Do you accept Free Art Licensed art?

[Tuxide]

...the last time I checked, we don't live in a communist society where everything is shared out equally.

We do too, everyone gets paid the same.

[neko kyouran]

the amount of cookies I get paid to mod the forums is higher than that of the mord's, so nope, not communist. 

[Xillix Queen of Fools]

point to the open project that is besting us, go ahead, I dare you, I double dog dare you . . .

[Pizzasgood]

--> Linux
'course, that's not a game.  To most people anyways.

Were I contributing art, I wouldn't mind the license too much.  Because it would be art that I made for PS.  So long as nobody starts claiming they made my art, big deal.

I can see DigiEvolve's side.  He wants to make art that anybody can use.  That doesn't fly here, so he was polite about it and went his own way.  The PS team didn't do him an injustice.  They just don't accept that type of art.  I don't blame them:  Games should be unique.  Aside from which, there is plenty of free art on the web for people who just want placeholders or generic stuff to try their hand at making a game with.  Then when they get to the point where they know what their doing, they can get better art.  There's no reason they have to use PS's art.

If PS is doing an injustice using closed art, than K.A. Applegate is doing an injustice by not letting me use Animorphs #23 in the middle of my hypothetical novel.  And it isn't an injustice to the artists who can no longer use their work elsewhere:  They volunteered to do this, and knew what they were getting into.  Besides, they're artists.  They can make new art if they need it.  (Yes, I know that doesn't help if there's a sentimental attachment...)


Besides, ownership is an issue that occurs in many other areas too, and much worse:  If I happen to invent something while I'm a student at my university, depending on how much university help I had (which could be pretty subjective) it automatically gets split between myself and the uni, simply because they provided the lab, or fed me, or whatever else the lawyer wants to claim was a significant contribution...  Similar things happen with companies.


EDIT:  Don't think of it as PS not sharing its art.  Think of it as PS not accepting art that is being shared.  They don't want to just use stock images and clipart that's being used accross the web.  They want their own unique stuff.

EDIT 2:

I know programmers have had loner to digest these new ideas and i know artists are still stuck in the old world with acceptable but disruptive licenses that prevent people from sharing and creating and the project from befitting from those creations.

I'm both a programmer (mostly Linux) and an artist.  Art and code are not the same thing.  Similar in ways (both art forms, for example), but different.  Few artists would use another artist's work like programmers do, other than as some kind of extreme alteration to make an effect (turning the Mona Lisa into a cyborg, for example), and then only with permission if the artist is alive (unless it's an attack on the artist).  But I could never bring myself to say, use a Klyros in my own game.  I could do it as a place-holder, sure.  I did that with Pokemon sprites before too.  And scribbled smily faces.  But never for the finished product, nor even something intended to be seen by more than twelve people or so.

[DoctorMO]

I swear some people really need to find a better hobby than PS-bashing

True, although as much as I find planeshift to be disappointing to play, I find it much more encouraging that your community has managed to get as far as it has.

I can see DigiEvolve's side.  He wants to make art that anybody can use.  That doesn't fly here, so he was polite about it and went his own way.  The PS team didn't do him an injustice.  They just don't accept that type of art.  I don't blame them:  Games should be unique.  Aside from which, there is plenty of free art on the web for people who just want placeholders or generic stuff to try their hand at making a game with.  Then when they get to the point where they know what their doing, they can get better art.  There's no reason they have to use PS's art.

I'm not yet sold on the idea that a creative person would be unable or unwilling to use existing models, textures or sounds as tools, templates and starting points for creating new works which better fit the feeling of their own projects. I admit the art world doesn't have the same kind of well thought out license as the software world does, so perhaps there is a need for a game art license which prohibits use in the same style, genre; The idea that nothing can be shared and everyone is an enemy to the project does make me wonder what you think someone would do with your artworks that is so reprehensible. The lack of sharing says that the project lacks a degree of trust with it's users and the developer community as a whole; The idea that is takes the works from the original artists, gratis and without even the right to use their own artworks in other things is strong armed commissioning, this leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and it alarms me greatly that the community is able to allow (yet stand to be on the same webpage it is mentioned) such a way of organising copyrights of artists.

