So Unity decided to disable my asset...

Hello,

I have been a publisher in the asset store since September 2013. Since that time, I've never had any issue with the asset store team till five days ago (March 22) when the asset store team decided to disable my asset unfairly.

My asset, 2D Endless Runner Kit, was available in the asset store since June/July 2014. It had some good and bad months in terms of sales. On February 2016, I received an e-mail from the asset store marketing assistant that my asset was chosen to be included in the level 11 of this month (March 2016) and it will be available for free for level 11 subscribers. When March started, I started seeing a lot of free downloads but at the same time, I've receive a fair amount of sales and March was becoming one of the best months I've ever had in my time here. 2D Endless Runner Kit even made it to the number one spot in the top paid in its category and number three in the asset store over all.

It was all good till I receive an e-mail on March 22 telling me that my asset has been disabled because it was brought to their attention that I had content in the asset that I was not allowed to distribute. They never mentioned what this content was. They didn't warn me about this before since the asset has been in the asset store for a really long period. As a result, my other asset, Game Kit Bundle that includes the 2D Endless Runner Kit, was also disabled for the same reason. I instantly replied to that e-mail asking them what was the content I was not allowed to redistribute so that I can probably update the asset to re-join the level 11 sale. But no, no answer till today and that's why I had to start this thread.
The only thing I can think of is using Kenney's graphics (Kenney.nl makes graphics and puts them in public domain so that indies and anyone can redistribute them, use them in a commercial project, etc.. without being forced to credit him) but I doubt that's the issue because I do have the right to use them and a lot of other publishers are using them too. I also credited the guy and made it clear that the buyer is only charged for the code in the asset.

Now I'm not saying that there isn't possibility that I mistakenly included something I didn't have the right to redistribute in the asset. But taking down the asset without warning me first or taking it down without even telling what this content was, is really frustrating, especially when the asset was at its prime and it was having its best month in sales since it was released.

Hopefully, the asset store team will see this post and try to make an effort to explain my situation even though I already lost a lot of sales because of this.

 

That certainly does suck, but I suppose let this be a learning lesson to you, don't ever sell something with unoriginal content, unless you have expressed *written* permission from said Graphics, etc.
He may have complained, might have bought the Asset and noticed his graphics were in it, or someone told the Asset Store that hey thoughs aren't your graphics, led them to a link, etc.

Now if you have proof you are allowed to include these graphics, then I'm sure you can get it worked out and get it back up - eventually.

Now I know you said you wasn't sure if it was because of that.
However, if that's the only thing you can find inside your Asset (go check it, search through every folder). But chances are it is because of the graphics.

So I suppose let this be a learning lesson and move on to the next thing, or delete the graphics and re-submit to it and use your own placeholder graphics.

 

What's frustrating is that they didn't even want to tell me what this content was. If it was because Kenney reported the asset, that's all fair and I apologize for that because I only included his graphics because I've seen a number of famous assets using his graphics so I assumed it was okay. Therefore, I really doubt that's the case.

I went through the asset many times, I don't think that using the particle effects from Unity Assets (https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/3045) could be a problem, no? I also credited them and stated in readme file that it's not mine and I was only using it in the demo scene. Audio was taken from my game, Cats In Space, so that shouldn't be a problem too.

 

I honestly can't say man, the only thing I can really say is try to get in touch with them (yes I know - it's hard, sometimes practically impossible). But other-than-that, i suppose, if they aren't detrimental - remove anything you didn't create - free or not. That's the safest route to take in my opinion.

 

I know that their support team gets a lot of requests and it takes time to answer them all but I think that there are cases that deserve an extra attention from them. It will be useless to re-submit the asset without knowing what the problem was so I think I'll just have to wait. Maybe they'll see this post and give me an answer, who knows.

Thanks for your replies man.

 

It's also worth checking if the email adress you responded too is monitored.

Sounds like the art asset was the problem. It's entirely possible climbing to the top of lists caused someone to notice the problem.

 

I replied to this e-mail: assetstore-admin@unity3d.com , I'm not sure if it's monitored or not so I'm going to contact the support team again using a different e-mail.

These are few of the assets that use Kenney's graphics: https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/search/page=1/sortby=relevance/query=kenney
A lot more exist on the asset store so I really doubt it's the problem. But even if it was, what I fail to understand is why don't they just say that in the e-mail.

 

Because a lot of the E-mails are quick copy paste sent e-mails.
I've been lucky just one and had a real human e-mail me and tell me what was wrong with something when submitting product to store. It was so quick it was fixed within minutes and put on the store without having to wait another 2 weeks because a freaking color was off a little bit on one of the images.

