Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Can i use content from the asset store that i bought in other engines like UE4 or .?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by RandAlThor, Mar 26, 2014.

  1. RandAlThor

    RandAlThor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,293
    Can i use content from the asset store that i bought from Unity in other engines like UE4 or Cryengine?
    I mean mainly the objects, animations and the sounds and music.
     
  2. wccrawford

    wccrawford

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Posts:
    2,039
    It depends on the license. As each is potentially different, you'll have to research each.

    While the default store doesn't specifically say you can only use them in Unity (unless I missed it in there), it does say that you can only use the asset as intended. And clearly, if they're selling on the Unity Store, they intend for you to use it in Unity. You'd have to get clarification from the creator there.

    Assets can also have custom licenses, too, so you'd have to watch for that as well.

    Default license is in Appendix 1: http://unity3d.com/company/legal/as_terms
     
  3. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    The protection for the assets are only within the Unity terms, once you move away from Unity, you will need to ask each and every asset author what is and what is not allowed, because (obviously) it's not unity's fault they can't protect you once you go.

    So you do need to ask each asset author what the individual terms are, yes. Unity does a lot of protecting for the little guy in this respect but Unity can't protect you elsewhere.
     
    fogsight likes this.
  4. TheDMan

    TheDMan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Posts:
    205
    I assume the greedy ones would say "NO! you have to buy it again on the UE4 Asset Store, etc" so they can double-dip purchases.
     
  5. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    I'm almost positive you can use Asset Store purchases in UE4. The first clause of "only for intended purposes" is basically a legalese sentence that is clarified in the next sentence, telling you what the intended purpose is. Someone can't sell something on the asset store and then say "The intended purpose is for you to burn it to a cd and then eat it, and if you do anything else with it I'll sue you." Unity sets the terms of what the intended purpose is for exactly that reason, and the intended purpose is clarified in the next clause. FYI that clause is:

    "perpetual license to the Asset to integrate Assets only as incorporated and embedded components of electronic games and interactive media and distribute such electronic game and interactive media"

    There's nothing saying you have to use Unity for your game. As long as it's a game, you can use whatever engine you want. I'd also say that the fact that they never specifically demand that you use Unity in the EULA is on purpose; they don't want purchasers to feel like any art or sound they buy would be unusable when developing outside of Unity.
     
  6. smd863

    smd863

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Posts:
    292
    The EULA is pretty clear. You are free to embed and distribute them within any "electronic games and interactive media". Unity already takes it cut when you buy them. They would obviously prefer you use them in Unity, but nowhere it the EULA is that mentioned at all. The Unity's Asset Store is separate from their engine.

    There is nothing unclear about "worldwide" and "perpetual". You aren't licensed to use the assets in space, I suppose.

    Editor Extensions have their own clause, but you aren't going to be doing much with those in any other game engine anyway.

    Why would this be the case? Terms are agreed to and payment was rendered. There's nothing more you need to ask each individual author.
     
    cesarcarreira likes this.
  7. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Because the terms of sale are between you and the author. The author assumed that this would be on the Unity store for unity apps. For instance the shader forge issue: The author wanted restrictions but the Unity terms prevented restriction. If you go running off without Unity's clause getting in the way it IS a potential problem. Any business would double check.

    Unity isn't preventing you, but you haven't agreed to a specific contract for any of these assets beyond Unity. It does not hurt to check. Otherwise it can bite you in the butt. If you want to go "la la la la" and not give a toss, that's fine. But why leave it to chance?
     
  8. smd863

    smd863

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Posts:
    292
    The authors assumptions have no legal standing. The EULA is a formal document that codifies our respective legal obligations to each other.

    We certainly have agreed to terms beyond Unity. The specific words are "worldwide" and "perpetual".

    The only thing there is to check is the license you agreed to when you bought the asset. I really don't understand what is left to chance. I certainly do give a toss (perhaps even several tosses) about proper licensing, and I don't believe I have ever went "la la la la" in my life. I just don't see any grey in this issue. It's black and white, clear as crystal, right there in the EULA we all agreed to when using the Asset Store.
     
  9. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    It's not something I will risk if we use our assets beyond Unity though. I don't mind if you do - I just can't endorse a dialogue where it might be OK to rely on just that.
     
  10. smd863

    smd863

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Posts:
    292
    Fair enough. I don't understand the reluctance to be "just" relying on the legal document both parties agreed to. It's very similar to licenses you would find at most asset providers (like Turbosquid). You get a worldwide and perpetual (but non-exclusive) license to embed it in games or interactive media.

