Open letter for Unity - More transparent licensing, catching up with market needs

Background

As a publisher, I got several mails if my race cars are allowed to use in games without additional permissions, while the current AS (Asset Store) license allows it. As a customer I found several unlicensed items while AS sold me those as 'royalty free'. As a user I found people on the forums who seems to have the same concerns.

So I decided to make this 'Open letter' to ask for turning AS to a better place (market) for both parties (customers/publishers/AS/3rd party designers and license holders) with rethinking the license types and the procedure for approving assets.

On 'base level' it does not require too much effort from Unity and as I got no answers from the regular channels I decided to make it public and I would like to invite everyone who would like to collaborate in a better solution.

Very important: it is not against Unity AS, other publishers, etc. It is about finding a solution with making no harm, but achieving a win-win result.

The issue:

1. In lots of cases the Asset Store sells unlicensed/branded content as royalty free content.

2. In many cases the AS does not follow their own submission rules related to the asset approval procedure.

3. Unity – as legally/financially protected by their EULA – seems to be not really interested in solving issues and seems to actively assist to this with 'closing their eyes', putting all the risk on the customers/publishers.

4. While the industry - related to digital goods - tries to find a solution with offering different license types for the customers, still no sign from the side of Unity to catch up with the others (TurboSquid, Stock Agencies, even BlenderMarket, etc.).

5. With the current license system publishers are forced to 'cheat' with their assets, risking their income and putting the customers to a risk, too.

6. The current system cannot let legal package creation for specific areas where typically 3rd party designs and brands are used, like architectural visualization, military scenes, etc.

Point of views

As I told, I'm both AS customer, publisher and designer, so I would like to present my point of views.

As a customer:
AS sells 'royalty free content'. It practically means that if I bought something in the AS, I - as a customer - have to do nothing with additional permissions, extra costs, etc. related to it. I bought it, I could use it within the terms of the EULA. No action needed.

So when I buy something I wanna be sure that there are no 'surprises'. Of course there is no 100% in these things, but known brands/designs need to get an additional/separate license type and have to be removed from under the 'royalty free license' as selling these kind of stuff as royalty free is misleading the customers.

As a publisher:
There is a huge difference in working hours between creating a 'replica' and creating an 'original' asset. The first one is a very fast process for an experienced modeler, the second one is something where the modeler has to be a designer, too and it requires studying, sketching, etc. It multiplies the efforts – I do not think that it is something what I have to explain for 'original asset creators'. But – without offering multiple licensing options – all these 'original' assets have to compete on the same market, within the same price range against 'replicas', while those shouldn't be in the Asset Store at all if the publishers and Unity would follow the current rules for submissions.

As a designer:
As a designer I have intellectual properties related my designs. By default I definitely do not want other people to sell my designs as their designs, but this area is far more complicated than the former ones.

Let me to explain it:

There are 2 kind of behaviour what could cause problems related to this:
- Simple asset 'stealing', when someone uploads an asset what was created by someone else, as his/her one. As far as I know the Asset Store team handles this cases pretty well. No additional action needed.

- Design/intellectual property breach

This is the 'grey' zone and related to these issues the 'digital' industry decided to make things clarify with proofs/contracts (stock media sites) and pulling in the 'Editorial license' (like TurboSquid did it) for 3d models (which is a 'monster from the past', but they worked it out this way), with warning customers for probably missing rights (Envato).

The key is in this situation the purpose of usage and the quality check: if a furniture manufactures makes a beautiful designer chair and someone would like to release a beautiful archviz scene what includes this chair, it is a 'free' advertisement for the chair (that is how archviz works since decades; even manufacturers themselves offer quality 3d models for visualizers and architects). Almost the same story with cars, etc.

What is the problem then?

Well, there are several problems:

1. The current AS EULA does not allow including these kind of branded models into any asset. Period.
It means that any publisher who use these kind of content, risks his/her income, but with affording this risk also affects his customers (who could get into trouble with using unlicensed assets) and other publishers (getting leverage with the simplified modelling process – no design needed).

2. The original license holder should have the opportunity to say 'no'. Or they could give permissions for everyone or for specific publishers, etc., but the current method just leaves them out.

3. The items based on someone else' design cannot be named in the current publishing method (theoretically). So renaming Hummers to Hammers, M1 Abrams' to M2 Adamas, removing logos is the way publishers work now and that is not just not good, but also doesn't solve the issues as the core design still bonded to its original creators.

The solution:

The solution is very simple: offer multiple license types.

On base level these would be:
- Standard royalty free license (the actual one)
- Editorial license (or something like that)

(Of course there could be more of these if we want to be more straightforward like 'certified royalty free' or 'Mixed', etc., but the first 2 (standard royalty free, editorial) would solve the most of the problems).

How would it affect the parties?

