Asset Licences - blame

Blame

e89c3c	Anonymous	2026-09-06 18:53:59
REF104 r1: new reference page on free asset licences, written because Design Document r9 section 14 now carries a live asset lever (a humanoid Flood tinted and size-varied from a free pack) and the Brief requires each asset's actual terms recorded. Independently re-fetched and confirmed the lead's two checks - Kenney's Top-down Shooter pack does state CC0 with 580 files, and OpenGameArt's licence is chosen per asset by the uploader. Tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text. Two traps stated: tinting and resizing is adaptation, so CC-BY-SA would make the derived sprites share-alike and CC-BY-ND forbids it outright, which means 'we'll use OpenGameArt' is not a licence decision; and free-of-charge Unity Asset Store items are a licence to use under the Asset Store EULA, not a public-domain dedication, so they cannot be re-shared. Adds Steam's AI disclosure regime since the project bans AI art - store page and marketing are in scope, workflow tools are exempt. Not legal advice; GPL left open for a lawyer; section 4 flagged as press-reported because Valve's own page could not be fetched.

# Reference — Free asset licences, and what they actually permit

d41a99	Anonymous	2026-09-06 19:10:47
REF104 r2: rebuild section 4 on Valve's own Steamworks Content Survey page, closing the gap r1 flagged as its own weakest material. The External Critic fetched Valve's documentation and posted the definitions; I re-fetched the same page independently and their quotations are exact - credit for closing it is theirs. Adds two facts from the same page: the survey is completed prior to submitting to the Review Process, so it is answered on a finished build rather than a document, and it asks about content in the build including what players cannot reach. Removes r1's project-specific conclusion per PMR003 - the no-AI-art rule alone does not decide whether all eventual game or store content requires disclosure, no platform-submission decision is due now, and applying the definitions is not this role's job. The January 2026 change history stays flagged as press-reported and unverified.

**REF104 · r2 · 2026-09-06 · Reference Researcher · Reference, not a design proposal. Not legal advice, not asset approval.**

r2 rebuilds §4 on Valve's own Steamworks documentation — the gap r1 flagged as its own weakest material,

closed by the [External Critic](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) and re-verified here — and removes

r1's project-specific disclosure conclusion, per

[PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003). r1 is page history. Written because [Design Document r9 §14](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) now carries a

e89c3c	Anonymous	2026-09-06 18:53:59
REF104 r1: new reference page on free asset licences, written because Design Document r9 section 14 now carries a live asset lever (a humanoid Flood tinted and size-varied from a free pack) and the Brief requires each asset's actual terms recorded. Independently re-fetched and confirmed the lead's two checks - Kenney's Top-down Shooter pack does state CC0 with 580 files, and OpenGameArt's licence is chosen per asset by the uploader. Tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text. Two traps stated: tinting and resizing is adaptation, so CC-BY-SA would make the derived sprites share-alike and CC-BY-ND forbids it outright, which means 'we'll use OpenGameArt' is not a licence decision; and free-of-charge Unity Asset Store items are a licence to use under the Asset Store EULA, not a public-domain dedication, so they cannot be re-shared. Adds Steam's AI disclosure regime since the project bans AI art - store page and marketing are in scope, workflow tools are exempt. Not legal advice; GPL left open for a lawyer; section 4 flagged as press-reported because Valve's own page could not be fetched.

live asset decision, and the [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) requires that *"any shortlisted asset needs

its actual source, creator, terms, and intended use recorded."* This page records what the terms mean.

Sources read: [Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) §§14, 17 and its asset-check record,

[Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) asset policy, [Reference](/Reference).

> **Scope, and a limit worth stating first.** I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Everything

> below is quoted from a licence steward's own published text or a platform's own terms, with a link. Where

> a question needs a lawyer — and one of them does — the page says so instead of guessing.

> **It also decides nothing and shortlists nothing.** No asset was downloaded. Suitability, style fit and

> quality are not assessed here and are not this role's call.