 

Sometimes, they take a lot of time to answer which is understandable in some cases. But other sensitive cases require some special attention from them. However, I'm guessing this is going to take a long time as well.
I'm also curious if any other asset store publisher has faced the same problem before.

 

I've seen it happen pretty often in various threads before (mostly submitting new assets) that people never get a proper reply from AS staff in the few first mails as the replies are copy-pastes or very vague. Also the replies seem to take long time.

 

Indeed, it happened with me a lot of times as well. I already lost my position in the top paid list in the complete projects category and lost many sales due to that so I'll just keep waiting.
Thanks for your replies guys!

 

When I submitted my asset it got rejected at first, but when i noticed they made a little slip up in their testing and replied by email they actually replied very promptly and within about half an hour it was resubmitted and on the store
So atleast in my case there was a human behind the messages, which is really nice to always know

how long has it been since it was taken down?

 

It's been 5 days now. I submitted a new support ticket today in case they missed my reply to their e-mail.

In the past, one of my assets kept getting rejected over and over without stating the reason till it got accepted somehow. Sometimes, they'll even reject the asset without notifying you by e-mail which leaves you thinking that it's still pending review till you check its status in the publisher panel.

 

Just found the art assets he is referring to. They're under the CC0 license which puts them into public domain.

http://opengameart.org/users/kenney
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

 

Again, I'm most certain that it has nothing to do with the graphics. I mentioned that the buyer is only getting charged for the code, the graphics were simply used to set up a nice demo scene, I credited Kenney and encouraged to credit him if the customer decided to use those graphics and a lot of assets, including famous ones, use Kenney's graphics.

 

That sucks man. Hope you'll get reinstated soon.

Yet another reason for third-party asset store. Too bad I don't have resources to pull it off tho.

 

Right, it may not have anything to do with it. But at the same time you were mentioning Kenney as if everyone knows who he is and the fact is there were a number of people in this thread, myself included, that did not. It's entirely possible the person who took the asset down doesn't know either.

 

Then he or she should look it up, maybe? You know, due diligence and all that jazz?

 

It's not uncommon for app stores to simply take something down if they receive enough complaints. When you're dealing with large databases of assets you can only put so much time and effort into each one. My only real complaint with the asset store, based on these threads, is that they aren't providing sufficient information on why the take down occurred.

 

Except Asset Store isn't Google Play or App Store. They can take their time checking if asset is actually infringing as there is much less assets ever released than there are currently apps. Plus, I'd like to remind Unity staff that any DMCA notice that WASN'T sent by rightsholder (in this case, Kenney) is null and void.

 

Correct. They're not Apple or Google. They have a much smaller staff.

Having fewer assets to deal with doesn't actually increase the time allotment if the staff is proportionally smaller.

I'm not convinced this is the result of a DMCA notice.

 

Well it's simple: don't add stuff you don't own to begin with. Moan all you like but that's the fact of the matter. If other assets also do it, chances are it wasn't widely exposed enough for people to complain, and people will complain and they will probably get pulled too.

Sometimes overzealous, but easily avoided: Don't put anything in that you didn't make.

On food packaging it states "serving suggestion" because often the picture shows food not included in the product. This is the law. If your asset did not clearly state this before purchase, then it is understandable people may complain. Maybe they thought they were getting more.

Chalk it up to experience.

 

However it still has not been even confirmed that its that said stuff that caused the removal. Plenty of packages contain various public domain or similar content so its either bad job from the staff in terms of content submitting guides or verifying the packages if this is not allowed. This thread is valid anyways because the communication from Asset store has been poor once again with no exact details what was the reason and how to resolve it.

 

Yeah I just think it should be mandatory to explain it before purchase. Why wouldn't it be?

 

It's not because of the graphics - since they are public domain.
It has to be something else - that isn't an original creation - that isn't public domain.
I don't understand why you'd have anything in an asset store submission that isn't your own creation. Maybe Unity essential content - but anything else is flirting with infringement.

 

Then they have no business removing it. They're not legally obliged to do so without DMCA notice.

 

Well it should be easy for you to replace the art in your asset with the profits you've made. Hire an artist to create original art. If you spent all your profits already and can't afford that, buy Anime Studio Pro, a Wacom Bamboo Create and create the art yourself.

Unfortunately, it would have been better to tell you before watching you asset plummet off the sales charts but since it shouldn't have been there to begin with you really can't complain. Be thankful if the owner of the misappropriated art assets don't come after you & Unity for money.

