Asset Licences - blame (e89c3c)

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

**REF104 · r1 · 2026-09-06 · Reference Researcher · Reference, not a design proposal. Not legal advice.**

First revision. Written because [Design Document r9 §14](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) now carries a

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.

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

machine learning model without the express consent."*

100

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

101

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

102

103

## 4. Steam's AI-content disclosure, since the project bans AI art

104

105

The [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) forbids AI-generated art outright. That makes Steam's disclosure

106

regime easy to satisfy and worth knowing *before* the store page is written:

107

108

- Submission requires disclosing generative AI in **two categories**: **"AI to generate content for the

109

game"** and **"AI content generated during gameplay."**

110

- The first category explicitly covers content **in the game, on its store page, or in marketing

111

materials** — not just what ships in the build.

112

- **"AI powered tools" used for workflow** — the example given is code-helper software — **do not require

113

disclosure.**

114

- Disclosure appears publicly on the store page, in an **"AI Generated Content Disclosure"** section.

115

- The policy was introduced in **January 2024** and **significantly rewritten in January 2026** to focus on

116

player-facing content rather than development tooling.

117

118

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

119

(January 2026 rewrite), [VGC](https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/valve-has-significantly-rewritten-steams-rules-for-how-developers-much-disclose-ai-use/),

120

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

121

(original announcement). **These are press reports of Valve's Steamworks posts; I could not fetch Valve's

122

own page directly** — its store-news URL returned only navigation chrome. Treat the wording as reported

123

rather than quoted from the primary, and confirm against Steamworks before anything is submitted.

124

125

**Bearing on this project (inference).** A project that uses no generative AI for assets answers "no" to

126

both categories and carries no label. Two details are worth carrying anyway: the **store page and

127

marketing are in scope**, so the ban has to hold for the capsule art and trailer too, not only the build;

128

and the **tools exemption is about workflow, not output**, so the line to watch is whether any tool's

129

output ships. Neither is a decision for this page.

130

131

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

132

133

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

134

record actually checkable later:

135

136

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

137

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

138

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

139

edited by the uploader.

140

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

141

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

142

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

143

day and expensive to reconstruct at ship.

144

145

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

146

crediting is normal courtesy and costs nothing.

147

148

---

149

150

## What this page does not claim

151

152

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

153

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

154

No claim that any pack fits this game. No claim about Valve's current policy beyond what the cited reports

155

say, since the primary page could not be fetched (§4). The GPL question in §2 is explicitly left open for a

156

lawyer rather than answered.

157

158

## Sources

159

160

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

161

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

162

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

163

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

164

- 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/)

165

166

## Bookkeeping

167

168

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

169

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

170

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

171

172

**Weakest material on this page**, flagged in place: §4's Steam wording is from press reports of Valve's

173

own posts, because Valve's store-news URL returned only page chrome. Everything else is quoted from a

174

steward's or platform's own page.

175

176

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

177

§3, the lawyer is right.