Navigating the hay for the needle. Art and Licenses.

[Drakemoore]

This is sort of a rant, as well as some questions to the community, I'm just trying to find some opinions about these issues I've noticed and I'm not meaning to be harsh in any way.

So, I've been a lurker on this forum off and on for a few years, as well as others that share a RPG Maker community. I've not published any free or commercial games but I do mess with RPG Maker as a hobby off and on.Whenever I think about publishing a game though, regardless of non commercial or commercial, I think about the type of art work I want to include. I'm not an artist type, so I look to the community, or try to make minor edits where I can.

First issue: One thing that has always bothered me about the RPG Maker art community, in general, not just this forum; is that when a lot of people post custom work or edits, they often either don't post anything about crediting or licensing, or they post something vague as such as "credit me, and my edits are also based on these person(s) so credit them too." Well, if I have to credit them as well, then what was the original usages allowed by the original authors? Good luck finding it in most cases.

There's also, almost never a license placed on the work or the subsequent edits. I can understand why in some cases, because you have to also at the same time respect the copyright of Enterbrain if it's an edit of the RTP. So maybe licensing and copyrights should be discussed, with examples and guidelines, stickied somewhere.

So, question is, why doesn't the RPG Maker community hold licensing information more critical to the disclosure of the art assets that they release or edit compared to other venues such as the open source application community, or music community? It would make navigating the usage haystack so much easier if full disclosure as well as license were given. It would also nullify the need to contact authors that may not exist anymore as one could just go by the license for the resource alone.

If you're going to release artwork, scripts, etc for both free and commercial usages, why not state so and use something like https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ instead something vague such as "credit me."

Second issue, as well as question. Why does the community rely on forums, and blog formats for resource releases? Why not use a dedicated media repository such as OpenGameArt or similar media archives (with the license mentioned above) and then post on corresponding forums with a link to it? The vast majority of art work I've seen is posted on forums and blogs, and then it's linked from sites like Photobucket or other older obscure hosting sites.

Resulting problems: incredibly difficult to find and browse resources due to forum and blog formats, that being said, I applaud people like GrandmaDeb and others who have done their best to organize lists of notable authors and content. Another issue with this site and file upload format is that a lot of times linked files are deleted over time due to hosting requirements, etc, authors disappear over the years, resources are lost. For example, I've looked over this forum and other forums over time, and people's file hosting accounts have gone inactive, and large amounts of XP and Ace content have been lost. 

I'm not trying to be mean or anything by any means and considering that I'm speaking against the norm here, that it probably seems like harsh criticism. I'm simply trying to share how it looks like to me, and, that is that it seems very disorganized, non-centralized and when you're trying to find assets that can be safely used for commercial purposes, it's literally at times trying to find a needle in a hay stack. Above all however, the lack of full usage guidelines, original author trail, and proper licensing being distributed with resource releases is what bothers me the most.

 

[Kes]

Although in one sense I agree with you, I think you are overlooking some very important aspects.

If people were posting their stuff as a business, then yes, most of what you say would be spot on.  However, this is a hobby for most people, with assets done for fun and/or as a favour.  So yes, it will be "dis-organized, non-centralized".  No one has a right to demand that the resources are hosted in a particular way (and, by the way, who is going to pay for the dedicated repository?  Are you, as a potential user?  Or do you expect the resource provider to pay?), you are getting something free, and from the good will of those who do it.  Furthermore we have seen repositories in various forms also disappear, so do not assume that you have found a magic bullet with that suggestion.

So yes, your criticism, though logical from one particular perspective/world view, is indeed harsh.  You want to find assets which are free to you, but which you can then include in something which you sell.  Then if you like, the "price" you pay is the work you put in to find those assets and track down the terms.  Some things vanish for ever.  That is the nature of the internet.  Certainly I wish that people would be clearer in their terms of service, but I cannot organize the world to suit my needs.  I have to accept that the person who is artistic enough to provide e.g. that sprite that just fits my game perfectly, might not be good at administrative organization.  If you want everything clear cut and absolutely unambiguous, commission paid resources, and everything will be as you wish.

 

[Sharm]

I think the answer to a lot of these questions is that artists just want to draw, all this other organizing, finding good hosting, and licensing stuff is boring.  This is something people do for free and for fun, if it's not fun, why do it at all?  When you see an artistic community with really great organization or clear licensing it's usually run by someone who is not an artist who also lays down some very specific rules before anything goes online.  That wouldn't work well here, many artists would just quit if someone started bossing them around.  Also, a great deal of the resources are from people who don't speak English and don't interact with the English community.  As for why we don't use Open Game Art, that's because the majority of RM material is not appropriately licensed for OGA, it wouldn't be allowed on there.

