I didn't) but I was nevertheless delighted when it got used ... that was honestly pretty thrilling :-)

So although I appreciate very much the respect you have for Rob's and Jamie's creative efforts, I cannot help but see these comments about licensing as fundamentally disrespectful to their motivations and their hopes for their creative efforts. I don't think any author, artist, or creator says 'hey! here's cool stuff! maybe you'd like to do something with it ...' and then not truly want for that to happen. In a very real sense, that kind of extension and reuse is a powerful and intense form of positive reward.

Happiness,
Roszlishan
Roszlishan
Pins + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Pins + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: Licensing Question [Answered]

Postby DevilDan » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:18 pm

Thank you, Roszlishan.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Licensing Question [Answered]

Postby SteveMB » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:41 pm

Being extra-cautious not to infringe on a creator's prerogatives is better than erring in the other direction, I suppose.

That said, I get the impression that Rob and Jamie have generally appreciated the various ways their fans have used the latitude they chose to extend in the CC license.
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Licensing Question [Answered]

Postby moose o death » Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:04 pm

ros i draw no attention to the cc license in the quotted statement.

i clearly state in my opinion if it's not your work you really have no right to use it.

that's not legalese, it's an opinion. form an asset creation point of view i've seen alot of commercial versions of this arguement. programmers who buy 3d models. make a few adjustments to the format replace a texture then sell it on at the a similar price as their own work. other programmers who buy assets for commercial use. but then include them in a sdk so all of their customers can use them.

then there's eula arguements about whether sdk xyz allows a game to be made that allows modding.... this clearly undercuts the engine designers income as that's more or less what they supply minus the game.

http://forum.leadwerks.com/viewtopic.ph ... 087bccef04

is a prime example.

so yeah my opinion is actually a fairly good safeguard from an asset creation point of view. if i didn't make it then i have no right to it. unless i expressly pay someone for that right i need to make the assets myself.
http://moosetech.blogspot.com/ my video game art. in easy to read blog form. swing on by. laugh at my spelling.
User avatar
moose o death
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:17 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Licensing Question [Answered]

Postby DevilDan » Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:09 pm

I enjoy what Nina Paley, renowned for Sita Sings the Blues, says on the subject:

Dear Audience,

I hereby give Sita Sings the Blues to you. Like all culture, it belongs to you already, but I am making it explicit with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. Please distribute, copy, share, archive, and show Sita Sings the Blues. From the shared culture it came, and back into the shared culture it goes.

You don't need my permission to copy, share, publish, archive, show, sell, broadcast, or remix Sita Sings the Blues. Conventional wisdom urges me to demand payment for every use of the film, but then how would people without money get to see it? How widely would the film be disseminated if it were limited by permission
and fees? Control offers a false sense of security. The only real security I have is trusting you, trusting culture, and trusting freedom.

http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/

Short and sweet.

Whatever our own opinions on the subject may be, I'm sure that the creators of Erfworld thought long and hard before selecting the CC license under which they've published their work.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Licensing Question [Answered]

Postby Roszlishan » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:27 pm

moose o death wrote:ros i draw no attention to the cc license in the quoted statement.

i clearly state in my opinion if it's not your work you really have no right to use it.

...

so yeah my opinion is actually a fairly good safeguard from an asset creation point of view. if i didn't make it then i have no right to it. unless i expressly pay someone for that right i need to make the assets myself.


Apologies if I've improperly abridged your quote; I pulled out what I wanted to respond to.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood: I understand you to be saying that unless there's a transfer of money, there can be no transfer of rights in some moral sense.

I don't believe that. I do not believe money is the sole good or even the primary good that artists / creators seek. I believe the thriving world of FOSS proves otherwise. Most of the artists I know, although they are appreciative of the money their work earns, consider their art of greater value than merely monetary and would create art even if they were not paid. It wouldn't be the same art - they would have to choose less expensive media to work with - but they would create nevertheless.

I do believe, strongly, that creators have strong interests in their creations, and I think we agree on this point. But that is exactly where a license such as CC comes in. The creators are saying, 'please use this. extend this. make more art.' I am baffled by what I take to be the presumption that they don't mean it, don't want that, and that it some - in any! - sense, it is disrespectful or morally wrong to ignore the creator's stated intent as to the appropriate use of their work. I don't see a difference between 'you can use my stuff if you pay me' and 'you can use my stuff if you do it in this manner'.

Perhaps we will just have to agree with disagree.

Happiness,
Roszlishan
Roszlishan
Pins + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Pins + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: Licensing Question [Answered]

Postby moose o death » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:42 am

i agree many artists are just happy to contribute. i myself do not charge people i make art for....which leads to people jerking you around to the point you HAVE to charge other people as a method of culling the herd. luckily i've left the community i posted the thread from as it had next to no art talent and was leading to constant requests. all of my art concerns happen in my free time.

i'm happy to be small fish again.
http://moosetech.blogspot.com/ my video game art. in easy to read blog form. swing on by. laugh at my spelling.
User avatar
moose o death
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:17 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Licensing Question [Answered]

Postby DevilDan » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:45 am

I notice somebody else moving to CC licensing, writer Mercedes Lackey:

I am happy to announce that we are officially permitting fanfiction to be licensed as derivative fiction under the Creative Commons umbrella.

What this means is: NO, you cannot make money on it. NO, you cannot self-publish a fanfiction novel of Valdemar (or any of my other stuff) and try and sell it on Amazon. And NO, I still am not going to read it, because I am already so far behind on my research reading I barely have time to read that.

But YES, you may write and post away, folks, so long as you license it as derivative and under Creative Commons. If it is anything other than PG-13, please take all the proper precautions to stick it somewhere that innocent souls won't be corrupted. Do not scare the children or the horses. Have fun!

http://www.mercedeslackey.com/news.html
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Previous

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CarniDollMancer and 3 guests