My Game have creative commons Resources ( images/audio) ,Can i still sell it?

Newbie & Debugging Questions
#1

My Game have creative commons Resources ( images/audio) ,Can i still sell it?

Hi Guys, im not understanding this license…
For instance, im interested in this music : http://opengameart.org/content/water-temple

it says this : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

“Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.”

So i need to distribute my game in same license? Or… it just means the resource? I dont get it…

#2

Yes you have to share your game under the same license. This means that you can of course still sell your game, but everybody else can do the same.

You could perhaps write the author and ask if they give you permission to use their work under another license or agreement.

#3

I see… What kind of license i can look for, if i want to sell my game?

#4

It seems that you only want to take and not give, so your only options are public domain and licenses which allow you to do anything like CC without SA.

#5

Im sorry that it seems that way, i just want to show some people that making games isnt just Fun … Theres work needed and it does generate money.

Just a matter of , well, show things.

Anyway, alright… I will see what resources im using… And i will either make as CC 3.0 or i will change them all… idk yet. Lets see :stuck_out_tongue:

#6

im not sure thats entirely right…

[link]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/[/link]

based on this the assets you used remain CC3 but you game does not have to be. so you still retain the sole right to sell your game… but the assets you used are free to be used by others. (even if ripped out your game to do so)

#7

So someone from the CC org said:

[quote]The ShareAlike clause is only activated if your use of the work is considered to be a derivative of the original. What is and isn’t a derivative can often be hard to determine.

What does and doesn’t constitute a derivative work isn’t something that CC can answer. It’s a legal question that has to do with copyright, and may even vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The only person who could answer it with certainty is a judge in a court of law.

It’s not the CC license which is vague, but how copyright law defines a derivative work (adaptation) which is vague. Remember that the CC licenses are just based on copyright law, so the question here is no how the CC licenses define a derivative work, but how copyright law does. If applicable copyright law considers the use to be a derivative, then so does the CC license.
[/quote]
also from the license:
For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image (“synching”) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.

which should cover video-games

#8

I see…
So whats the veredict?

SHould i contact a lawyer or check an specific forum?

#9

Just use different resources. Honestly, its not worth the trouble.

#10

Most resources of my game are creative commons … Now thats a problem.

Well, i guess i will have to distribute it accordingly. Seems unfair, since i worked a lot in the code :frowning:

#11

Yes, but the music isn’t yours. You can’t take from other people and not expect to give back a little.

#12

I know but its not like i have a company or something…

I know the both sides but… i feel like its impossible then :_) oh well

#13

The license applies to the art work, not your code. The license basically covers the case where you want to modify the artwork, or audio. You would be required to share the modified versions of the artwork or audio. Your code is a different matter. It can be looked at as a presentation layer and so long as it is comprised of your original work, you retain the rights to it including the right to distribute its source code or to keep that portion of your game closed.

#14

first of all:

I think it would be the easiest thing for you to just write all the authors and ask if they would license the work as CC-BY to you and if they don’t want to agree try to negotiate something like you get x% and max y money after I sell it.

@CodeHead & jmguillemette

I’m pretty sure that this is not true. The thing is:
Your compiled code is a copyrightable work.
The Assets are works
The game as a hole is a work (assets + work).

It is the same as if you take 10 pics and photoshop them together, the result is your work, but all the copyright of the author of the 10 original works remain. You might say that you only copy the original work and don’t change it, but you are integrating it into another work. It doesn’t matter for the law how the end result comes to be (video displayed).
And to back up my claim I looked up a court case in germany(remember that always the law of the country of the author counts) which states that the sole transformation of a work to another media type constitutes as a derivative work.only in GER

#15

Funnily enough, music and graphics take work too. The artist has decided the “cost” you must pay is to follow the licence. If something you wanted cost hundreds of dollars would you just steal it?

Seriously, I find it pathetic that you value your time and effort more highly than that of others. If the assets are that good, they’re worth it. And if they’re not, find something else! :wink:

#16

Seriously, I find it pathetic that you dont understand.