Customer's side:

- It makes licensing transparent; if they need an asset, they could buy it with the license type they need (like Editorial for 'tinkering' at home for fun and royalty free for commercial products). It is important to 'warn' the customer which license the asset have. Of course there will be assets what will be missing; the ones which have no license to use at all: so it will save the customers from legal consequences, at least related to the stuff they bought in the AS.

Depending on Unity's effort it could be a 100% safe system, what could make AS to a unique place among the 3d markets.

The customer clearly wins without harm.

Publisher's side:

The publisher could make models of 3rd party designs without risking income and misleading AS and the customers. As there are more 'modelers' than 'modeler + designers', it could open a market for them. 'Original asset creators' and 'replica-makers' would have their own, protected, fairly-operating markets without causing interferes and suffering any harm.

Depending on Unity's effort it could turn the AS unique with 'certifying' permissions.

The publishers clearly win, except the ones who wanna stole IP rights.

3rd -party designer's side:

As with the 'Editorial' license they could easily identify their own products (calling an 'Abrams' tank on its real name instead of 'Adama or Abel') and as the publisher's could be forced to properly name the 3rd-party related products (maybe with contact info added to the license holders), copyright issues could be significantly reduced and the 3rd parties get the opportunity to decide if they let asset creators use their IP (Intellectual Property) or not.

It could result 'alliances' between content creators and 3rd parties for creating beautiful scenes for the customers, advertising their products, making great cross-marketing.

Depending on the Unity's effort it could be very well-documented and almost completely legal.

The 3rd party designer's would win this as momentarily AS not just let copyright breaching happen, but does not offer alternative ways for the publishers.


The Asset Store side:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Unity's income massively depends on the AS income, especially from this year. With making this step forward you would not just catch up with the trends of content handling, but would fulfill the needs of the people you live from, even if the most of them did not recognize this need yet: the customers and publishers (it is a fact that most of the people could recognize their 'needs' only when it is 'delivered' to them).

The transparency what the new license system would offer could open the door for more publishers and more customers, what could make more profit.

From Unity's side it would be a clear 'win' on long term, even if it means a few work need to be invested for making the AS system able to handle the new licenses and some of the questionable models have to be moved to 'Editorial' category. (It is far better for both parties than removing them from the market completely.)

Depends on the effort Unity risks to invest, I have some extraordinary ideas to make AS system not just be better, but make it outstanding with additional features related to license-handling, etc., so I'm happy to assist for this if Unity staff contacts me.

Thanks for your time, please support it if you think it's time up to catch up with the industry and vote!
Also feel free to give suggestions!

Tom Frank

PS: you could vote on 2 options!

 

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've gathered isn't creating (and then especially trying to sell) any trademarked / copyrighted design infringement, especially if you also include the real world name? To me it seems that it doesn't matter what licenses Unity says or tries to clarify, no matter what the content was created and is being sold illegally.

I don't think trying to pass off all blame to the seller will work for Unity either. If I eBay let me sell cocaine, I'm pretty sure that eBay would be in legal trouble as well even though they are just the middle men for the product payment and hosting.

I also might be taking this completely out of context but

sounds a lot like the justification for fan games that people try to use. (Which we all know are usually 99% unauthorized)

 

Hey Tom though I respect your point of view, I disagree with it.
I don't believe Unity should allow asset creators to recreate licensed content, and I also don't like the idea of editorial licenses.
I believe all assets on the asset store should be legitimate original designs. I agree all creations are inspired by other designs, especially when you are talking about vehicles and furniture.

I don't see the issue with being able to and having to call a Ford F-150 a Fjord F-151, and removing the logos. We all know where the original design came from so there is no mystery. Ford is still getting free advertising, even though the logo is removed and the name is changed.
The reason we as asset creators and purchasers really don't want the Ford logo on our assets is because if somebody uses the brand in a very bad way - Ford will be the ones coming after all of us and taking all our worldly possessions and leaving us sitting on the side of the road holding nothing, except empty pockets.
And they have every right to do that - as we all do under the simple to follow copyright, trademark and IP laws.
(Oh yeah - people who make fan games of others IP and ask for "donations" to help support the development effort. That is IP violation also)

I might be mistaken, but I don't see any benefit to having licensed, brand name content on the asset store. I'm actually more interested in new original content - though I'm more interested characters.

I honestly don't see the problem this suggestion is attempting to solve.
The main problem with the asset store and ALL other digital asset stores (Turbo Squid is the worst) is the people who try to work around the simple to follow rules of copyright and IP. These rules aren't hard to comprehend and abide by.
But there are always people who want to rip other peoples creations and "edit" and then turn it and sell it for profit. And those people, in my opinion, are the main problem and once caught should be banned from selling any/all assets from the asset store.