    Asking the content creator wouldn't generally be helpful because they are not going to be more aware of the terms they agreed to than you are. Giving them a head's up you want to use their asset outside Unity would be a courtesy, but it doesn't change the licensing terms. If anyone's worried, run it by a lawyer.
     
  11. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,789
    Well the assets I sell so far are pretty specific to Unity, but if I were selling art and models I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter to me whether you took it over to UE4. We still would have made the transaction.... what you do with it from there is your own business... (well, 'cept for pirating obviously).

    edit:
    Actually the only caveat I would say would be if I sell it at different prices or receive different vendor percentages. but that would be my problem not yours.
     
  12. RandAlThor

    RandAlThor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,293
    Thank you for your opinions.
    So to be sure i have to ask the maker if there speaks something against using his asset in another engine.
     
  13. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    That's exactly what Unity should do, and the only reason the Asset Store is actually successful. It only works because there is a unified legal backing saying that the purchasers are only beholden to the contract provided, and that the individual asset authors aren't allowed to go all sue-happy and go gold digging if their asset gets used in a popular game. If the Asset Store didn't have a standardized EULA, I would never have bought a single thing from it. I'm not going to get involved with a whole bunch of random people who have no idea how the law works bothering me about what I'm allowed to do with their assets.
     
  14. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    I know I'm late to the ball, and I don't expect my opinion to make me popular, but I need to add to this a valid point. Where the EULA is clear, the buyer is not beholden to seek special permissions from the vendor to do what the EULA already grants. What if the author then denies permission to do so? You purchased a product under a different agreement and gave someone the opportunity to re-negotiate the agreement by asking them permission to do what you already had permission to do. Your agreement was with Unity, but you are asking a third party what your legal agreement with Unity allows? It does not matter what the vendor intends since they agreed to sell their product through the Unity store and, therefore, agreed to sell it according to the EULA provided by Unity when the buyer purchases it. Asking them only opens the door to potential conflicts that would not otherwise be yours to worry about, and essentially amounts to re-negotiating the EULA you have with Unity with someone who is not authorized to do so.. even if it is their intellectual property. If you're worried, talk to an actual lawyer--but approaching vendors about the EULA you agreed to at point of sale from Unity is a mistake--even if a well-intended one.

    Just to be clear: I am not an attorney, nor is this legal advice. Also, you need to understand the difference between restricted and non-restricted, as the EULA details.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  15. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    Interesting that the EULA actually doesn't allow for creation of media with purchased assets where the media is not interactive (say you use Unity to create a movie or other non-interactive visual product, which Unity is certainly capable of doing). This would seem to be a potential problem for making game trailer videos and posting them to youtube, even to promote your game.

    Also that you aren't specifically allowed to use purchased assets in space. Lol, I guess I'll have to find something else to do on my trip to Mars other than make games with asset store assets.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  16. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    Although I am not an attorney, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice (again, seek out a real attorney if you need questions answered), I do not think that trailers would qualify as a violation of the terms of the EULA. If you are using the assets in the way intended, the game or interactive media you created must be advertised as part of normal business operations. True enough, you are not given legal permission to use the assets to create a movie. You are, however, so far as I can tell, permitted by copyright law to advertise the creation resulting from use of those assets. Copyright law does not prohibit each and every instance of displaying someone else's IP. To say that you could not even create a trailer for the purpose of advertising your creation using said assets seems a bit of a stretch to me, when someone who is not affiliated with you could clearly use footage of your game and those assets to create a review--even a very damaging one. I think if someone actually brought suit against you for daring to create a trailer displaying assets that you clearly have a legal right to use in game according to the EULA, they would appear very foolish to the judge. But that's just my non-professional opinion.
     
  17. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    There was a guy who used free unreal assets and tested them in unity. Which is against Unreal 4 eula. Epic Games hit him (and his youtube channel) with cease and desist in less than a week.

    The point in questions, assets you buy do not belong to you, and you only get permission/license to use them under specific conditions. When you fail to meet the requirements, you infringe copyright.

    Copyright law and trademark law, (to my knowledge) as of now go exactly to this extent.
    You can't create trailers, and even fanart is largely illegal. The reason why fanart still exists, is because IP owners generally let it slide. However, if they decide to sue, they can do that in a heartbeat.

    Despite the ridiculousness of the situation, it is how it is.