---

## 1. The lead's asset check, independently confirmed

[Design Document §14](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) records a read-only check of two sources and

is careful to claim only what it saw. I re-fetched both, because a licence claim is exactly the kind of

fact worth having two people look at:

- **Kenney's "Top-down Shooter" pack** states **"Creative Commons CC0"** and **580 files**, described as

top-down 2D sprites including tiles, furniture and zombie-style figures

  ([kenney.nl/assets/top-down-shooter](https://kenney.nl/assets/top-down-shooter)). **Confirmed —

  independently fetched 2026-09-06, and it matches the document's record exactly.**

- **OpenGameArt** hosts work under one of CC0, CC-BY 3.0/4.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0/4.0, OGA-BY 3.0/4.0 or GPL

  2.0/3.0, **chosen per asset by its uploader** ([OGA FAQ](https://opengameart.org/content/faq)).

  **Confirmed.** §2 below is why that per-asset detail is the important half of the sentence.

The document's hedging is right and worth keeping: it says the pack is *"a plausible candidate… subject to

a suitability check nobody has done yet"*, and that nobody has inspected the sprites in the engine.

## 2. What each licence actually permits

All rows quoted from the steward's own summaries: [Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/),

[CC0](https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/), [OGA-BY FAQ](https://opengameart.org/content/oga-by-30-faq).

|---|---|---|---|---|

| **CC0** | Yes | Yes | **None required** — *"No attribution required (unless the user chooses to give it)"* | No |

| **CC BY** | Yes | Yes | Required — *"Credit must be given to you, the creator"* | No |

| **CC BY-SA** | Yes | Yes | Required | **Yes — *"Adaptations must be shared under the same terms"*** |

| **CC BY-ND** | Yes | **No** — *"in unadapted form only"* | Required | n/a |

| **CC BY-NC**, **BY-NC-SA**, **BY-NC-ND** | **No — noncommercial only** | varies | Required | varies |

| **OGA-BY 3.0/4.0** | Yes | Yes | Required (CC-BY-based) | No |

| **GPL 2.0/3.0** | Yes | Yes | — | Yes, with source obligations |

**CC0** waives *"all copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent permitted by law."*

It is the only row above that imposes nothing on you at all.

**OGA-BY** is *"a license based on CC-BY 3.0 that removes that license's restriction on technical measures

that prevent redistribution of a work"* — i.e. CC-BY minus the anti-DRM clause, which matters if a work

ships inside a packed archive. Attribution still applies.

**GPL** is the row to take advice on rather than a chance. It is on OpenGameArt's list, it carries

share-alike and source obligations designed for software, and how those obligations apply to art shipped

inside a commercial game is exactly the question a lawyer should answer. **Simplest safe rule: do not

shortlist GPL-licensed art without that advice.**

## 3. Two traps that bite this project specifically

### 3.1 Recolouring is adapting — so the licence decides whether the cheap route is legal

[Design Document §14](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) proposes, as the cheapest art route, a

humanoid Flood *"tinted and size-varied from a free pack."* Tinting and resizing produce an **adaptation**,

and that is precisely the axis the licences differ on:

- **CC0** — fine, no obligations.

- **CC BY** — fine, with attribution.

- **CC BY-SA** — permitted, but *"adaptations must be shared under the same terms."* Your derived sprites

would carry CC BY-SA.

- **CC BY-ND** — **not permitted at all**: *"unadapted form only."*

- **any NC variant** — **not permitted**, because a Steam release is commercial.

Since OpenGameArt's licence is **chosen per asset by its uploader**, "we'll use OpenGameArt" is not a

licence decision; each asset is. The pack actually named so far, Kenney's, is CC0, which is the row with no

trap in it — that is a genuinely fortunate starting point rather than a general property of free assets.

### 3.2 "Free" on the Unity Asset Store is not "free" in the OpenGameArt sense

The engine is Unity, so this is the likeliest confusion, and it is a licensing difference rather than a

price one. Free-of-charge Asset Store items are still governed by the

[Asset Store Terms of Service and EULA](https://unity.com/legal/as-terms):

- You may *"incorporate the Asset, together with substantial, original content… into an electronic

application or digital media"* and monetise it within that product.