It's a shame when those people get through the asset review process, but it does happen. I would like to think the reviewers catch a lot of assets we never see and turn them away for these reasons. I assume the most difficult ones to spot are characters that have been modified to look different than the original design, and also animations that have been ripped from other assets, from other asset stores and are being presented as an original creation.

 

Yep and no. I'm not a lawyer either, but it is a good example how our 'digital age' shows the need to change of some of the rules. That is the reason why TurboSquid or BlenderMarket uses 'Editorial license' for this kind of stuff, putting the responsibility on the customer if he/she would like to use a model with IP (Intellectual Property) belongs to a 3rd person.
I'm not sure if 'Editorial License' is the best naming/civering for the real need from the customers, but I'm sure that selling these stuffs as 'royalty free' is not the way. In this manner TS (TurboSquid) made a step to a good direction. BlenderMarket started with 'Standard Royalty Free' license and implemented 'Editorial' in a few weeks after it was requested. Envato warns the buyers.

'I don't think trying to pass off all blame to the seller will work for Unity either. If I eBay let me sell cocaine, I'm pretty sure that eBay would be in legal trouble as well even though they are just the middle men for the product payment and hosting.'

As Aurore told it here, this is the way they handle it. I agree with your opinion as letting customers to buy models with almost 100% chance to be 'unlicensed' requires active support of selling these models (I cannot imagine that an AS team member cannot recognize a Hummer (as an example) and know that it is a protected design).

'I also might be taking this completely out of context but sounds a lot like the justification for fan games that people try to use. (Which we all know are usually 99% unauthorized)'

I exactly know what you mean, but as someone who worked in archviz for decades I have to say that - as an example - office furniture manufacturers were very happy with modeling and using their products in archviz scenes all the time, without any other permission (they even paid for making versions with their own furniture).

 

When you submit an asset to the asset store you have to check a box stating that you own the rights to the objects, the simple fact is if your object is a copy of a real world commercial item such as a car then you do not own those rights, all car manufactures trademark the shape and look of their cars as much as Apple or Coca Cola trademark their logos and likeness, so anyone submitting a car, gun or any other model that is a copy of a real item does not own the rights to be able to sell the model or to have it used in project. Unity needs to to stop such models being sold as some poor developer is going to get done eventually.

 

Dear theANMATOR2b,

thanks for your opinion.

I see your point. There are 2 problems related to this.

1. Unity allows it, even if they know about it. There is a preliminary conversation to this open letter in a thread started in 2012; the asset is still available. If you make a search in the AS on weapon names or vehicles like Humvee you will find a lot.

2. The lack of 'Editorial license' forces modelers to 'cheat' as people want to have these kind of models. Having them and using them in a commercial or free game are different stories.
TS pulled in the 'Editorial license' as they recognized that it is a problem what have to be solved and solve it legally.

'I believe all assets on the asset store should be legitimate original designs. I agree all creations are inspired by other designs, especially when you are talking about vehicles and furniture.'

I accept it, but it would kill this 2 area both for AS and publishers and I do not think that is the way to go.

'I don't see the issue with being able to and having to call a Ford F-150 a Fjord F-151, and removing the logos. We all know where the original design came from so there is no mystery. Ford is still getting free advertising, even though the logo is removed and the name is changed.'

I wrote in the first post why it is a problem.

 

I don't see an issue here. But then I bothered to read the Eula.

Show examples please. All content on Asset Store is by the Eula, legal to use in your games, but not legal to resell as another asset.

I'm seeing a lot of accusations with no examples of it actually being a problem. I'd love it if someone can link the problems they perceive otherwise this thread is baseless, understandably.

 

Feel free to check the link I inserted (started by another guy) or feel free use the search function on gun names or military SUV names. The reason why I do not insert links directly that I don't want to put anyone to trouble and I do not want their stuff to be removed, just get a different license.

 

You wouldn't be getting anyone in trouble, but I'm genuinely curious to see the actual problems if any. If they're doing it wrong then it needs to be known, otherwise it's uh, free advertising

 

I sent you a PM.

 

Thanks - but I don't need this information. I'm just pointing out as it's a public thread and you've 'gone public' with it, you need to sort it out in public, or open it for discussion. If you want to take it to Unity directly, please email support@unity3d.com quoting the url of this thread.

You did link a bunch of military assets from the store, such as M16 and humvee. I am guessing these require licensing? In any case I have done my bit, it's up to the community and unity at this point.

 

Well, as I go for implementing new license types and make a win-win for everyone, not for removing other publisher's assets, the AS team could feel free to make a search as it is just a part of the issue (and you could be sure they know about these as they let them appear on the market and you could be sure they know about the probability of possible copyright breach).

 

"No, keep the existing system what could mislead me, but I don't really care."

I LOLed.

 

And if you check, it is a clear winner as the thread has about 240 views, but minimal number of voters It was not possible to remove the button from the poll and show that number instead

Human psychology is a weird and funny thing as it works exactly as I expected.