The line between a derivative work and one that is sufficiently changed as to be considered a new work is a very wide and fuzzy one. Most elements such as brushes and textures come with fairly open licenses—images made with them are usually fully copyright of the individual who used the elements. Many of them do require an acknowledgement of their use, but many do not. Modifying a texture or brush and redistributing it is where things get a bit hazier. My own feeling is that if the original can still be identified, and/or the element could not be made without the original as a base, then the original artist still has a claim to it. In that case, you should examine whatever license that texture is available under carefully to see what rights you have and can pass along.
That's one of the reasons we recommend cartographers take advantage of the CC licenses—they spell out clearly what uses are allowed for a given map or element, and they even specify what can be done with derivative works. Of course, there are some "gotchas" with CC licensing (it's incompatible with the CGTextures.com license, for one thing), but generally speaking, it's a very good idea to use it.
If a map is fully copyright protected and not CC or otherwise licensed, then all of the original elements on that map are likewise protected. I can recall a specific case of someone cutting up one of Mike Schley's maps and using the buildings as stamps to make a new Schleyish map. Mike rightly objected to that: every individual house on one of his maps is his property (or more likely, the property of Wizards of the Coast). Mimicking his style, though, by drawing the buildings from scratch is allowable, so long as the resulting map does not replicate one that Schley already made. Style is not protected by copyright.
So there are no hard and fast answers, and you're right to be cautious. The best thing to do is to ask permission where you think permission might be required.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Midgardsormr