I'm both a programmer (mostly Linux) and an artist.  Art and code are not the same thing.  Similar in ways (both art forms, for example), but different.  Few artists would use another artist's work like programmers do, other than as some kind of extreme alteration to make an effect (turning the Mona Lisa into a cyborg, for example), and then only with permission if the artist is alive (unless it's an attack on the artist).  But I could never bring myself to say, use a Klyros in my own game.  I could do it as a place-holder, sure.  I did that with Pokemon sprites before too.  And scribbled smily faces.  But never for the finished product, nor even something intended to be seen by more than twelve people or so.

The style of an artwork is obviously important, but i think perhaps art ort to be thought of more like code, we will never stand for anyone claiming to have written a bit of code when they haven't; nor should we stand for it in the art world. I think perhaps a lot of people consider the use of art as using the entirity of an element without change, I don't believe any game or creative result would be at all noteworthy if the elements remained exactly the same. But at the moment we have no choice on the matter since even a radical derivative isn't permitted.

last time I checked, we don't live in a communist society

Oh you had to bring that up didn't you, Lovely society that all those capitalists have built. managed to completely miss the point of society and have run it into the ground with neglect. pity about the education for sharing and being co-operative instead of diversive. The idea that everyone isn't out to get you and that you don't have to think of a million ways to screw your friends over must be so novel. When your done with your selfish society experiment your welcome to join the real world.

[Kieve]

I'm not yet sold on the idea that a creative person would be unable or unwilling to use existing models, textures or sounds as tools, templates and starting points for creating new works which better fit the feeling of their own projects. I admit the art world doesn't have the same kind of well thought out license as the software world does, so perhaps there is a need for a game art license which prohibits use in the same style, genre; The idea that nothing can be shared and everyone is an enemy to the project does make me wonder what you think someone would do with your artworks that is so reprehensible. The lack of sharing says that the project lacks a degree of trust with it's users and the developer community as a whole; The idea that is takes the works from the original artists, gratis and without even the right to use their own artworks in other things is strong armed commissioning, this leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and it alarms me greatly that the community is able to allow (yet stand to be on the same webpage it is mentioned) such a way of organising copyrights of artists.

Ah yes. Strong-arm, you say? And so when some disaffected PS ex-dev decides they want to be vindictive and pull all their content (and some have created a LOT of content), the existing project would simply have to bend over and let weeks, months, or years' worth of progress walk out the door? What if I decided tomorrow I'm sick of PlaneShift and wanted to pack up my work with the enkidukai? Lots of unhappy akkaio & kore players, that's what. And this is a mild example - I've not been around long enough to make a big impact. Like it or not, the license is necessary - and I'm not gonna hedge words and say 'necessary evil' because there's nothing evil about it.
The licensing agreements are made crystal clear, up front, several times over. When you sign on, when you read the site, when you're entered into the database as a team-member. You don't start creating assets for this project without being fully aware your stuff has to be unique - and that it stays even if you go. And in case the 'necessary' aspect hasn't yet sunk in, stop a moment and think how far behind we'd all be here if we had to recreate assets lost to departing team members who packed a suitcase first. Duke Nukem Forever, anyone? And that's a funded, commercial software company, for (deity's) sake!
EDIT: I think UtM's previous insinuation of 'PornShift' was more than enough reason not to go sharing art assets. Don't tell me it wouldn't happen because you know it would.

The style of an artwork is obviously important, but i think perhaps art ort to be thought of more like code, we will never stand for anyone claiming to have written a bit of code when they haven't; nor should we stand for it in the art world. I think perhaps a lot of people consider the use of art as using the entirity of an element without change, I don't believe any game or creative result would be at all noteworthy if the elements remained exactly the same. But at the moment we have no choice on the matter since even a radical derivative isn't permitted.

