3D Art and Joint-Copyright PlaneShift License

[Milho]

I think you have to look at two different things.

The code and the Artwork.

A opensource game which is the base of other games (in best case originall improvements in worst case clones) is fine. Like you said it\'s easier to start for a newbie (though I think making a game can be hardly done by \"newbies\").
After all it\'s similar to using a engine, you have a base code and modify it to create something new.

Art is something different IMO. Not only that graphics like textures models etc make most of the impression of a game (not taking gameplay into account), Art is what makes the game.
Just imagine 10 different engines or games with the same levels, models textures! That is not only boring but it\'s almost the same game(-look).
So copying models for other games should be avoided. Art makes the game unique. Just count all 3d-rpgs with dwarfs and imagine they all looked the same. Where would the creative Art be in this \"Gameart\"?
Even modifing won\'t help. Art is something personal and should be done like this. Imagine taking a portrait painting, paint another face on the body because you only can draw faces....That\'s so lame

Maybe as an programer \"you\" (not pointing at somebody) want to make sure that you got models for your great programing but instead of stealing look for a good 3d-artist.

That\'s my opinion as a (wanna-B) 3d-Artist

[sekhmet]

I read trough the license but I\'m not sure everyone did, seeing from some brainless responses. So I know it\'s devided in 3 licenses. And I know the engine is GPL and I do agree 100% completely that you protect your artwork, god knows I would if I was in your circumstances. But the contributors could maybe get a choise of a 4th license that allows 3D art in the gpl spirit. I could even manage it if you wanted so you don\'t get to much extra work. I could start working on an extra town or plane that\'s based on this GPL artwork that could give people an idea how to get started on creating zones for a the Planeshift engine. All this stuff needs to be documented too, and it\'s also imperative  to add a good documented online tutorial to this. Think in the long run people, if PS kicks off it could be around for years and years to come. Stuff like this would attract more developers for sure.

I have talked with some friends of mine who are excellent coders(not those brainless Visual Basic peeps but the real kind) and they started of learning a lot of programming skills by working on a mud they coded on. They had a standard CircleMud with standard zones that they gradually changed and now you woudn\'t even recognize the place anymore, this is because they attracted good zone writers becuz they were good coders. These people are Senior Unix sys admins in a really big IT company. They are very much intrested in joining the PS team as coders and they could really do a lot for PS, but they would do this to later on when the code is mature to set up our own \"mud\". (code changes to PS spin-offs are public since they are GPL) They don\'t want to spend their valuable time designing a whole complete new world from scratch to get their server going online so that people could enjoy the features they added to the code. A good engine attracts zone developers. That\'s where people like I walk in, I have the time to design a zone but not a whole world on my own. And if I had some base models, basic bodyforms etc it would make the proces a lot faster I think. But maybe I should just start my own sourceforge project with the intension of creating freely usable 3D art, zones and documentation. But if this was done with approvel from PS and maybe an extra guiding hand of the PS team it would certenly help.

And finaly do you really belive that some idiot that just changed some names from the planeshift world would have much succes attracting people while people can play on the real PS server where their are tons of people? I really think not. And I really do agree that you keep part of your artwork under license 2 this should never change and it\'s a good model for future spin-offs, this protects your original work. But I\'m sure that some spin-offs might like to contribute one of their zones to the world community. I think theirs no greater praise for the developer if he sees that his zone is much used, it means it\'s good. This fact has already happend in the mud world, some zones were made public, some muds dyed out and they decided to release their zones publicly. Focus stuff like this.

I refuse to work under license 3 so if their can be no kind of compromise I\'m not intrested in joining the PS dev team and I am sure some people will agree with me, I\'m even sure of it just look at Kluger his response above.

[Kluger]

seeing from some brainless responses.

Namecalling doesn\'t help make your point.  :-)

If all these things were all available, the only thing this newbie programmer would have to do would be changing some names and things around and voila: he would get a PS clone. Results? All the originality we tried to put into our game is spoiled by these cheap clones: definitely not the best way to mantain ourselves and our community focused and happy with our game.

Your\'re not listening to me.

The fundamental is all that matters.  Fundamentally, graphics and code are the same.  Fundamentally, copyrights and patents are immoral and illogical.  (Read the GNU GPL.)  There are many projects that make their art freely available, and they\'re not suffering creative dilution.