    For additional info see roger's vs koons lawsuit summary:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
    And this page with legal talk.
    http://chrisoatley.com/fan-art/
     
    Martin_H and frosted like this.
  18. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    First, I'm not sure you fully read or comprehended my comments. There is nothing in my comments about any EULA other than the one for the Unity Store. Other EULA discussion is not a part of this thread. The context is clear. Your response seems to suggest that you read my final comment, failed to understand the context of said comment, and responded to side issues that have nothing to do with my comments. Also, I did not say anything about "fan art," although your reply suggests that you've taken my words in a way I did not intend them. I said that copyright law does not prohibit each and every instance of displaying someone else's IP. It. does. not. Fan art is something else entirely and not part of the subject matter of this thread. For the benefit of the forum, please provide everyone with the source of your opinion that making a trailer displaying legally acquired assets from the Unity Store in an actual trailer (not a short film, not a feature, not fan art) in either the actual language of the U.S. Copyright Office or an actual instance where someone sued a party for creating such a trailer that displayed legally acquired assets used in the way they were intended, and won. Otherwise, your opinion is only that and based upon nothing more than conjecture and legalistic boogeymen. One may sue for almost anything. Winning is another matter. Your first link is regarding a case involving parody, which has nothing to do with this discussion. Your second link is about fan art, and again is another issue entirely. I will not debate this further because you are not sticking to the subject of this thread, which is about the Unity Store EULA.
     
  19. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    I have a functional brain, thank you.

    Your comment suggest that common sense takes priority over copyright law. It does not, because law defies common sense.

    In event where EULA does not permit use of asset in a trailer - for example Unreal 4 eula specifically forbids using free assets in non unreal engines, you are not allowed to display a trailer.

    "Allowed use" of context you mentioned imply fair use, but fair use is quite restrictive, and only allows verbatim citations for purposes of news reporting and study. Making a trailer is making derived work, and thus is not a subject to fair use.

    ------------
    If you read through asset store eula:
    https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms

    The clauses of interest are 1.3 (you're allowed to download assets from store), 3.5( you agree not to redistribute them), 3.8 (3rd parties retain all rights) then there's end user agreement, with clauses 1.3 (assets licensed not sold), 2.2.1(can modify, unless it is an sdk, no asset pooling, no sharing) and 2.2.2(non-commercial use) that describe your rights.

    According to the EULA< as far as I can tell, making a trailer may be forbidden, unless the trailer is classified as "interactive media". The extent of your rights is defined in part 2.2.1 of "User rights". Otherwise you're granted right for non-commercial use, which are more permissive, and are defined in 2.2.2.

    Because of the clause 9.2 (where licensor retains all rights), asking additional permission from the author is a valid tactic, even though you've already dealt with agreement within Asset Store EULA.

    For anything beyond that - you'll need a lawyer.
     
    Martin_H and zombiegorilla like this.
  20. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    Oh, I'm sorry. I did not intend to imply you did not have a functioning brain. I simply did not understand why you thought that a case involving parody as a defense, where it was not warranted, and fan art, where no fan art is involved was a suitable answer to my comments. As for your citation of the EULA, that changes nothing. Your statement, "as far as I can tell," reinforces my assertion that your reply is an opinion. Next time, stick to the subject if you want to be taken seriously. Frankly, I'm sick to death of people who don't understand the most basic things about the law acting like they are experts, and when you come charging in talking about things that have nothing to do with the thread, I would hope you can understand why that was not well received.
     
  21. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    You get that don't you? Nobody was talking about parody or fan art or Unreal assets, but you. None of those things has anything to do with the Unity EULA or one's ability to make a trailer using legally acquired assets--licensed in accordance with the EULA. You get that the Unity EULA has nothing to do with the Unreal EULA, right?

    As I stated myself, if you had read and comprehended what I said, you should seek a real attorney if you're concerned. But I stand by my assertion, where the EULA is clear, the buyer is not beholden to seek out the publisher for permission to do what the EULA has already clearly granted, if you understand the difference--not you literally, but in the general sense meaning anyone, between restricted and non-restricted as spelled out in the EULA. If you're that frightened that Unity or the publisher will come after you for using the product you purchased licensing for in a game trailer, go talk to an attorney or don't purchase Unity Store assets. Seems like they would be committing professional suicide for doing such a thing, but you can never predict what some people may do.

    Furthermore, I do not understand why you would be here using anything with Unity if you are laboring under the misapprehension that you cannot use those assets to make a trailer for the game. Frankly, your post came across as more of a rant against copyright law than anything to do with what was being discussed.