This is an interesting thing to talk about though.  I'd love to have clearer licensing and editing artist who do better at referencing originals.  I'm sure Grandma Deb would love it if her lists didn't keep becoming defunct.  I don't know how we as a community could go about solving those issues though, it may not be reasonable or possible.

 

[Drakemoore]

Thank you for your post and viewpoint ksjp17. I understand that in essence I'm trying to find the same organization in something of a commercial level, perhaps it's due to my involvement in open source projects in the past and licensing was crucial in those endeavors.  I sort of come from that background with the stance that everything should have licenses, because without licenses, neither the author nor those that use their assets are on stable footing.

But yeah, I understand I can't make the world suit my needs, I'm just writing this topic to get some opinions back from the community.

Edit:

To Sharm:

Yes, I can certainly see how dealing with licensing would seem boring and could impede artists and their joy for the hobby or profession. It's more steps in the process and they're not fun steps.  That being said, one thing about licenses is that once you understand how they work, you can apply it quite easily to anything you release, besides, perhaps RTP edits which I don't know where those would fall under. I also can understand that non-english speakers would possibly have issues in that regard, although I'm sure there's translated versions of common licenses.

I like the discussion as well, and I hope to see feedback from the community. I mentioned earlier also that I appluad Grandma Deb for doing what she does and I don't have a clear answer to the defunct links either.

 

[bgillisp]

I think there are valid points by both people here. When I first started out, I felt like I could go through an entire page on the resource list and find nothing I could use, and the ones I could use were in a style I couldn't use still. So it was very possible to go for hours and not find anything of use.

I do think artists really should post *full* terms by the item though, and not say same as x. That way if x ever disappears, the terms are still known. But, all I ever post are scripts, and most of them I wrote from the start so the terms are pretty simple.

 

[Celianna]

We can't force our artists to lay down their terms and agreements, however I do think we should put a simple system in use so that artists can easily show how your work can be used. It would still only be optional though.

 

[Drakemoore]

I think there are valid points by both people here. When I first started out, I felt like I could go through an entire page on the resource list and find nothing I could use, and the ones I could use were in a style I couldn't use still. So it was very possible to go for hours and not find anything of use.

I do think artists really should post *full* terms by the item though, and not say same as x. That way if x ever disappears, the terms are still known. But, all I ever post are scripts, and most of them I wrote from the start so the terms are pretty simple.

Finding appropriate resources can be an issue at times, I agree, Grandma's and other people's lists are quite helpful in that regard but still not ideal.

Perhaps more appropriate post tagging would help but it still wouldn't compare to a repository.  After Sharm mentioning that RTP and RTP edits can't be on repositories however I can understand why there's a genuine lack of RPG Maker content on it and other sites.

We can't force our artists to lay down their terms and agreements, however I do think we should put a simple system in use so that artists can easily show how your work can be used. It would still only be optional though.

I agree that it can't be forced, but an optional, recommendation would be great. 

It's great when original authors post terms, even if they're not full licenses. E.g. "You can use this in free or commercial games as long as you attribute me in your credit list" or "You can use this in free or commercial games if you give me one copy of your game on request and credit me."  

What makes it an issue is when there's no mention of anything, and that also means one may not even be able to use them in free projects and that person could just be posting them to show off their resources, which is fine, but it'd be great if the user specified.

 

[Sharm]

If you find a thread in the resources section where the OP doesn't have any terms of use could you report it please?

 

[Drakemoore]

If you find a thread in the resources section where the OP doesn't have any terms of use could you report it please?

Will do the next time I see one. Thank you for posting by the way, as well as the rest of the moderators. It's great to see and probably taken for granted on this forum compared to other game dev forums where admins typically don't post often.

I also had a further question whenever someone from the admin team could post about it:

A lot of people post RTP-Edits, and of course the RTP and derivation works are copyright of Enterbrain, so, do authors of edited RTP gain any rights over their edits if the edits are using only RTP content? For example, animating an object that isn't animated normally in the RTP or merging multiple RTP objects together in one tile.    I ask because some users release these edits under 'non commercial' yet doesn't the Enterbrain EULA supersede it and thus allow commercial usage? Not that I'm trying to do such, I'm just trying to understand how they can limit the usage of the edits even though the content is a derivative of the RTP.

 

[Sharm]

Think of it like a song composition.  The person who wrote the music has copyright of the song, but the person who plays the music has copyright of the performance.  The artist can't change the rights for any part of it that's Enterbrain's, an edited sprite can't be used in Unity for example.  But the artist has rights over the stuff that is theirs, the performance.  So they can say "no commercial use" for their edits.

 

[Drakemoore]

Thanks for that type of analogy. It makes a lot more sense to me now.