The thing that makes Linux so great is that there are just heaps and mounts and piles of code, graphics, sound, and even thousands of games.  When one distribution borrows another entire distribution and just changes the name, people avoid it.  They know Red Hat, but who\'s this J.A.M.D.?  They don\'t wanna trust their systems to an unknown when they can get Red Hat for free.  But, J.A.M.D. has different software, no GNOME, a proper KDE, new games and software, and a better CD burning package.  It\'s true that they keep the basic packages like OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, but that\'s simply because they\'re good software.  Now, J.A.M.D. has a lot to offer, and they\'re not diluting Red Hat Linux or the Red Hat team.  They\'re in fact promoting Red Hat!  (Keep in mind that Red Hat can take hints from J.A.M.D., too.)

We shouldn\'t flatter ourselves.  The art in PS is not so amazingly good that no other project\'s art comes close.  The truth is that game developers, even newbies, would just pick and choose from among literally tens of thousands of software titles and make something original.  Even so, what makes Planeshift so popular is not its uniqueness.  Heck, my poop is unique every time.  Planeshift\'s strength is in its overall package.  You have a large development team actively improving the game, maintained servers, support team, support website, and, I\'m pleased to say, a wonderful group of players.

Many people have original concepts, but they can\'t draw worth crap...so they hire the artists who worked on Planeshift.  Whaddayaknow!  The art\'s gonna be similar!  Even the greatest artist in history, when making \"new\" art, use the same technique they used in their past art.

Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics.  Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models.  But movie makers use this software all the time.  It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little.  Here\'s another truth.  Many of the models are based on real world objects.  Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?

Imagine hypothetically that there are truckloads of free graphics and people keep adding their own art.  The overall pool of art will continue to improve!  Art will evolve better and better, which is something that hasn\'t happened throughout history!  And old styles of art will not have been lost.  Think of it as a good Borg...  Or, you can think of it as breeding cats, but that mights bring up totally different topics on a Planeshift forum.  :-?  (I like this tongue much better.  Perhaps the admins could add it to the list of smilies...\'course it doesn\'t show up right in CJK enabled browsers.)

It\'s true that less artist names will be known, but think of it this way.  How many modern artists can you think of now?  Artists would lose a little fame, but the art you see in games will actually be more original.  With a wider base, there will be less repetition.

And, to clarify, all the artists that are working on PS accepted the PS license, understood and appreciate it, since it grants that their artwork will be protected and used only for the purpose it was created for.

Right.  I\'m like Benjamin Netanyaho.  If I made an agreement, no matter how stupid, I\'ll stick to it.  The artists don\'t need to be ripped off.  However, what I recommend is that they extend the current license.  Maintain the license they have with their artists, but make it possible to submit GPL art.  (Also, of course, make it possible for artists to change their art to GPL if they like.)  This would please ppl like Sekhmet, because he can donate his own art, and this would please ppl like me, because over time, good GPL art can replace the current copyrighted art.

I don\'t wanna make anyone feel like chopped liver, but are any administrators listening in on this thread?  I mean, we can argue about the fundamentals all day, but even if we all end up agreeing, the PS team makes the final decision.

And Milho, don\'t feel like chopped liver because I didn\'t quote U.  :-?  (yup, that\'s a different tongue there)  It\'s just that it was easier to quote boonet...

[Djaggernaut]

I feel concerned, after all I\'ve got graphics in PS.

You know I\'ve been in a project where graphics were GPL too. You don\'t know how horrible it is to see a newb take the work of 15hours, change 3-5 things on it and says: it\'s much better like this. You end up with a totally different feeling, but you recognize this work.

Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics. Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models. But movie makers use this software all the time. It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little. Here\'s another truth. Many of the models are based on real world objects. Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?

Create model with just a few characteristics? Not any modeler can do that (you probably mean Poser, but I don\'t call that a modeler soft and noone use that for a game.) Same in cinema, not that kind of software.
I\'m sorry but I think it\'s stupid to say you can base your art on something else than reality (what is an object not based on real world?).
All art are based on real feeling, objects, environement etc... or you\'re not human


Sekhmet: don\'t you think what you say is simply spreading the whole effort we put in PS. You know, some days I\'m working 10 hours on PS models to contribute to it and bring it to life like other PS devs. Now you want to come and start something else in parallel. Even if it\'s PS related it\'s not PS, you could be far more useful at helping now the team.
You just want to come at a time where everything will be done. No, it\'s too easy. Come now, help us.

