Selling Assets that have been modified with paid assets

Title is a little confusing, but I didn't know how to word it any better. I've been thinking about trying to make assets for the store but I want to clarify a legal question:

So obviously you can't sell someone else's asset in your own product, but what if your asset was made with their tool.

For example, lets say I have some asset to sell like a 3D object, script, or a Tilemap. Now these are original creations, but if I include a demo scene for them; and the scene's UI was made with an asset from the store; would that be a problem? I recently bought a package to easily create and modify UI, and while I know you can use paid assets commercially, I can't figure out the policy for something like this. Another example is selling assets that include terrain created with a purchased Terrain tool.

Now if I wanted a demo scene to include sound effects and particles from a paid asset, that probably wouldn't be allowed since I'm basically just giving them the source. But how do licensing policies work for content created using tools (3D modelling programs, UI toolkits, Terrain building, Shaders, etc).

You'll need to check the license for every tool individually, unfortunately. Thankfully most stuff from the Asset Store uses standardised licenses, which simplifies that.

As for an actual answer, typically you can use the output of an asset in any way you'd like, as long as it does not contain any data from the original asset.

Example: Back when ProBuilder was a paid asset, I could use it to make a level and I could include that level in other assets if I wanted, as long as I didn't include any ProBuilder code or other assets with it. So I could export the generated mesh, applied textures, etc. etc. and that's all fine. But I couldn't include any ProBuilder scripts, built-in textures, example content, etc. In other words, when I give it to other people it's just a set of meshes, textures and colliders.

1 Like

In general, yes. Unless the license permits it. However, the text is ambiguous. If you used resources from the bought asset, like borrowed their buttons, that would be a no. However, f your asset is a button generator, that normally would be permitted.

Basically, selling stuff created with a tool is generally okay (unless the tool has some interesting restrictions), but selling derivatives of the tool itself is generally not okay.

I guess I should just ask the owner directly to make sure. Do you know the policy with public scripts? I found a RigidBody character controller script online for free, and I’d like to use parts of it in the demo scene. Unfortunately its on pastebin so I have no idea who the original owner is.

EDIT To clarify its not a paid or free asset. its just some code that someone posted online. As if from a forum post or youtube video

Technically if it is posted in public that does not mean you can use it. However, it is unlikely that they’ll try to sue you for using it, if it was a single individual giving it to another as an example.

THe license can be CC0/Public domain, then you can do whatever, It can be MIT/BSD/ZLib then you can also pretty much do whatever, it can be CC-BY, then you need attribution, or it can be GPL, then you can’t use it.

Unless you have permission with a clear license don’t use it for anything other than studying it.

It’s pretty unlikely to be an issue in any specific case, but it’s opening yourself up to risk. You don’t know if the person who posted it is ok with it, and just as importantly you don’t know if they owned it in the first place.

1 Like

Yes, pretty much this.

github, for example, had an interesting licensing trap at some point.
At some point uploading repositories to github required you to make them public unless you had subscription.
However, if a code in a public repository had no license, then you were not allowed to use it. Meaning, you could read and study it, which was permitted by the license, but could not use snippets of it in your code, because you were not given permission for that.

Rules have chaged since, and github now allows privet repositories. But this example illustrates the problem with free snippets online.

Technically, if a snippet has no license, then you’re not allowed to use it. But at the same time, it is unlikely that you’ll be sued for using it.

1 Like

I think it is helpful to look at the context around the code that is posted. For example, people often post code examples on this forum in response to other people asking for help. Technically you can’t use them without the author’s express permission, but common sense says they posted the code for the purpose of being used by others, even if they don’t flat out say so or include a license.