Okay friends, it looks like a certain part of the InkBunny Acceptable Content Policy (ACP) has reached me and everyone who creates content and renders with 3D models (see the Rendering > Attribution section): https://wiki.inkbunny.net/wiki/ACP#Rendering
At the moment I've done everything necessary (I hope) and now there's journal with a list of attributions for content that is present in the most current build: https://inkbunny.net/j/580049
I compiled the list quite thoroughly and in detail, but this may not be enough starting in 2026.
Possibly, according to the new rules the list should be much longer. And I see several problems with this (just my imo):
1. It says: "each resource which has a meaningful impact on the output must be attributed to its author or source". Here I don't fully understand what a resource having a meaningful impact on the output means. Let's set aside large things like planets, landscapes, rivers, roads, buildings - they most likely have a meaningful impact.
But what will have a meaningful impact on gameplay and the visual part (which I understand as "output") among small objects? A piece of broken bottle on the asphalt in a dark alley where no one goes? Probably not. But if shards are lying all over the city but don't have any effect on gameplay (can't cut a paw) - is that a meaningful impact? Probably yes, because there are many shards and they're visible (there's already "output" present). But in that case, if a level designer decided to fill the city with a huge number of details and placed them so they're visible - does that level designer really need to list dozens of different objects located in the city?
2. It seems to me that listing every source of game resources (assets) purchased on the Unity Asset Store is not necessary. Unity's TOS itself doesn't require give credits the authors of assets which were purchased (unless the author explicitly requests it). Maybe it's enough to make a general phrase that the game uses commercial assets from the Unity Asset Store (or Unreal Marketplace/Fab if it has a similar policy).
3. As I remember, Creative Commons licenses unconditionally require attribution, but if I'm not mistaken this should be indicated either in the product itself or in files that come with the product. In my case, my game already has a 'Credits' section where I put attributions in accordance with Creative Commons, and I think that's sufficient.
In general, the 2026 update scares me a bit, especially regarding the ambiguity of this "meaningful impact on the output". I've listed a lot in my list, all quest items, objects that have minimal interaction, Unity assets (I think this is what has impact - what the player interacts with). However, I didn't list a bunch of less significant things (made by me as well): some furniture, dishes, ham on a rope, a chest, Agatha's rag (a separate item, by the way!), some city trash...
So if I add every minimally tangible object to the attribution list - I would have to make huge lists for hours, recalling every element, instead of continuing game development.
I think you're more than fine with the list you made, I'm sure they mean characters for the most part and any props wise TOS require attribution. If an asset states that it doesn't require attribution, it doesn't require attribution anywhere. Good luck with it!
I think you're more than fine with the list you made, I'm sure they mean characters for the most par
This is more complicated by different copyright legislation.
US copyright for example allows copyright transfer and buyout clauses - That means for example an asset store could have an upload policy that transfers all rights on the item to the store - and it is then sufficient to credit the asset store (and the store itself would not credit the original author)
At the same time European authorship right does NOT allow full transfer of rights. The asset store would only receive a exclusive usage and resale license, but authorship and attribution rights remain with the original creator. Copyright buyout clauses in any contract are legally void.
So if you buy an asset from a US based asset store, you might not even get told who the original author was, because they assume that by their legislation they have all the rights on the assets. But according to European law this is not the case.
Now Inkbunny says the creator needs to always be credited. Which one?
(Edit: this also affects copyrighted material created under contract. Typically commission contracts in the US - especially employment contracts - have the copyright automatically transfer to the employer. In Europe the authorship remains with the employee and the contract only includes exclusive usage rights - but also only for the original purpose, so if an artist is employed by a movie studio and makes an asset for a movie - then the studio later decides to reuse that asset for a computer game, by US law they can because they "own" it - by European law this is not covered implicitly by the original employment arrangement, so they have to get a license from the original author for the new exploitation)
This is more complicated by different copyright legislation. US copyright for example allows copyri
I fail to see the point of all of it, and honestly it just seems like personal bias on the staff/owner's part regarding 3d stuff. If legality/ morality was truly an issue here, drawn artists would have to list their software sources and references and ai art would be banned
I fail to see the point of all of it, and honestly it just seems like personal bias on the staff/own
Yeah likely it sounds like a strong interpretation of the "Give credit to the sources you use" so like if you use assets from DAZ or Gumroad or other sites where people share assets then you're letting others know someone else made them as many people make and sell models premade and those models are often the most used in videos like a Krystal model from warframemachine.