I\'m not sure if you understand that the only motivation we have is this community, we work for players, because every time I see someone happy of PS, I just retake my modeling software and keep working.
And now, you think we\'ll like to spread our graphics? You just see 2 posts from the Lead artist of PS and you don\'t know who is he... He made most of the city you\'re playing in. So you see, it\'s easy to get lost.

Anyway, PS license is like that...

[boonet]

The fundamental is all that matters. Fundamentally, graphics and code are the same.

This sounds a pretty naive idea.

Fundamentally, copyrights and patents are immoral and illogical.

ROFL

Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics. Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models. But movie makers use this software all the time. It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little. Here\'s another truth. Many of the models are based on real world objects. Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?

LOL sorry, but... do you have idea of what you are saying? This is just pointless.

I don\'t wanna make anyone feel like chopped liver, but are any administrators listening in on this thread? I mean, we can argue about the fundamentals all day, but even if we all end up agreeing, the PS team makes the final decision.

Ahem... I am the graphics department leader of Planeshift.

[chrischoo]

From what I understand, part of the reason why Planeshift wants to maintain control over the artwork is to prevent other teams from branching Planeshift. When reading their objectives carefully (a few months back), I noticed that their main concern is that Planeshift remains the central Open Source 3D MMORPG for the forseeable future although it is not explicitly stated.

The reasons why they seem to want to prevent against competing branches is mostly because in this particular scenario, combining resources would bring about greater success than teams branching out and doing their own thing. An MMORPG is no small feat, and for it to be accomplished requires a large team of dedicated developers working together and not against each other.

There have been several high profile open source projects that have met with difficulties due to branching - The most noteworthy one recently would be the JBoss group. Of course, you might think that situations such as these are the exception rather than the norm, and quote all the thousands of open source projects that exist, many of which are good projects in their own right even in the light of branches (1 example might be the no. of distros of Linux)

Unfortunately as much as there is choice in the terms of software used, a consolidated effort may in fact be a better option, and in this case perhaps it is a fundamental decision to ensure that Planeshift remains at the centre of Open Source development for MMORPGs. There are of course pros and cons, but I think the team believed (I\'m not one of them so I can\'t say for sure) that offshoots of Planeshift will lower the chances of success against the big guys.

The licences involved include the GPL and the Planeshift licences, so I think that a good balance has been struck so as to encourage the growth of the server and client cores at least. Artwork is a touchy issue, and I think the copyrights approach works here because it is perhaps more sensitive and has some visual impact.

Seeing your source code in someone else\'s game does not have as much an impact as if you were to see your player model there instead. Programmers might disagree here of course but visually, the public, everybody, knows that the model has been copied. The licence for artwork presents a 2-way protection where artists are ensured that their work is not used anywhere else and Planeshift as a whole is protected from unfettered use of their artwork on other engines.

It might seem stifling as it appears to be an attempt to prevent competition from other open source groups, but I think should good GPLed artwork exist then the Planeshift team may consider a GPLed art section as well, perhaps as tools and resources for a mod if things turn out right eventually.

As a 3D MMORPG though, the artwork is what makes Planeshift unique, hence it has the greatest impact on players and needs to be protected the most. Perhaps this reason alone is sufficient to argue for why artwork should be used for Planeshift only. A rouge artist could very well give away *all* his models and dilute the Planeshift experience significantly, ruining the project entirely.

Also, sharing source code is different from sharing artwork. Programs are fundamentally improvements or rewrites of older ones, hence sharing source code is *good* for the community because programs get better. The same can\'t be said about artwork, since sharing your artwork and allowing it to be *used* by others is not beneficial to anybody (except the dolt who stole it) and doesn\'t improve the world of art a single bit.

[Kluger]

You\'re still not listening to me.  (Djaggernaut, I mean.)  I\'m talking about the current art staying in the hands of the artists.  I\'m not talking about taking your hours of work and cannibalizing it.

However, some people would like to donate their own original work under GPL.  When you have ten people each spending ten hours and each making one drawing, you end up with ten distinct art forms.  But if you have ten people each spending one hour per drawing and working on ten drawings, you have a much richer art in each drawing.  Of course, that has always been difficult to do on canvas, but on the computer it can come naturally.

I can\'t draw anything well, but I can come up with pretty geometric designs.  If the art were GPL, I could add my geometric designs to a character\'s clothing.  And it quite possibly really could be better.

