It would be appreciated if one of the mods could respond to Yasako’s post.
I read through Gamma’s write-up on the f2u and f2e labels but I’m still unclear for three section:
Use of assets for non FE projects
Eg: if a person used the repo’s assets for a pokemon romhack
Use of assets for ai training
Eg: if a person used an artist’s work to train their ai
Use of assets for commercial use
Eg: if a person is earning money from the use of f2u/f2e assets
I think num. 2 is espically important for many artists. I dont want to this thread to go into the technical semantics of ai training but a lot of artists, including me, are simply not comfortable with their work being used in a database. And i dont want the f2u/f2e label to ever be considered a greenlight for something like that.
Generally speaking, F2E means that anything goes. But some artists, like Gamma himself, opose to their work being used for generative AI. So it’s best to ask first.
Non FE projects should be OK, because they are still a ROM-hack/Fan game. I don’t think anyone would be opposed to it.
But comercial projects is a rotund no for everything. Because that would be profiting off of someone else’s free work. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that would be illegal in many places.
I think it’s really the wrong approach to be arguing whether splicing commissions should be allowed or not, that should be strictly between the artist and commissioner.
It’s up to the artist to decide whether to splice or not as well as to admit whether they did so or not. For transparency, naturally it’s better to be upfront about it if you do, and worse if you say it’s custom when splicing is clearly noticeable.
If the commissioner decides to go through it, despite being aware that it’s spliced, I don’t think this concerns other people either.
People can frown upon those if they want to, but it would only become a matter of rules if the portraits used for splicing were explicitly not F2E.
And we could get philosophical about it. Who’s to say that this hasn’t been happening even in custom commissions, but it was just edited over? What is “clearly” spliced specifically? How would that be enforced?
If the question is for the repo and not the site mods, I assume you’re suggesting a “free to edit for non-profit only” tag?
I see no reason why they can’t? it’ll just look bad in that context
this has to do with a product IE do not use f2u/f2e stuff in something that someone will have to pay for, like if dark deity was just ripping from the repo or something
paying an artist to make something is just a commission, if the payer wants to make it free to use after the fact, they can do that, or they can not have it accessible. this is different from charging people to use an already established/completed product
hold on, ignore this; i misread the situation entirely.
We’ll get back to you on the subject of F2E splices. I suspect the answer will be “yes” (we’ve been using CC-BY-SA as a guideline for what the term means).
When it comes to the use of “F2U” or “F2E”-labeled assets in commercial works, FEU makes no guarantee on the commercial licensing status of any work hosted on this website or elsewhere. Those terms are for internal use only; FEU is not an appropriate venue to litigate matters of actual, money-involved copyright infringement (as would be the case in a commercial venture). In other words, I wouldn’t recommend it.
Yes, it doesn’t concern me. For all I know, maybe alice got direct permission from garytop to use his work in the comm, i dont know and i dont care.
The reason I’m asking is literally just because of my own work. I want to know exactly how to label it. Personally, I do not want my work to ever be used in a commercial setting and thus, I’m discouraged from using the f2e label because i’ve seen other people do this.
The problem is that in this case, it would the artist, the commissioner AND the artist who made the f2e asset in the first place.
I second this, because on my experience I do touchup commissions and sometimes I had to edit F2E portraits. In the end, it’s all between the artist and the commissioner.
But then back again at this…
I can’t really say, but if Alice already told the commissioner about the spliced part; then it’s fine. Otherwise then… well. She can sort it out herself.
BUT even then, using splices as it is for a commission? That’s a low blow.
I don’t really understand. Isn’t f2e suppose to be for community use regardless of what the specific use if for? I understand specifically for AI training that artists wouldn’t want to feed into that but comercial use? I won’t talk about portraits because that isn’t my domain but in animations many comms are reskins or + weapons.
I’d stand that if a portrait is f2e it should be spliceable for comms as well as more f2e assets. Unless of course the specific artist states that that particular portait shouldn’t be used in a specific way.
