I want to draw fanart of a GPL-licensed video game. Does my art

IANAL, but it depends.
Is the whole game licensed as GPL/do the game assets have a different license?

File: Screenshot from 2017-02-01 15-58-45.png (33KB, 1191x334px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1191x334px

>>58749321

GPL is only really meant for code, non-code based assets like graphics and music/sound effects can be licensed under a non-commercial or even proprietary license if you want.

You're the creator so you get to decide how things are licensed.

>>58749816
The assets themselves are GPL as well.
>>58749839
This looks like GPLv3, this game is v2.
>>58749864
GPL can cover any copyrighted work, including art, including fanart.

>>58749321
No, since that's data not code/program binary that will run.

You can license it under cc-by-sa for example.

Your fanart is not a part of the application, and regardless of the application's source it should be protected under fair use (parody).

>>58749945
I want to use CC BY-SA, but the assets themselves are GPLv2 and require that a "work based on the Program" (which "means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law") be licensed as GPLv2.
>>58749961
Fanart is not parody.

>>58749839
I forgot to explain, this is GPL for software so drawings would be treated differently. I believe that
>include original
means you have to link to the source of the original image you're modifying
>state changes
is visually implied, also only matters if you took the original source and modified it. Does not apply for fan art.
>disclose source
wouldn't be doable in your case since you're modifying it on paper. A scanned image is source by itself.
>include license, copyright, install instructions
necessary only if you'll distribute it. You just have to copy-paste the GPL license or link to it when distributing. I believe the license already includes a copyright field where the original creators should be listed.

If you're not modifying it but rather just making your own image from scratch (fan art), you don't need to worry about anything, I think fan art implies "fair use" in most cases and is legal unless you profit from it. You don't own characters in question so if you are asked by the license owner to take down the distribution of the fan art (no matter if it's free), you must do that.

tldr
>don't make it profitable
>include source/inspiration
>make a note that it's GPL
>take it down if asked
Fan art usually promotes things well so it's unlikely anything will even happen as long as you do these 4 things.

File: Screenshot from 2017-02-01 16-17-58.png (29KB, 1197x298px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1197x298px

>>58749914
oh and this is 2.0

>>58750047
Thank you for the time you spent on this.
>fan art implies "fair use"
I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know, but I've done reading on fair use and the 4 factors that judges use don't point to fan art being fair.
On the other hand, if it were in fact fair use, this part is contradictory:
>if you are asked ... to take down the distribution of the fan art ... you must do that.
Fair use is a concept which permits unauthorized use so that you don't have to take down the work which is using the work fairly.

>>58750176
Yeah, it's not fair use. This:
>don't make it profitable
>include source/inspiration
>make a note that it's GPL
>take it down if asked
Still stands. Even though there were many cases where fan products and plagiarism were ignored, they are generally not allowed especially for commercial use, unless they're homage. However, you can see examples of porn parodies and fan art being sold legally because they aren't drawn using the same style. I'm not certain why that's allowed.

No it doesn't have to be GPL, you can copyright your own work. GPL only applies when you modify GPL source code with your own changes and then try to sell the changed app for money without releasing the source.
You're not doing that so you're fine. Releasing your own art even if you package it with a game that is made for the GPL source code is fine, just release the fucking source code on your Gitlab (lol) but withhold your art because you made that. Same applies to any media such as music.

The only time the GPL could apply is if you changed existing art and then tried to sell it without releasing the source again.

There used to be a site that explained this shit, Google it next time because I'm not gonna do this again, only did it this time because I've never seen anyone ask this specific question on g

>>58751460
Thank you for answering.
>GPL only applies when you modify GPL source code with your own changes and then try to sell the changed app for money without releasing the source.
The GPL applies even if you don't sell the app. It applies if you exercise any of the rights granted to you which aren't already given to you by copyright law. In this instance, I would be drawing one of the characters from the game, which constitutes a derived work as defined by copyright law. Unless my use would be considered fair (not impossible but unlikely), I have to license under the GPL and follow its license otherwise.
>The only time the GPL could apply is if you changed existing art and then tried to sell it without releasing the source again.
Incorporating a character from a copyrighted (even GPL'd) game into a piece of art, even if done for no money, probably means creating a derived work. This needs to be permitted by either the concept of fair use or a license such as the GPL. If my use isn't fair, I am obliged to figure out how to comply with the GPL or go through the trouble of tracking down the writers and artists for the game and asking for separate permission.