Possible illegal license for asset store terms?

Community Showcases
1

I just picked up Medieval Environment Pack

While the pack itself is great, I’m very troubled by this file in the README:

"Terms of use:

Commercial use OK but is not permitted to: resell or distribute
any of these models/textures in an any form.
Just don’t sell or distribute any of these models/textures (modified or not)
by itself or in a model/texture pack, material, clipart, or other content pack.
Games and movies are OK.
You can sale your videogame/presentation/visualisation/movie with this assets.

One license per project.

I agree not to give or sell the packag to the third parties. "

No where on the asset store page does it say “One license per project.” From my understanding, asset store default license means you can use them as often as you like in as many projects as you like unless stated otherwise on the store page. His page does not state this so you don’t know until after you purchase the pack that it’s restricted to one use per project. :rage: I’ve noticed other assets require one license per seat and they are clearly marked in store… However, one per project!?

I don’t think it is legal for him to modify restrictions/terms after sale. From what I read in unity asset store, when in license conflict their license overrides any other license. Is that correct?

2

If thats the case, than this sounds weird. And should have been mentioned before buyers buy the pack.

3

Odd, thought asset store bundles with nondefault licensing had to have a listing like what AudioToolkit has: Unity Asset Store - The Best Assets for Game Making

4

Yes, but those are editor extension assets and as such marked in store as require one license per seat. This is even worse as it’s one per project.

5

You have not agreed to that license, and you are not bound by it - his added license is against the rules, and should have caused the package to be refused.

Only a free asset can have a modified license. See sections 6.6 and 6.7

1 Like
6

You can use our assets in any projects you like :slight_smile:

1 Like
7

Is a Unity employee or Michael going to post here, or will we be left to speculate?

8

Hopefully Michael will remove the non-binding license file in an update. He seems like a decent guy, perhaps the file was for another web store and he just forgot about it being there.

9

Just ignore it. You agree with Asset Store’s EULA, not a piece of text from someone who didn’t read it and think he can impose his own terms.

10

Did I get that right? He wants that you buy that package multiple times if you intend to use it in different projects?

11

That is what the file says. Unity is aware and said they are contacting the author to fix it.

12

I think that is “unless stated otherwise” (that means we don’t have a conflict here) and you have to follow the author’s rule, cos the models don’t belong to Unity team the artists still own their works.

13

You can’t sell something with the understanding of what it is (default license that applies to everything else on unity asset shop) and then change it once the purchase has been made. The readme Terms of Use is only visible after the package has been purchased. If he was going to do that then it needed to be clearly marked on the store page. so people could avoid buying it.

14

Revealing EULA after purchase is pretty much industry standard practice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Shrink-wrap_and_click-wrap_licenses

I’m not saying that it’s a good thing, but a Unity asset store seller can’t really be held to standards that the rest of the industry doesn’t follow. Personally, I would put a link if I had special terms in a product I was selling, but that’s just me. Though if someone is going to do this, they need to offer a refund if the user does not agree with the terms.

15

The bottom line is this line in the Unity Asset Store EULA:

Seems to me we have free roam to do whatever we want with purchased assets? Am I mistaken?

edit I would love some clarification on the above statement if anybody has any insight. Thanks!

16

The Asset Store used to allow additional licenses a while back. This is no longer allowed, at all (free items in the store may be allowed to have a permissive open source license still, not sure about this), so the asset seems to be in violation of store policies.

That said, Michael is usually pretty helpful with support, so I recommend contacting him for clarification, and to let him be aware that the README file is against the Asset Store’s publisher agreement.

17

Not entirely. Look at the very next paragraph:

There are plenty of restrictions in Appendix 1 on what you can do with an asset:

There are quire a few restrictions in there, especially on editor extensions.

Overall, the document seems to be missing some critical key points (unless I just missed them.)

One specifically would be for art assets and other assets not covered under editor extensions. By omission, it seems one would have the right to download an art asset and immediately start selling that asset as-is anywhere, including on the Unity Asset Store. This is incorrect, and regardless of what the EULA says, US copyright law could be invoked as the original creator has an automatic copyright.

18

after so many months the issue still exists

assets should be pulled until terms clarified to be those of asset store else it could end up legal issue to customer down the road and who wants that

that will teach author and other authors thinking of going around terms with their own hidden / after you buy additional / changed terms and limitations

authors should not insert different / additional terms in like readme. ect… it just casts doubt on the whole sale and licensee ability to use at all. who is to say the author will not change the terms and update from now…

so this should be stopped asap before it gets out of hand and ends up being meaningless terms

im surprised cause the author appears nice i have a number of assets from him and i never looked at readme files honestly am i bound by those crazy terms as well?

unity should step in and help resolve this asap cause it hurts / puts in doube the value of unity asset store for everyone.

just looked there is !readme.txt

Terms of  use:
Commercial use OK but is not permitted to: resell or distribute any of
these models/textures in an any form. Just do not sell or
distribute any of these models/textures (modified or not) by itself
(or company)
in a model/texture pack, material, clipart, or other content pack.
Games and Movies are OK. You can sale your
videogame/presentation/visualisation/movie with this assets.
You need one license per project

contact: ratsllik@gmail.com

i think the

violates the terms of unity asset store agreement. also the whole readme is in violation of ther unity asset store agreement cause it whole purpose is to alter the terms of asset store agreement after the sale has happened and as in my cause if i had not seen this post i never would have saw it since i didnt bother reading the readme. so others may not have seen the hidden term

you just cant ignore it cause he can sick lawyers on you, and the whole thing by like steam while dispute is resolved. look at recent 7days2die getting pulled form steam cause they ignored / dont read emails on time… and had asset with issue. sure this is a little different. but you cant just use an asset in dispute.

and you at least could end up with lawyers being sicked on you by asset author unjustly which is very expensive. im going to file complaint with unity i hope others will as well.

this is not acceptable. he appears to do it to other assets as well!