I know what you mean, though.  When you\'ve spent hours and hours to perfect something, to get it exactly how you want it, and you don\'t keep it to yourself but show it to everyone else (out of your own kindness), the last thing you want to hear is, \"The nose is all wrong.\"

The ironic truth is that only the very best art is taken and modified.  It\'s a form of flattery that is so often misunderstood.  If I had a 3D model that looked like a 3 year old child drew it, I would not be interested in, say, fixing the nose or adding pretty fractal designs.  I would not consider the art to be up to my level.

It takes a little bit to get used to, but once you do, having people edit your graphics means that they accept it as good quality and are willing to take the time to think about it.  (Nobody bases a Linux distribution on a crappy one, they base their distributions on good ones, like Red Hat.)

Nevertheless, Planeshift (and therefore everyone who uses Planeshift) made an agreement with the artists, and I don\'t want to break the agreement.  If you want to keep your art, then keep it.  We\'re still very honored to see it in Planeshift!

By the way, just out of curiosity, can you point out some of your art?  ?_?

[Kluger]

Re:Fundamentally, graphics and code are the same.

This sounds a pretty naive idea.

Why?

RE:Fundamentally, copyrights and patents are immoral and illogical.

ROFL

Don\'t take my word for it.  Get it straight from the gnu\'s mouth.  Quotes from gnu.org (of which Planeshift subscribes):

\"Copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users\' natural right to copy.\"

\"As ethical beings, we must not favor the infliction of hardship and injustice on others on the grounds that it will drive them to join our cause.\"

\"So the ethical issues of free software, the issues of a user\'s right to copy and modify software, are the same as such questions for other kinds of published information. ... I\'m talking about the rights you should have if you get copies of published things where there\'s no attempt to keep them secret.\"

\"But the context is changing, and that has to change our ethical evaluation of copyright. Now the basic principles of ethics are not changed by advances in technology; they\'re too fundamental to be touched by such contingencies. But our decision about any specific question is a matter of the consequences of the alternatives available, and the consequences of a given choice may change when the context changes. That is what is happening in the area of copyright law because the age of the printing press is coming to an end, giving way gradually to the age of the computer networks. \"

\"The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him to.\"

\"And therefore copyright didn\'t really take any freedom away from the reading public. There wasn\'t anything that a book purchaser could do that was forbidden by copyright. But this isn\'t true for computer programs. It\'s also not true for tape cassettes.\"

\"Right now we are in a period where the situation that made copyright harmless and acceptable is changing to a situation where copyright will become destructive and intolerable.\"

\"If one can judge copyright to be harmful even on narrow economic terms, disregarding the ethical wrong of stopping people from sharing, it can only be more harmful once we consider the ethics as well.\"

\"The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software.\"

\"We firmly disagree: software should be free.\"

\"The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be justified for the public\'s sake. \"

\"Free Software is an ethical movement that establishes the constructive
alternative to corporate globalization\"

While it\'s true that the FSF says you need to copyright your work, they refer to a method they call \"copyleft\": Copyright your product so that nobody else can copyright and steal it from you.

LOL sorry, but... do you have idea of what you are saying? This is just pointless.

sorry, but... yes I do.  I used to sell it.  (I do, after all, have a nearly 7 yr old computer company, and four of my customers are \"amateur\" film editors.)  I think I\'m wrong about the name of the program, though.  Now that I think about it, I think it was an Adobe Premier plugin...even though it was just a plugin, it sold for thousands of dollars.  In order to sell the package, after the 15 minute tutorial, I made an ant model which walked, ran, sat, waved, jumped, swam, flew, and even negotiated a ladder...in minutes.  It was around 30k polys, too.  I didn\'t have a template to work from, just what I remember from biology class.

(I can think of one sarcastic response to my own statement: \"If a left-brained guy like yourself can make a realitic 3D model, then why are we slaving for months and years?\"  Why indeed.  The simple answer is that it would cost about $6,000 per user, but the more complex answer is that the company doesn\'t believe in free software.  Besides that, considering how complex you want to get, creative while not bloating with polys, this software isn\'t for you.)

Ahem... I am the graphics department leader of Planeshift.

*looks at name*  oh yeah!    in that case, this is time well spent...

[Milho]

Just reading through. A argument for GPL Models seems to be that it gives other projects a start to work with something.