There is probably a lot more than your assets that are in the asset store with assets that can't be used by the asset publisher but you've got caught.

 

In that case anyone can distribute them, including as part of a paid package.

 

He says 'he's not convinced' meaning that it's his opinion. It's likely Unity won't inform him of the exact circumstances for the asset's removal unless forced to do so in court. There is a matter of retribution and other such problems. There are some weird, petty people out there. I know I entered a photo in a Microsoft contest in 2007 and the contest administrators removed the photo from the contest and refused to say why that picture was removed, even though, ridiculously, it was just a picture of vollgrass with a glacier in the background in Grison Alps near Piz Terri that I captioned 'Cotton Picking in Switzerland'.

 

Looks that way but good luck to the OP getting that asset back in the store. It's not like there is a lots of logic behind such decisions a lot of the time.

 

Thats a bummer, but you cant include any assets you didnt create, they wont even let you use photon networking. You have to actually strip it out and do some #ifdef's and tell people to reimport it

 

When did they start this? I have plenty of downloaded assets from 3rd parties that use free to distribute trial versions of photon, nGUI, Unity Tech Assets, and so on.

 

I dont know, I know I had to do that at one point.

 

I'm actually for that, but that you had to remove such a 3rd party asset and not these other people that I have their assets for, illustrates the arbitrariness of the decision making process with most of these contests and stores.

Good luck to the OP.

 

I should've mentioned that in the asset's description. But till now it hasn't been confirmed that it's the reason the asset was disabled. You just assumed that yourself.

Nevertheless, I have right to redistribute it as it's in public domain.

I started this thread because it's completely unfair to take down my asset without even telling me why. I said in the main post that there's a chance it's my mistake but at least tell me. Don't just send a vague e-mail then never reply again. That's very un-professional and these things piss off a lot of publishers who have faced this kind of attitude from the asset store support team before.

 

That's why I've said before to just Remove everything you didn't make and replace it with your stuff. Thats the safest route you can take. Who cares if one thinv isnt thd reason, remove it and replace it.

 

It's already too late now. I still have the right to know why it was disabled at least. I'm not going to change anything then get my asset disabled again for no reason.

 

Doing nothing is always an option. It normally results in nothing happening.

At the very least you should have the stripped down version ready to go...

 

I'm sorry to hear what happened to you and how not even an explanation is given. It really sucks.

That said, based on how often I've seen people in this forum and elsewhere not caring about proper art licensing, my benefit of the doubt is with the assetstore team.

How did you create that audio or where did you source it?

I don't know this Kenney guy or his artwork, but did something he created maybe infringe a trademark or something like that? Anything that looks close to popular game franchises?

Edit:

Did you include all license documents that any licenses may or may not require you to distribute together with files you have used?

You should be able to produce a complete list of every asset included in the package and its source, and the reason why you think you can offer it with your asset. Create that list, send it to the assetstore. If everything you used should indeed be ok to use, you might be able to clear up a misunderstanding. I wouldn't be surprised if they have to deal with tons of really S***ty scammers, so that internal policy has become to not reply to requests like yours and not waste time on detailed takedown explanations. They might still read your mails though and you might have a chance of convincing them.

 

Because I'm most certain it's not about the graphics. Even if that's the reason, it will take quite some time to get someone to make the graphics and animations. I'll contact a friend of mine by tomorrow and see if he can start working on it while I'm waiting for an answer.

By the way I re-submitted the same asset without changing anything the day it got disabled, let's see if what the guys reviewing submissions will say. Maybe they have an answer.

 

My team member (In the game: Cats In Space) was the one doing all graphics, sound and music. I asked him if I'm able to use them, just for the demo scene and he said I can. As far as I can remember, he used to work with Audacity. It's been a long time since the game was released three years ago.
Again it's possible that this is the problem, but still the strange e-mail from Unity left me suspicious.

Not that I know of but I highly doubt that. The guy's work is original and he's very famous among indies.

No. I just include in the readme file the source of the things I haven't created. For example, I wrote that the asset can be used commercially and that it's up to the user to credit the creator (Kenney) or not. Just like in the original license. I think the guys reviewing the assets read those readme files so I guess that they could've denied the asset before asking ne to provide the licenses.