Your idealism is noted, filed, and stuffed in the dustbin for safekeeping. Kthxbai.
(Don't even start with an 'it ought to be' - it ain't.)

Oh you had to bring that up didn't you, Lovely society that all those capitalists have built. managed to completely miss the point of society and have run it into the ground with neglect. pity about the education for sharing and being co-operative instead of diversive. The idea that everyone isn't out to get you and that you don't have to think of a million ways to screw your friends over must be so novel. When your done with your selfish society experiment your welcome to join the real world.

Communism/Capatalist comments seem far too frequent around here. You want to talk politics, the Plaza is that way. Feel free to start a thread, watch the flames burn quick and bright, and admire the shiny lock Neko puts on the end of it all. But hey, if you want to go join a commie society, I hear North Korea is pleasant this time of year...

[Under the moon]

Linux is fractured and spread out in hundreds of small variations across the web. Mac and Windows both beat it out by a long shot. That is what happens with open source. Not saying it is a bad thing, just that it is a thing that happens.

If the art and content was as open as the code in PS, there would be many variations by now, many servers, and no focus. If a person wanted to do something different, all they would have to do is copy the entire thing over and start a new server with their own changes. Far fewer people would be working on the main project. History, art, whatever could be changed as they saw fit. Something like that would kill the cohesive nature of the project. Someone could play a crappy made all PvP all the time version, and think that was what it was all about. The content is copyrighted not to protect the content, but to protect the project.

It is the reason Linux will never overtake the other OSes until a standard is made for it.

[Xillix Queen of Fools]

No not in the sense you mean, we do not.

People who give to planeshift should do so in the spirit of a donation to the ideal of a free game.

Content is owned by a not for profit charity whose goal is to produce a free game.

Not only Artists but Writers donate to PlaneShift, it is a gift with the hope of perpetuating a project worth keeping alive.

It is easy to appreciate contrary positions, but is not and will not be how we do things.

A good number of people would like our art assets open, of course. I think we can do better than carrying on a very old discussion that PS has always been very clear on. Art Settings and Rules belong to PS. Give something to us if you want.

If you dream of creating things to be reused infinitely and combined an permuted until they hold none of their original forms, do so. 

We encourage everyone to give only to those projects they deem worthwhile and to give art ONLY under licenses they agree to. There will never be the slightest element of coercion or chimera.

As someone who has personally dedicated much to PS for nothing in return (I mean short stories, poems, management, PR) I can say that I am very glad that my work for ps is not available for some random asshat to contort to their ill conceived schemes.

I enjoy creating content for PS because PS has given me much in return. The training and understanding I have gained here is more than worth the time I have put in. Everyday I am faced with dozens of complaints of all kinds from all quarters.

The worst part of this is people coming from outside not with a new idea, but a heavy handed morality. I am not trying to convince anyone that our method is better than those who disagree, it is however, hard to argue with PS's results.

If one wants to argue opening everything would speed development, then that party will easily overtake us starting from scratch, THAT would be cause for PS to reconsider its license, not conjecture based on a philosophy.

The idea that being an artist is engaging in the creation of a discreet object of art that the artist will carry with them everywhere is absurd to me. All art, writing, dance, visual etc, is context dependent. Art makes sense within the world it is created. If enkidukai appear in the next iterations of several projects ps loses something. The enkidukai are not just a cat looking humanoid. The original artist of the enkidukai is only an aspect of what the enkidukai race is today, with thousands of words wrapped around the image to give it context and meaning within planeshift.

The artist who gave us the enki willingly signed a document giving atomic blue the right to keep enkidukai enkidukai.

I wish all of you who want to make an ideal and open world all the best, but don't foist your ideology on PS. It is not as though I come and find you on the libre forums in the sky and try to show you why your schemes are less than Ideal, no reason to come here trying to change the fundamental principles of how we do things.

[neko kyouran]

Hmm.  good place for one of these then. 

this thread will be linked to any time a new thread is brought up that asks about the art license and that thread will be locked and then deleted after a period of 24+ hours.