It\'s not that you can\'t access the PS models. I know form Half-Life (cause I was working in a MOD) that it helps alot to take the original models, recompile them edit them and see how people did it. But after all you want to make your own thing. I don\'t no if these pro-GPL people are only coders or modelers but you should know making a model is a hard job but not imposibble. Imagine there are even some people (like the PS Modeling Crew) who are willing to create them. And if you start a project you can probably find people like those too! So why copying the models? That\'s so lame, unoriginal. You can still view the models \"recompile\" them load in your 3d program analyse the mesh whatever but after all do your own thing. It\'s not that hard. So why would I need to \"steal\" the models??

I can understand the crews decision on the art and totally agree.

[Niber]

Originally posted by boonet

Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics. Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models. But movie makers use this software all the time. It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little. Here\'s another truth. Many of the models are based on real world objects. Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?

LOL sorry, but... do you have idea of what you are saying? This is just pointless.

Kluger is telling the truth (from a n00bish angle
The app is XSI Softimage (Almost all character modeler for movie use it) but those few clicks are waaay to many polygons for games,,.

[Kluger]

I don\'t think that\'s the program, but the point is still the same.  :-?  what really surprised me is how little work is really involved in creating the characters in those new Pixar-ish movies.  I mean, just make a model, let it know what are eyes, corners of the mouth, etc., and it can automate speaking, facial expressions, and even movements recorded from a human model...

wow, this forum is way more active than I thought!

[boonet]

Niber, sorry, but you\'re totally wrong. Where did you get the idea that a) almost all movie character modelers use XSI b) just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?
The movie industry uses a very wide toolset, and XSI is only one of the many options. I will not mention the fact that Lightwave, Maya and even the old MAX are all part of the everyday movie business (not to mention some others), and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.

Kluger: you don\'t really realize how much work is behind those characters... it\'s not easy and quick as you depict it. Actually, to get to the correct results, teams of many artists all work together for a long time on all the different aspects of a character.

[Kluger]

Niber, sorry, but you\'re totally wrong. Where did you get the idea that a) almost all movie character modelers use XSI b) just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?
The movie industry uses a very wide toolset, and XSI is only one of the many options. I will not mention the fact that Lightwave, Maya and even the old MAX are all part of the everyday movie business (not to mention some others), and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.

\"Where did you get the idea that ... just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?\"

\"and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.\"

you see the confusion?  I\'m saying the same thing.  (continued below)

Kluger: you don\'t really realize how much work is behind those characters... it\'s not easy and quick as you depict it. Actually, to get to the correct results, teams of many artists all work together for a long time on all the different aspects of a character.

you don\'t understand me.  once they make a sketch, decide the personality, come up with a story and dialog, and determine all the characteristic, the amount of work on the computer is minimal.  most of the work during design consists of getting it verified with the lead designer.  as soon as they make the character, it takes about as much work to make a one minute ad as it does to make a 6 hour trilogy.  look at Beast Wars, for example, and that\'s ooold..

now I\'m not saying that the movie makers are being overpaid.  the whole movie production is immense.  hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars can be spent on feeding people on set.  being an executive producer is an understandably maddening process...

I\'d like to know, though, what is Planeshift\'s position?  will you consider accepting GPL/public domain graphics/music, even on a per-item approval basis?

[boonet]

Kluger, you are still underestimating the computer work needed for this kind of work, believe me. This is my real life job, so I know how many hours, days and weeks are needed to get some results. I will not dig into the infinite number of steps you are not considering, but believe me: it\'s not such a trivial thing.
About accepting GPL/public domain graphics/music, I think this is quite out of discussion: we decided from the beginning that all of PS had to be original work realized for PS and subject to its restrictive artwork license, and we absolutely don\'t think about changing this policy, since we strongly believe in its value.

[Djaggernaut]

Dear Kluger,

- No, a character in a movie is not made in two clicks. It takes a lot of time since you start with a box and model from it (one of the several techniques).

- No the Softimage is not use for all movies, and No, it doesn\'t able to create a char.

-No it\'s not an Adobe premiere plugin, if you speak about After-effect it\'s for post-production and has nothing to do with 3D.

-No Pixar characters are not the same. If you\'re so good, please make a model, animate it, put it into Planeshift. It tooks hours and hours for them to create a character.

Concerning my graphics, what? it\'s a test? You want to be sure I\'m not a newbie in gfx world?
Sorry I don\'t answer to that, just know it\'s some skinning work and now models I can\'t speak about.
Don\'t be so affirmative when you don\'t know something, please.
Thank you.