With fun, i dont mean music and graphics.I do know that create music and images are work. But some people that i know doesnt. And i really want to follow this carreer.

#17

Before this thread starts turning personal, let me make a reasoned suggestion. Try contacting the original creator, el-corleo. Looking at the comments on that particular piece of audio, they seem pretty flexible with how their work is used. There are even comments between them and a person who used their music in an android game which appears to be closed source.

There are many nuances to the conversation that could be discussed ad nauseum with no real hope for a meaningful resolution here so I will put on my “I am not a lawyer hat” and let the issue rest except for the last part. Where is it stated that the original creator, el-corleo, is a citizen of Germany, or are you referring to Andre as the author?

#18

@CodeHead
I don’t know under which jurisdiction any of the work OP uses fall. I just wanted to make a general point about this topic. As in a quote from a previous post of mine, the whole discussion comes down to the point where it has to be decided what a derived work is. Others in this thread have argued that the inclusion of an unaltered work in a game, doesn’t make the game a derived work. I wanted to show that I at least found one court ruling in some country which I think applies and says the contrary.

edit: as a last point after reading a bit more about CC. In the CC license the two terms Adaption and Collection are defined. The discussion in this thread is about what of the two terms a game should be considered. As the license itself states:

[quote]For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image (“synching”) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
[/quote]
I think it should be clear.

#19

lets let someone who already did the research tell us the final results…

I give you all OpenGameArt.org.

and their FAQ about using their content in your closed source games:

What do the licenses mean? I’m a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?

It depends on the license(s) the art is released under. Technicallyall of the art on this site is legal for use in commercial projects – however, some of the licenses require you to distribute the source code of your entire project for free, and allow others to distribute the source for free as well. Here is a quick overview of the licenses and what they mean for commercial, closed-source developers. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Read the licenses carefully and consult your legal department before including any of this art in non-open-source or commercial software.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL. If you’re trying to sell a game, this is probably something you want to avoid, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
This license requires you to attribute the author of the content in the way that they specify. Provided the author is properly credited, it is generally safe to use this content in a commercial work.

GNU GPL 3
This license, like Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 above, requires you to release your entire project under the same license. Furthermore, it has certain restrictions guaranteeing the user freedom from DRM. If you want to sell a game, you probably don’t want to use content that’s released under this license, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well.

GNU LGPL 3
This license requires you to make the source code available for that content only. You may use this content in a non-open-source project, provided that you distribute the source of the content as well as any modifications you make to it under the same license. It does not, however, require you to distribute your entire project under the GNU LGPL. It is generally safe for commercial games to use content released under this license, provided they distribute the content and any modifications to it for free.

GNU GPL 2
This license, like Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 above, requires you to release your entire project under the same license. If you want to sell a game, you probably don’t want to use content that’s released under this license, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well.

GNU LGPL 2
This license requires you to make the source code available for that content only. You may use this content in a non-open-source project, provided that you distribute the source of the content as well as any modifications you make to it under the same license. It does not, however, require you to distribute your entire project under the GNU LGPL. It is generally safe for commercial games to use content released under this license, provided they distribute the content and any modifications to it for free.

Copyright-Only Dedication (Public Domain)
This license is equivalent to the Public Domain. There are therefore no legal concerns with using it, and it is safe to use in any project.
Just to reiterate, these notes are based on my understanding of these licenses, and should be taken with a grain of salt. If you notice anything incorrect here, please contact me.

#20

Except that even opengameart.org doesn’t make things clear. Did you happen to read this part of the FAQ as well?

I give you mud in the waters from OGA in return.

Disclosure: I copied the “Non-functional Data” clause from the source page provided by OGA due to the fact that the copy on their page appears to have some stray unicode characters polluting the text.

Sounds like the code and the assets can be licensed separately to me and there is no indication that this only applies when the engine is licensed under the GPL. Also note that the CC page states specifically that their licences are not designed for software so saying that one must put their software under a license that wasn’t designed for it is a bit of a stretch. Again, the easiest approach in this situation is probably to just ask the original creator.