 

Crap. Sorry man, I feel your pain. Many of us had generic replies like that, with no further discussion when you inquiry for the details about the problem. A few times it was the same copy-paste email. But I didn't have issues like you. I feared using someone else's assets, even free, for this very reason. Even tho you're allowed to by the owner of those assets. On the other hand I did have human beings answer too, and have the problem fixed and resubmitted in minutes (when the key images were bad, or there was missing materials and stuff like that).

As for using Unity assets in your pack, I'm pretty sure you can. I asked numerous times and everyone said yes, and I think I even read it in the EULA. Said something along the lines that you can use any of the Unity assets for commercial purposes, if you're using it within Unity projects. So I doubt that is an issue.

I saw your asset and planned on getting it one day. I don't know where you wrote that you used Keney's assets, but if that was the case, maybe its possible you didn't provide a disclaimer in the way Keney or the Asset Store require. Sometimes the artist requires you to write what exactly you used and link to that (the source) in your disclaimer. But in either case they should always give you details of the problem. Its like they don't even care whether you continue to sell through them or not. Like they're saying "Meh, guess what it is, fix it or not, and resubmit, don't matter to us.". I don't mean to be mean to the asset store team, but that's what it feels like to me. Keep us posted if you resolved it.

 

They may not be legally obligated but that doesn't mean they can't do it. They own the store after all.

 

Thanks for your reply man. It really looks like they don't care. And that's why it's very frustrating.

 

Yeah but if they're going to run it this way, no publisher will agree to sell his assets in those conditions.

 

Unfortunately, based on past threads, the email you received appears to be fairly normal for them. Hopefully @caitlyn or someone else in the Asset Store division can chime in with a recommendation.

 

I guess it's because there's of competition, there isn't a competitor for the asset store out there which explains the lack of improvements in the asset store.

Hopefully someone will answer. That's the point of the whole thread.

 

It won't get disabled if you don't have stuff in it that don't belong to you.
I can tell you're stuck in your head with what you want to do, and nothing we say will make any difference.

If that's what the e-mail said, then just remove every single thing you didn't make and replace it with something you did make, how can it then be disabled if you own everything in the pack once updated? It's common sense honestly.
If the e-mail said it was removed because it had stuff you couldn't put in it, then that's a pretty clear sign that something in it needs to be removed, put in some hard-work and re-do all the art assets and keep going.

I was trying to be nice before because I'm an asset Seller too. But it's as if you don't even want to fix the issue,
I understand the e-mails are pretty basic and don't say what, and it does get frustrating.
But then again, I'd never release something with other peoples assets in it, something like this would be bound to happen.
And so sense it did, it's time to suck up your pride and just fix the thing and re-upload it. It's as simple as that.
Something don't belong to you? remove it and replace it with something you in fact did make.

If you don't want to do it because it's a lot of work, well then - at least do it for your customers and/or potential customers.
Because doing absolutely nothing, even for one single day can push your goals back even an entire 6 months. So doing nothing, nothing will happen, but if you're proactive and fix it, then you can make more money.

 

No offense, but I think that you don't have that right.

Using the lawyer definition of "right", anyway.

Also, you agreed to defend Unity from harm.

Also, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the asset store eula it is said that unity is obliged to explain anything it does to anyone. They also have the right to block anyone from the store for no reason whatsoever. By accepting the eula, you agreed to those conditions.

https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms

Basically, while it would be nice if they explained their reasoning, they're not obliged to explain anything.

So while this isn't the nicest eula out there, that's just how it is, and the best option would probably working through support chain, till you reach a human (non-copy-pasted) response.

 

I'm sorry Hippo but thats bullshit. CC0 (i.e. public domain) assets are specifically made to be used however you want, you specifically DO have the right to distribute them. You specifically DO have the right to charge for them if you so desire. You specifically DONT have to credit someone. You specifically DO have the right to licence them under other terms.

There are literally hundreds of assets using CC0 art and code.

Whats more I have specifically talked about the assets in question (Kenney.nl assets) with the asset store staff and they confirmed they are okay to use. My asset originally got auto rejected because it had a licence.txt file where I detailed all the licence rights of included assets as well as clearing up that I had specifically licensed some other assets which were originally under GPL. This resulted in an email confirmation that it was okay to include these assets and I just had to rename the licence.txt file to something else to skip the auto rejection.

@SoumiDelRio wait till the asset store responds. Maybe its not those assets that are the issue. Or maybe they have just made a mistake.

The other possibility is the way your asset is advertised makes it seem like a major part of the content is made up of assets which are freely available elsewhere, this may be seen as misleading buyers. In that case a simple disclaimer in the description that the art assets are freely available should address any lingering concerns.