    Finally, I'm not saying common sense trumps law. I'm saying you would be a fool to bring such a suit and would look like one in court. You nicely skirted the fact that your initial response to me did not address anything being discussed, but was a nice derailment talking about the things you wanted to talk about here--fan art, parody, and using Unreal assets in Unity, none of which, again, have anything to do with the discussion here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  22. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    Making a trailer uses same mechanism as making fan art (which is why I linked that video talk) and making derived works (which is why I cited Roger's vs Koons case),

    If you want something that is not an opinion, you need to visit a lawyer and pay them money. Instead of asking for a free lawyer advice on the internet. Everything posted on the internet is someone's opinion.

    I think you're having a bad day and badly need to chill out. Besides you dug up a fairly old thread to "talk about it".

    As it was said before, if you want a legal advice, hire a lawyer. Otherwise all you're going to get will be an opinion. Your stance on the subject is also an opinion/speculation, by the way, and holds no weight on its now, regardless of whether it makes sense to you or not.

    Have a nice day.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
    Martin_H likes this.
  23. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    You dropped in, replied to my comments with unrelated nonsense, and frankly I'm sick of that sort of thing, especially when it comes to important things like copyright law. I'm having a bad day and need to chill out just because I won't shut up and let you spout nonsense that has nothing to do with the issue and only muddies the waters? Next time, don't make out that I'm ignorant, and maybe you won't be made to look the fool yourself. Fan art has nothing to do with a trailer made for a game. It. does. not. Only a dime-store attorney would even consider such a comparison. So you can keep coming back for the last word after you think I'm done. That's fine if you need that. All you've done is muddy the waters. We are not talking parody or fan art, and neither of those would be considered in an opinion about whether or not you have the right to use the assets you've licensed to make a trailer for the game in accordance with the EULA. And, frankly, you tell me where I am wrong about what I've said? Point out the exact part of what I said about the EULA that is just opinion. Where the EULA is clear, you do not need to seek out the permission of a third party to do what the EULA clearly gives you permission to do. Beyond that, you should talk to an attorney. Maybe if you'd just addressed that in your first reply, we could have got on with an intelligent discussion. I don't care how old the thread is, if Google brings it up tomorrow in a search for related discussions, it will still be out there to influence people. Buying an asset from the Unity Store does not make you beholden to seek out the publisher for permission to do what the EULA between yourself and Unity gives you permission to do. For extreme clarification, if you don't think the EULA is enough, seek out an attorney.

    And something I don't think you get here, concerning the matter of seeking out the publisher for permission to do what the EULA gives you permission to do, have you ever actually tried to use an email or internet post in court as evidence? Are you actually getting an amendment or addendum to the EULA in writing from these publishers? Because, if not, such a task is a fool's errand. Whether the judge will even hear it or not depends entirely upon the judge, your attorney, and your money to pursue defense of yourself. When you get to court, and the person who made the post or sent you the email says, I never saw that before in my life and I don't know who wrote it, good luck with that. Because if they are that bat dung crazy that they would be stupid enough to sue you for using their assets in a trailer for the game you've made with their assets, it's a mistake to think that their little comment in a chat, email, or forum is going to count for squat when push comes to shove. Seeking out the publisher might be well-intended, but it is still a mistake. If you are saying they should get permission in a physical document signed and notarized from the publisher, that's another matter. Ask away. But if you mean they should reach out through digital means and ask for an answer that way, it is a bad idea. Oh, and because it takes effort, time, and money to send such an agreement to each and every person with whom they do business, good luck getting such a document. And that brings me back again to my earlier point that they cannot amend or re-negotiate the agreement you've made with Unity, so unless you are seeking expanded rights and permissions and are willing to pay for those, why bother? You aren't going to get something in writing unless you're paying for it. By the way, that's one of the benefits for publishers to use the Unity Store and its umbrella agreement--so they don't have to answer inane questions over and over again from those who purchase their products.

    "Excuse me, Mr. Publisher, I purchased this non-restricted item from the Unity Store. May I use it in a commercial game?"

    "Can I make a trailer with my game product that shows your assets being used in my game? I mean, I know it's free advertising for you when I include you in my credits and all, but please don't sue me, bro. Don't sue me."