However it seems a bit zealous and seems to come from the fact that many people are so anti-AI that they want people who use any tools that's not literally a pencil (or drawing tablet in most cases) to write a laundry list of where those assets came from. It kind of feels like the case of "If you work from home, you have to write a report on everything you did, but if you work in this office, even though it's also remote from our location, we suddenly trust you are indeed working and you don't have to write a report." That's really going to turn a salt shaker into a desert, and for no particular reason as no other site demands that much effort to upload media generated digitally (granted most of them outright ban digitally generated media).
I kind of see this as a can of worms have been opened from people who don't know how copyright law works flexing the social muscles on innocent artists who use assets to make something bigger because "MUH CREDIT!" which severely limits art and kind of turns the site totalitarian. We already saw FA go through many episodes of that only to find out the reason behind it was cause some mod that was brought on really wanted to ban any artists who liked fetished they personally didn't like. We saw those leaked discord chats. it had nothing to do with legality and everything to do with the right to harass artists some nazi had issues with. But I guess as long as Inkbunny has stood up for those drawing cub art, I can respect them not wanting to take unnecessary chances, but it's kind of ironic that outside of cub, they've kind of become the site that they broke away from FA to avoid being. Making it incredibly hard to share our work and upload. No one should have to make a huge list of all the assets they used for sharing content. Cause if they do, then everyone who hand draws should list what drawing tablet they use, what version of the software and ALL the filters and brushes they applied during their draw. Or people who draw by hand should get special permission from Pokemon Company or Sonic Team or Capcom for thier right to draw thier character and post it, as well as list every instrument they used, what kind of paper and heck let's throw in where they got thier desk and the make and model.
If people are still using AI's reputation as propaganda to control what is art and what is not...then what are we doing calling ourselves artists? cause this wasn't ever an issue before AI existed. and now Inkbunny is almost harder to upload on than FA..... How did we get here?
Yeah likely it sounds like a strong interpretation of the "Give credit to the sources you use" so li
I think you should be good since all the main models are made by you. Even if something happens, you don't need to panic. We're also interested in furry content and not just trying to remove stuff. It's certainly possible to discuss and solve problems together.
The idea is to make sure that content from others which is reused is appropriately credited to the original artist. We're coming at this from a visual angle, we're not concerned about gameplay or anything like that. This is focused at the level of images and videos. Your videos come from the game but the gameplay aspect isn't important here.
It's an interesting idea to maybe say "All other models from the Unity Store." We'll have to discuss that and see.
The requirements of creative commons and other licenses are a separate issue. Inkbunny can require more than the license itself requires.
I think you should be good since all the main models are made by you. Even if something happens, you
I appreciate the confirmation but don't you feel that this is being a little strict and unnecessary? Vestina isn't necessarily profiting from sharing these clips on inkbunny, she's gaining nothing but showing bits of a project she's working on. I understand it's respectful to give credit where credit is due so other artists could find the original creator, but having seen this whole thing spawn from the discourse about AI and was never an issue before then (as well as what many people have said about it), it kind of feels like the rules are set more to pacify those who personally are accusing every form of art as "stolen" and hurting genuine artists who are just trying to share what they create. Even more than when FA was going scorched earth on cub artists because it's attempting to use legal precident to justify extra effort on artists based on the tools they used and I really don't understand why this has to be a legal issue. Just cause some people have a problem with AI doesn't mean everyone has to work extra hard if they use tools to draw.
