Hi,
I’m planning to provide all of my textures for free, but I’m struggling with choosing a license model for that.
The website is almost finished and everything works, but now I have to finish the legal texts and this is where I need some input.
Generally, I’d like everyone to be able to use the textures for their projects without thinking about restrictions, which sounds very much like CC-0.
But I want to prevent lazy business strategists from copying my textures into packages and redistributing them.
The textures could be protected from this by using a CC-BY licence (by requiring a link to the license), but that would also mean that my target audience is legally required to provide credits.
What I want is a license that allows the use of my textures in every project, that adds value over just repackaging the products.
Is it a legitimate approach to claim a CC-0 license but at the same time prohibit reselling?
Or would you recommend claiming a CC-BY license with optional attribution?
I could also try to recreate the slightly restricted CC-0 license in my terms and conditions page, but in this case, the casual users have a hard time to inform themselves about the permitted usage.
It would be nice to hear some experiences or opinions about that. Thank you.
CC-0 is good for making small asset drops where you don’t care about getting anything out of it for your self - not even attribution(credit given).
Now if you do however want attribution, say you are sharing an asset you have created for your portfolio, so you can gain recognition in the industry then CC-BY is definitely the one to go for over CC-0.
As for assets and their inclusion in third parties projects, it’s the Share-Alike CC-BY-SA that is the license that tends to be somewhat off-putting, to some anyways.
I guess you don’t have to use CC at all. You can probably use royalty free licence, something like this: https://www.textures.com/terms-of-use.html
For me personally the CC-BY is a nogo zone. If I want to use something commercially either I want it to be CC-0 or royalty free. I don’t want to present a render to my client with a long list with credits showing him that I didn’t make everything in my scene. When I show my work on the forum I gladly give the propper credit even if I don’t need to.
That’s a good point. I also prefer CC-0 because of the simplicity and I am happy when people who can do it easily give me credit.
It’s just the thought in the back my head about just remixing content and marketing it as one’s own. There’s that YouTube channel uploading only blender tutorials that were published under CC license. I really hate that.
@maraCZ I looked at the terms of textures.com a few times and integrated similar restrictions into my terms and conditions, as it’s pretty close to what I want. The problem is that it’s not something short and easy that can be written straight on the homepage. I would have preferred to summarize this using a well-known license.
I might just go with something like “published under a license similar to CC-0, see the terms for details” and linking this to the full terms and conditions.
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
So as long as the Author has given written permission/created an effective exemption from a certain effect of the license there is no issue. That could for an example include no attribution requirement in certain situations.
I don’t think there can be any additional terms with CC0 at least none that you could enforce by law. CC-BY is problematic. I do not use any assets that are CC-BY for the same reasons maraCZ mentioned - I cannot make visualizations for specific clients alone and present them with a list of credits, that makes no sense in interior design visualizations. I think this license is more restrictive than it seams at first. I share a few assets on Blendswap with CC0 license myself and I have been contacted a few times by people asking what credit they should give regardless of the license. I have even seen one of my assets in some short animation only after I saw my user name in the credits That was cool. But not something I asked for. I think CCO license is great and I think it’s the best way to share stuff if you truly wish to share it. It means you give up your legal rights to the work, however you do not give up your moral rights. You can still ask people to credit you if possible or mention you to others if they like your work - it’s just that they don’t have to by law. It’s nice. I think a nice request to advertise or give you credit if possible might even have better results when people are grateful to you as opposed to required to by law.
Authors can change the terms of the CC licenses however Creative Commons Requires you no longer call it the creative commons license if you do. That is indeed a caveat to what I had stated before.
personally i’m fully cc0 (whoever cares for who i am, will show respect otherwise - karma
“cc-by” or “cc-nc” is IMHO, useless…
… haven’t seen neither SONY nor Disney nor GOD ($) able to prevent occluded distribution… unless you got the means, the ability to scan the web and the world, want to hunt some small fish down (as big fish are really hard to catch, then you also have to bring it home old man )- prosecuting those who broke the contract requires civil (private) action, as it’s not a job of public prosecutors
more floss, less fuss
let’s just saturate the world with freedom, cc0 for the win… finally, “it’s not artistic to merely copy, while free can’t be stolen” take that Piccachoso
Sure, that means you have explicit written consent from your author to do so.
That is, you have an ad-hoc (almost always exclusive) license from an author.
That is you don’t need any CC or else pre made contract…
That was cool. But not something I asked for. I think CCO license is great and I think it’s the best way to share stuff if you truly wish to share it. It means you give up your legal rights to the work, however you do not give up your moral rights. You can still ask people to credit you if possible or mention you to others if they like your work - it’s just that they don’t have to by law. It’s nice. I think a nice request to advertise or give you credit if possible might even have better results when people are grateful to you as opposed to required to by law.
)- prosecuting those who broke the contract requires civil (private) action, as it’s not a job of public prosecutors