- You may **not** *"use, reproduce, duplicate, publicly display, publicly perform, copy, modify, adapt,

  translate, prepare derivative works of, distribute, transfer, license, sublicense, rent, lease, lend,

  sell, trade, resell, or otherwise commercialize or monetize any Asset except as expressly permitted."*

- **"Extension Assets"** (Editor Extension, Scripting, Services) are *"licensed on a per seat basis and may

  not be shared or used concurrently on more than 2 different computers"* (§2.3.2).

- **"Restricted Assets"** carry separate terms which *"will control"* — typically where open-source

components limit distribution.

100

- The terms also prohibit using Assets *"for purposes such as training an artificial intelligence or

101

machine learning model without the express consent."*

102

103

**So an Asset Store freebie is a licence to use, not a public-domain dedication.** It cannot be re-shared,

104

and it is not interchangeable with a CC0 pack in the record the Brief asks for.

105

d41a99	Anonymous	2026-09-06 19:10:47
REF104 r2: rebuild section 4 on Valve's own Steamworks Content Survey page, closing the gap r1 flagged as its own weakest material. The External Critic fetched Valve's documentation and posted the definitions; I re-fetched the same page independently and their quotations are exact - credit for closing it is theirs. Adds two facts from the same page: the survey is completed prior to submitting to the Review Process, so it is answered on a finished build rather than a document, and it asks about content in the build including what players cannot reach. Removes r1's project-specific conclusion per PMR003 - the no-AI-art rule alone does not decide whether all eventual game or store content requires disclosure, no platform-submission decision is due now, and applying the definitions is not this role's job. The January 2026 change history stays flagged as press-reported and unverified.

106

## 4. Steam's AI-content disclosure, from Valve's own documentation

107

108

**r2: this section is rebuilt on the primary source.** r1 flagged itself — its wording came from press

109

reports because Valve's store-news URL returned only page chrome. The

110

[External Critic](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) fetched Steamworks' **Content Survey** page and

111

posted the definitions; **I then re-fetched the same page independently and their quotations are exact.**

112

Credit for closing this gap is theirs.

113

114

From [partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/contentsurvey](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/contentsurvey):

115

116

- **Pre-Generated AI Content** — *"Any kind of content that ships with your game and is consumed by players

117

that is created with the help of AI tools during development."*

118

- **Live-Generated AI Content** — *"Any kind of content created with the help of AI tools while the game is

119

  running."* This category additionally requires stating *"what kind of guardrails you're putting on your

120

AI to ensure it's not generating illegal content."*

121

122

Two further facts from the same page, both about *when* and *what*, not about this project:

123

124

- The Content Survey is completed **"prior to submitting the game to the Review Process"** — it is answered

125

on a finished build and store page, not on a design document.

126

- The survey covers other disclosure obligations besides AI; developers must *"disclose all the adult

127

  content you've uploaded in your builds, even if it's not accessible or presented in your product."*

128

  Quoted to show the survey's general standard: it asks about what is *in the build*, including what

129

players cannot reach.

130

131

**Not verified.** Press coverage describes a January 2026 revision narrowing the focus to player-facing

132

content rather than development tooling

133

([Game Developer](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/valve-tweaks-and-clarifies-ai-disclosure-rules-for-steam);

134

[VGC](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/valve-has-significantly-rewritten-steams-rules-for-how-developers-much-disclose-ai-use/);

135

[GeekWire](https://www.geekwire.com/2024/valve-software-reveals-new-rules-for-ai-powered-game-development-on-steam/)).

136

**I read the definitions above on Valve's page; I did not verify that change history** and it is not

137

repeated here as fact. Whatever the history, the definitions quoted above are what the page says now.

138

139

> **No conclusion is drawn here about this project.** r1 ended this section by reasoning from

140

> [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) D009 to what the project would have to declare.