Surely, you understand why using other people’s work for a commission might be problematic? This whole discussion boils down to money. People are fine with their f2e work being in non-profit fangames and art, but when monetary transactions start happening, it becomes a legality shit show
Like cam said, f2e is an internal term while commissions are external thus, are subjected to external commercial licensing laws.
The problem is that effectively, none of us can really do anything about that. Nobody is going to court to fight for a FE art commission. That’s why we need to discuss whether or not this stuff is allowed on the site. If we dont, then the site is gonna become less and less conducive for artists.
Basically, we need to get more specific on terms like this so NO artist feels that their work was stolen or the site’s terms werent clear enough or whatever
I will agree that battle anims are even more convoluted than portraits. There is a need for alt weapons or minor edits like “can you make the salvaged cavaliers bald” and stuff like that. Also, there’s only a handful of battle anim artists who can make a completely full custom anim.
For battle anims, it’s important to note that the umbrella notion of “all repo anims are f2e” was started by gamma or klok. i dont really know who or why this was done but since this is the case, it’s especially important to have a site-wide ruleset instead of just “i stand by this” or “i dont stand by this”.
You’re probably right that a standradized rule for this should be put up. I largely do animations so my sympaties are largely influenced by that.
I’m more so concerned about up and coming artists that want to start comm work here. And I understand that’s a two way street ofc, senior artist who have done a lot of f2e mugs concern about it being used in mugs they don’t want or for financial purposes deserved to be heard as well, it’s not a simple matter. I would imagine that up an coming artist might still rely on splicing more than senior artist, in which case It’d be harder for those artist to start doing comms because they’ll need to work to the level of custom work.
There’s also a logistic concern like:
-how big of an edit counts as stealing, like if I use 10% of a repo mug does that count, say a headband or a hair part or something
-how big of a share should the original spliced artist get
-What if the artist is out and no longer active in the feu community and as such very hard to contact
I would actually say battle anims are simpler. You’re right that the notion that all anims are f2e might be started by some people but I’d say it has done a lot of good for animation making. again this doesn’t mean It should be applied to portraits ofc. But the beurocracy is certainly easier and faster than if you wanted to splice a repo portrait.
Anyways I’m not trying to argue for one side but there’s definitely certain points that needs to be addressed if such ruleset were to be stated in the cite
Yeah… when I said “commercial projects” I meant more as in, selling a full game that is using F2U assets from this community. I feel that would be dishonest. Because it’s a far larger influx of money.
But commissions are a different thing. The way I see it. A comission is paying someone to do something you don’t have the ability to do yourself. In this case, a Fire Emblem portrait. And the Cordelia portrait is F2E, so at the time, I didn’t think much of it.
And I am always upfront and honest about how I do splices and not full customs. That’s why I charge less compared to other people. Sure, some people have said that my stuff doesn’t LOOK like Splices, and I am flattered for that, but I tell everyone I splice.
Anyhow. I feel like this whole thing is getting out of hand. I messaged Garytop to ask if he is opposed to his stuff being used for commissions. And if he wants, I can send him half of what I got paid (about 12.5 bucks).
I just want to set things right, and stay out of drama.
Just replying in here to so Alice isn’t the only one with my response on this particular instance. This is the stance in regards to my own work and I’ll update a disclaimer in my gallery later.
I’m personally not fussed with this in this instance. You can keep your full commission fee. I don’t draw to earn money, but more for fun and if people can use the art I draw to improve themselves or produce their desired hack,etc that is fine. However for the sake of transparency I would still like for credit to be given so people are aware that the entirety of the work has used assets from whomever you are borrowing.
I will say though if someone did just sell the entirety of my art without enough deviation or alteration, then I would be a bit more annoyed because the art I mark as F2E is F2E and not for resale.
EDIT UPDATE: This stance only applies to my F2E works, anything not listed to F2E is not fair game for anything.
You would need to upload your animation files separately; I don’t think anyone has any interest in joining your server, downloading the game, and ripping the animation themselves to upload.