Personally I'd revisit this as the owner of the site and realize that where people who are anti tech are coming from isn't a place of fairness, but control. After all, slippery slope dictates that if we're forcing credit for the models and assets used, then real copyright law should dictate that all fan art on the site should have credit given to like the Pokemon Company or Nintendo, cause I can assure you many people who are anti-AI willfully draw paid commissions of these IPs and upload them as personal advertisement, and none of them got permission to do this. That's more likely to lead to a legal suit than someone using a tool to make an image.
But that's just a suggestion to consider. Altering the wording to make it clear that you're just making sure those who use other people's assets in thier work give credit to the person who made the assets, but given the slippery slope extends to the assets also being of copyright characters.... I don't think it's a can of worms worth opening. Not for a site like this.
I appreciate the confirmation but don't you feel that this is being a little strict and unnecessary?
This rule is unrelated to AI and is merely a clarification of existing Inkbunny policy which was very poorly described. It originally formed when Second Life was a big thing and was primarily intended to stop people just posting random Second Life screenshots without putting any real effort in. As things changed and 3D became more common, those same rules about creating models, originally intended for SL screenshots, were applied in other cases, e.g. SFM. The rules have been rewritten for clarity, with some expansion for credit, as they have been enforced.
When I started out in the fandom, a lot of fan stories did start with a notice saying that Nintendo owned the Pokemon copyright, as one example. In practice, fan works are broadly allowed under fair use and Inkbunny isn't going to start restricting that. There is a difference between fan works which are inspired by something and reuse of 3D models, particularly those ripped from games. Nintendo is notoriously lawsuit happy but even they don't go after all fan works. There are several furry artists that have been given legal threats by Nintendo and no longer draw pokemon. Those cases were nearly all due to monetisation of pokemon porn, often while producing physical comics and such.
This rule is unrelated to AI and is merely a clarification of existing Inkbunny policy which was ver
Ah yeah that's good to know. Credit definitely should be given for those who use assets that others make in their works, though I think like you said with the fair use case for deviations from the original source, it really depends on the nature of the copyright breach and the purpose of the submission when sharing information and I do feel that in Vestina's case, she shouldn't need to list copyrights for screenshots from her own game as she's not monetizing these screenshots, she would've already given proper attribution for her game on the sale page, within the credits of the game or through the receipts from the store itself. Given it's based on the spam of Second Life screenshots akin to spamming AI generations, the real rule seems to be more about "anti spam" than an issue of credit.
I do apologize if my words or temperment seemed harsh. I've been monitoring the nature of the rules on Inkbunny and just remember a pretty devastating impact on AI's introduction to the site where many people were getting thier images banned or removed because it was AI and having to employ very harsh restrictions to upload it. Simply cause most people were just very biased against it. So it seemed like a similar rule was being applied to 3D and other digitally generated assets and that's where the slippery slope metaphor came in. If spam is the issue then FA has a policy where people are restricted to 3 submissions of a similar type and given how easy it is to make AI generations, that could just extend to number of AI submissions per say month to cull down on spam. Screenshots and WIPs could also be limited by the same rule to prevent excess advertising but still allow people to know what's going on with the game and where to follow it and find all the external information. Sorry but I just don't think IB's pages should be a laundry list of credit unless the IB submission is the final destination. Those who follow the game will be able to find a list of credits, However I think a good compromise could be to include a link to all the attributions so instead of her having to post every place she got assets from, she can just link to a credits page that's constantly evolving. Then we get the best of both worlds.
Just really want to make sure that the rules are clear but also fair. There's certainly always room for discussion and improvement on the rules, but in the end, they have to make sense for the nature of the site and the reason for the upload. I just highly doubt Unity is going to go after Inkbunny cause Vestina didn't list a few items she got from Unity and a lot of the assets she made herself, as well as the IPs and copyrights of all the characters are hers for the most part. So I think at this point, the fair use really applies here as well.
Ah yeah that's good to know. Credit definitely should be given for those who use assets that others
.gif "Rakuen"){kind=avatar}