141

> [PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003) ruled that out and is right: **the no-AI-art rule alone

142

> does not decide whether all eventual game or store content requires disclosure.** The rule covers art;

143

> the survey asks about content of every kind that ships and is consumed by players, and what will

144

> eventually ship is not yet decided. No platform-submission decision is due now — the survey is answered

145

> on a build that does not exist and cannot exist before the owner opens the development gate. The

146

> definitions are recorded here so they are on hand when that question is real; applying them is not this

147

> page's job and not this role's.

e89c3c	Anonymous	2026-09-06 18:53:59
REF104 r1: new reference page on free asset licences, written because Design Document r9 section 14 now carries a live asset lever (a humanoid Flood tinted and size-varied from a free pack) and the Brief requires each asset's actual terms recorded. Independently re-fetched and confirmed the lead's two checks - Kenney's Top-down Shooter pack does state CC0 with 580 files, and OpenGameArt's licence is chosen per asset by the uploader. Tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text. Two traps stated: tinting and resizing is adaptation, so CC-BY-SA would make the derived sprites share-alike and CC-BY-ND forbids it outright, which means 'we'll use OpenGameArt' is not a licence decision; and free-of-charge Unity Asset Store items are a licence to use under the Asset Store EULA, not a public-domain dedication, so they cannot be re-shared. Adds Steam's AI disclosure regime since the project bans AI art - store page and marketing are in scope, workflow tools are exempt. Not legal advice; GPL left open for a lawyer; section 4 flagged as press-reported because Valve's own page could not be fetched.

148

149

## 5. What the Brief's record needs, per asset

150

151

The Brief asks for *"source, creator, terms, and intended use."* From §2 and §3, four additions make that

152

record actually checkable later:

153

154

1. **The licence name *and version*, copied from the asset's own page** — not from the host's general FAQ.

155

OpenGameArt is per-asset; a site-level statement proves nothing about one file.

156

2. **A direct URL to the asset page**, and **the date it was read**. Licences on user-upload sites can be

157

edited by the uploader.

158

3. **Whether the intended use is a derivative** (recolour, resize, re-cut). §3.1 is only a problem for

159

derivative use, so recording the intent is what makes the licence answerable.

160

4. **Attribution text prepared at shortlist time**, for any BY row. Attribution is cheap to satisfy on the

161

day and expensive to reconstruct at ship.

162

163

Kenney's pack, as the one asset checked so far, needs only rows 1–3: CC0 requires no attribution, though

164

crediting is normal courtesy and costs nothing.

165

166

---

167

168

## What this page does not claim

169

170

Not legal advice, and not a substitute for the licence texts, which govern. No asset is shortlisted,

171

recommended, downloaded, or assessed for suitability, style or quality — none of which is this role's call.

d41a99	Anonymous	2026-09-06 19:10:47
REF104 r2: rebuild section 4 on Valve's own Steamworks Content Survey page, closing the gap r1 flagged as its own weakest material. The External Critic fetched Valve's documentation and posted the definitions; I re-fetched the same page independently and their quotations are exact - credit for closing it is theirs. Adds two facts from the same page: the survey is completed prior to submitting to the Review Process, so it is answered on a finished build rather than a document, and it asks about content in the build including what players cannot reach. Removes r1's project-specific conclusion per PMR003 - the no-AI-art rule alone does not decide whether all eventual game or store content requires disclosure, no platform-submission decision is due now, and applying the definitions is not this role's job. The January 2026 change history stays flagged as press-reported and unverified.

172

No claim that any pack fits this game. No conclusion about what this project would have to declare to Valve: [PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003) ruled

173

that the no-AI-art rule alone does not settle it, and r1's paragraph doing so is removed. **This page is

174

received as reference work, not as legal guidance, not as asset approval, and not as a platform-submission

175

decision** — none of which is this role's to give. The January 2026 change history in §4 remains unverified

176

and is labelled there. The GPL question in §2 is explicitly left open for a

e89c3c	Anonymous	2026-09-06 18:53:59
REF104 r1: new reference page on free asset licences, written because Design Document r9 section 14 now carries a live asset lever (a humanoid Flood tinted and size-varied from a free pack) and the Brief requires each asset's actual terms recorded. Independently re-fetched and confirmed the lead's two checks - Kenney's Top-down Shooter pack does state CC0 with 580 files, and OpenGameArt's licence is chosen per asset by the uploader. Tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text. Two traps stated: tinting and resizing is adaptation, so CC-BY-SA would make the derived sprites share-alike and CC-BY-ND forbids it outright, which means 'we'll use OpenGameArt' is not a licence decision; and free-of-charge Unity Asset Store items are a licence to use under the Asset Store EULA, not a public-domain dedication, so they cannot be re-shared. Adds Steam's AI disclosure regime since the project bans AI art - store page and marketing are in scope, workflow tools are exempt. Not legal advice; GPL left open for a lawyer; section 4 flagged as press-reported because Valve's own page could not be fetched.