19

Three things:

  1. Unity denied my asset to be published because I had my own terms in a readme file. This seems to be a rule of theirs, but their asset store workers all seem to go by different sets of criteria. For example, my asset got on the store with a readme.html file, then later when I tried to update the asset they denied my update because it didn’t have a readme.TXT. So according to one reviewer, you MUST have a readme.txt and a readme.html is not acceptable, while to another reviewer a readme.html is just fine. This is just one of many unwritten rules I ran up against trying to get my asset published. In other words, they do have a rule against adding your own terms, but the reviewers are not all following the same rules. Report the asset and see what they do.

  2. I disagree that the Unity asset store agreement should be the only licensing agreement allowed for all products sold in this store. This is not fair to the creators of assets to have zero say in how people use their products. The asset store is nothing more than a marketplace. Its as if Best Buy imposed a one-size-fits-all licensing agreement on ALL products they sell, regardless of category or type and the company who made the product had no say whatsoever. That would be absurd. In the same sense, a one-size-fits-all agreement that the creator has zero control over does make sense in all cases. As part of allowing individual agreements, I’d like to see a system where the asset store allows a text area for your own licensing agreement. Then the agreement would have to be prominently shown on the product page, or even when adding the product to cart or checkout.

  3. Licensing agreements that are only shown after purchase (in a box or after install) are pretty much ubiquitous and have been for decades. Unity assets shouldn’t be held to some standard the rest of the world is not. I believe agreements should be shown up front and be part of the purchase process, but if they’re not and you don’t want to agree to it after the fact, you need to be able to get a refund quickly and easily. Otherwise, every product in the world would need to have its licensing agreement in full printed on the box and every product you buy at Amazon needs to pop up a licensing agreement before you can check out. It’s a little silly if you think about it. 30-day returns pretty much cover any problems.

Oh and as for the publisher changing the licensing agreement after an update… That’s exactly what happens with Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 periodically. In fact in happens with other productivity software as well. You’re forced to agree to the new terms or stop using the software or at least you will not be able to use the updated version. Draconian, maybe, but certainly not unheard of. Having unlimited lifetime updates with no change in terms, while certainly nice for the users, should really be up to the developer. At least with an asset, if the terms changed and you didn’t agree, you could still use the old version. With forced updates like Blizzard’s games, you simply lose your right to play the game you purchased if you don’t agree to the new terms. That is wrong, but it’s being done.

20

re: 1/2/3

when you buy something in the asset store

it is not the same as an end user purchase of product for end user personal use

what you are paying for is a license to use the asset

so you have to know the terms up front

else what are you paying for / how can you use it / surprise who knows

so customers needs to see the whole final agreement that cannot be changed in any way upfront. all sales are final and so should agreements. :wink:

and even for end user after the sale terms are not held up in court. just makes it costly to get your rights. caues you have to get a lawyer and hall them into a court and then you get your $30 back at a cost of $10,000. and that is why its done. its so basically nullify your rights cause nobody will spend $10,000 to get back $30… so much for rights, right…

worse if you cant get easily a way to get refund, like with asset store

because again how could the user know what he is buying . you dont and it could be later changed, so you are buying what? you can do what with it?

it turns contract law on its head.

so what you are saying is you would allow sellers to have option to only let you know the terms of the agreement to only after you pay for them and then because there is a no refund policy by unity on asset purchases you cant get your money back

is such where the case the value of asset store would be destroyed

also as a seller if you dont like the terms of the unity license then you dont have to sell your asset

what you cant do is violate the terms and insert in after sales terms cause you dont like the terms that the item was being sold under. which is what appears author is attempting to do.

anyways this is just another nail in the asset store.

i hope unity moves quickly to cleanup things. it appears from this thread that its been months now with this author and it still continues so its not just a reviewer problem cause unity has from what i read been notified some time ago and this author continues at it and author has allowed it to continue…

i certainly am affected, i bought some of the assets. i didnt know not body told me. i just found out by chance seeing this otherwise old thread bumped by by luck by someone

so i think the best thing to do is complain to unity until its pulled or changed. they are allowing it and they can easily stop it.

sadly ive cut back my buying in the asset store and this will just slow it down even more. its forced me to have to directly deal with authors which while a hassle actually ends up costing me less, well other than time invested. cause there is no asset store taking 30% involved. unity has to do more for its 30% than delay an assets release. hey unity your killing your own golden goose or at least reducing the value of it.

its a big disappointment cause this could easily be resolved. so can the dead / unsupported / broken / abandoned asset that clog the asset store. and while it may be making unity some sales, it leaves a bad taste. surely unity could do more by at least doing like download.com and having overall review and review for this release. and to have way to more easily flag asset as broken for this release and/or abandon and/or unsupported. i gues you can do other. but still the assets remain. so flagging them is like not getting them out. perhaps to have a list of supported releases that you dont get automatically on unless you certifiy that its supported / works with the current release. so that way author says it works on release x1, x2, x3 and then when x4 comes out if he dont certify it wont show so that way people know it stale and may not work. or at least way to report its does not work for x4 and it then shows up not working for x4 until author adds support. also nice to have way to filter on release that it works on. that way i could exlude all the stuff i dont need to see cause it dont work… i mean a lot more can be done in the asset store. also filter by rating. just go to download.com/amazon.com/newegg.com and you see some nice store filtering, well not so much amazon.com. but they do some nice stuff with reviews where you can group them by rating and then do sortings on reviews…

anyways ive already sent complaint… lets see what happens…