Artwork use GPL license

All development of pixel art and graphics
Post Reply
Chathak
Newly Registered User
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:03 pm

Artwork use GPL license

Post by Chathak » Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:15 pm

Hi

I have searched the forum but have not found a satisfying answer. Is it possible to use artwork from the mana world for a commercial product? And do I have to release the source code of this product under the GPL license if I use this artwork?

Cheers
User avatar
Len
Knight
Knight
Posts: 1479
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Lurking in the shadows

Re: Artwork use GPL license

Post by Len » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:31 pm

Chathak wrote:Hi

I have searched the forum but have not found a satisfying answer. Is it possible to use artwork from the mana world for a commercial product
Yes, you can use GPLed artwork in a Commercial product.

*You must give credit to the original artist or artists
*If altered or added onto it must be marked as altered
*You must still credit the original artist even if altered
*You might also need to provide a link back to the original(as that's considered the source code for art) and GNU General Public License, not sure
*The work remains GLPed no matter what you do to it (so others can still use it for free outside of your product)
*If it has a tag the info must be present in some shape or form (It actually might not be GPL without as I believe the original artist must directly specify that it is GPL) "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
At the very least write something like the example they give
"You'll now hear the "Free Software Song" originally written and sung by RMS (http://www.stallman.org) remixed by Tompox (http://www.tompox.com). This remix is protected by the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org) and you can find more about such distribution of music on the web site http://gnuart.org...



* "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

Because of this statement, we can apply the GNU General Public License to any (©opyright-able) work provided we mention such application.
Hence the relevance of our choice.
* "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code(...)"

The GNU General Public License may be chosen to protect a Work of Art provided its source code is clearly defined. As an abstract notion, this could indeed seem inapropriate to mention the source code of a Work of Art.

"(...) any medium (...)" doesn't mean that :
o this source code consists of a description of a textual nature,
o this source code is of a visual nature,
o this source code could only be interpreted using one of the 5 Senses (or a unique device).
We can call "The Source Code of a Work of Art" any set of data which any other Artist (or specific kind of device available to other Artists) can interpret in order to re-generate the corresponding original Work of Art in order to modify it.

Also, in the GNU Philosophy, "Source Code" especially designates the data actually required to bring changes to the original Work.

As an example, a score or a small text are not enough to indubitably identify a specific version of a song.

Computer Scientists have dealt for a long time with languages such as Perl and Basic in which case the program is considered as its own source code. Such languages are classified as "Interpreted Languages" because they require another program (the "Interpreter") to be executed.
In this case, the source code recipient still has to be specialized in such code in order to understand properly what he intends to modify.

This is not different from Art in any way !

That's why we consider it as relevant to consider a Work of Art as its own source code.

This however doesn't forbid the inclusion of further documentation of the methods used to achieve the final result. This is strongly encouraged.

This especially apply to Conceptual Works in particular as properly understanding its conception is, in this case, mandatory.

Anyway, as a method can't be patented such description will remain associated to the distribution.

A GPL'ed Work of Art may be distributed as part of a "commercial" Catalog or Compilation provided its status along with The GNU General Public License are mentioned.


Sequential distribution, such as radio-broadcasting require a verbal or visual notification of such information before the broadcast. Mention of URLs along with a short description of the GNU/GNUArt philosophy is an acceptable fulfillment of this requirement.

For example :
"You'll now hear the "Free Software Song" originally written and sung by RMS (http://www.stallman.org) remixed by Tompox (http://www.tompox.com). This remix is protected by the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org) and you can find more about such distribution of music on the web site http://gnuart.org...

If you find that such mention is long and boring, we therefore wonder how you can bear the much longer FBI Warnings that appears at the beginning of most DVDs. Also, please consider that GPL'ed Art is Free for use.

Such credit is not only fair but also an invaluable retribution for its Author(s) and our organisation.

Of course, redistributing a Free Work of Art, requires the enclosed documents and references originally given by its Creator to remain part of the distribution, either further modification by another Artist or not. "
http://gnuart.org/english/gnugpl.html
Image
Pixel Battalion
Chathak
Newly Registered User
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Artwork use GPL license

Post by Chathak » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:31 am

Thank you very much for your clarification Len!
Post Reply