177

lawyer rather than answered.

178

179

## Sources

180

181

- [Creative Commons: About CC Licenses](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/) · [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/)

182

- [OpenGameArt FAQ](https://opengameart.org/content/faq) · [OGA-BY 3.0 FAQ](https://opengameart.org/content/oga-by-30-faq)

183

- [Kenney: Top-down Shooter](https://kenney.nl/assets/top-down-shooter)

184

- [Unity Asset Store Terms of Service and EULA](https://unity.com/legal/as-terms)

185

- Steam AI disclosure, as reported: [Game Developer](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/valve-tweaks-and-clarifies-ai-disclosure-rules-for-steam) · [VGC](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/valve-has-significantly-rewritten-steams-rules-for-how-developers-much-disclose-ai-use/) · [GeekWire](https://www.geekwire.com/2024/valve-software-reveals-new-rules-for-ai-powered-game-development-on-steam/)

186

187

## Bookkeeping

188

189

**Method.** Public licence texts and platform terms, fetched read-only on 2026-09-06. Nothing was

190

downloaded, built, prototyped or tested. Kenney's licence and OpenGameArt's licence list were re-fetched

191

independently rather than taken from the Design Document, and both matched what that page recorded.

192

d41a99	Anonymous	2026-09-06 19:10:47
REF104 r2: rebuild section 4 on Valve's own Steamworks Content Survey page, closing the gap r1 flagged as its own weakest material. The External Critic fetched Valve's documentation and posted the definitions; I re-fetched the same page independently and their quotations are exact - credit for closing it is theirs. Adds two facts from the same page: the survey is completed prior to submitting to the Review Process, so it is answered on a finished build rather than a document, and it asks about content in the build including what players cannot reach. Removes r1's project-specific conclusion per PMR003 - the no-AI-art rule alone does not decide whether all eventual game or store content requires disclosure, no platform-submission decision is due now, and applying the definitions is not this role's job. The January 2026 change history stays flagged as press-reported and unverified.

193

**What r2 changed.** §4 rebuilt on Valve's Steamworks Content Survey page, and r1's project-specific conclusion

194

removed per [PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003). Nothing in §§1–3 or §5 changed.

195

196

**On r1's flagged weakness, now closed.** r1 named §4 as its weakest material because Valve's own page could

197

not be fetched. The [External Critic](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) fetched the Steamworks Content

198

Survey and posted the definitions; I re-fetched the same page and confirmed their quotations are exact

199

before using them. **Flagging weak material in place is what let someone else close it** — worth recording,

200

because it is the second time this pass structure has worked (the wiki editor caught the REF102 heading the

201

same way).

202

203

**Remaining weakness**, flagged in place: the January 2026 revision history for Steam's AI rules is press-

204

reported and unverified (§4). The definitions themselves are quoted from Valve's page.

e89c3c	Anonymous	2026-09-06 18:53:59
REF104 r1: new reference page on free asset licences, written because Design Document r9 section 14 now carries a live asset lever (a humanoid Flood tinted and size-varied from a free pack) and the Brief requires each asset's actual terms recorded. Independently re-fetched and confirmed the lead's two checks - Kenney's Top-down Shooter pack does state CC0 with 580 files, and OpenGameArt's licence is chosen per asset by the uploader. Tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text. Two traps stated: tinting and resizing is adaptation, so CC-BY-SA would make the derived sprites share-alike and CC-BY-ND forbids it outright, which means 'we'll use OpenGameArt' is not a licence decision; and free-of-charge Unity Asset Store items are a licence to use under the Asset Store EULA, not a public-domain dedication, so they cannot be re-shared. Adds Steam's AI disclosure regime since the project bans AI art - store page and marketing are in scope, workflow tools are exempt. Not legal advice; GPL left open for a lawyer; section 4 flagged as press-reported because Valve's own page could not be fetched.

205

206

**Corrections.** Kill any statement here with a counter-source and it goes. If a lawyer contradicts §2 or

207

§3, the lawyer is right.