    Do you get how that sounds? Not only is it ignorant and useless and whimpy, their answer will not stand up in court unless in writing with notarization to prove they signed it. Do not bring up fan art again. I'm not talking about fan art. I'm talking about a trailer for a commercial release of a game, something totally different before the law.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  24. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    Hey, it's clear that this is more important to you than I realized. I've put you on ignore, so I have no idea what you've said in response to my last post. I'm only telling you so that you're able to get on with your life without trying to convince me further that what you said about parody or fan art is relevant in any way to what was being said before. I asked you to post one single example where someone sued another party for using legally acquired content in accordance with the EULA in a game for commercial release and then showing that content in an actual trailer for their game release AND won. You never did, and I'm not sure you will ever be able to. You can sue for almost anything, but winning is another matter. Frankly, I don't think you understand what a trailer is or what fan art is if you're STILL insisting on taking that angle. For the record, I have attempted to use emails or chat posts as evidence in court, and it didn't go well. I'm sure you can cite counter-examples where someone did use them to their benefit, but I don't think it matters. I don't think you have personally had any experience with that sort of thing--posting your wild theories in a forum is a lot different than real world experience. So, I apologize for disagreeing with you--you may continue with your life. I'm already on with mine. And once again, I never intended to suggest your brain doesn't work. I just think I recognize the telltale signs of when someone has jumped into a thread in the most cavalier fashion, posted inane nonsense to highjack the thread and make it about them, and gone on and on when others don't roll over and let them win. Count it as a win. And please have the last word. You're welcome.

    And, for the record, I may have resurrected the post, but you are in it, too. That was entirely your choice. It is the mistake of the very young or the very foolish to think that a thing is irrelevant because it happened in the past.

    And, also for the record, the reason why this thread was so important to me--the thing that drove me to warn others against going to publishers for some sort of confirmation of rights already granted them under the EULA? I was once that naive that I thought surely some sort of documentation of the other party's words on the subject would help me in court--when I got there, they denied ever having written the words clearly associated with their account. Because I didn't have enough money to get a better attorney or keep fighting the matter or impress upon the judge that my side was worthy of deeper consideration (if you don't think that matters, you're just as naive as I was), or pay for someone to gather and sort through all of the evidence from the actual servers, I was made to look the fool. I'm only trying to save others from experiencing that same thing. I have real world experiences backing my position. You disregarded everything that was important to me by making this about your stance on parody and fan art, totally unrelated to the discussion. Feel better?
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  25. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,966
    For someone making that claim you're awfully determined to tell others that their opinion is wrong. :p

    Regardless of whether it does though Unity won't sue you for it because that would be biting the hand that feeds them and would only serve to discourage you from using their store and quite possibly their game engine and other services too.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
    Kiwasi likes this.
  26. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    Well, I think it's pretty obvious from my last post why I'm determined to warn people away from advising folks to approach publishers regarding things already covered by the EULA. I'm speaking from negative experience. I reiterate that it's pointless to approach publishers regarding their contract with Unity, unless seeking expanded rights or getting something in writing with notarization as evidence because digital communications don't go far in court without a really good lawyer and some deep pockets.

    Plus, I think apart from that, I wasn't really having issues with more than one poster who failed to really explain how his commentary was relevant to the discussion. I don't know if you've ever tried using digital communication as evidence, but I have. So when I warn people against advising people to reach out to publishers when there's already a contract in place, I'm trying to save them grief later when the thing they were relying on turns out to have not been as important or helpful as they thought.

    Considering your final comment, it appears we are in agreement. Seems like a crazy stupid thing for someone to try doing to a law-abiding consumer of their products.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  27. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,966
    My impression of his comment was that he was comparing the similarities between creating a game trailer where the asset is visible and creating fan art. The Asset Store's EULA basically states that assets can only be used for the development of electronic games and interactive media. Neither of which include videos of the sort that a game trailer would be.

    Since game trailers are a necessary part of advertising your game though Unity simply ignores them in much the same way the comic industry ignores the majority of fan art despite having the legal rights to shut it down in most situations. Basically both industries pick their battles and if you do happen to get a lawsuit it's going to be for a very good reason.

    That said you won't suddenly be dragged into lawsuits simply for violating the terms. You'll receive a cease and desist or similar notice from the company (just like the guy who was converting the UE4 demo to Unity did). Failure to comply with that notice is what will bring the lawsuit and most likely if it comes to that it will have been your fault.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  28. CaptainStardog

    CaptainStardog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Posts:
    46
    Okay,

    If you go back and look at his first reply, it's clear that he was pointing to a case where parody was used as a defense when it was not warranted, and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of trailers. And he pointed to the comparison of fan art. I reiterate my position that a commercial release involving a trailer for a game has next to nothing to do with fan art. One involves a license for use of products and necessary advertising in association with the sale of the end product, while the other involves no legal right whatsoever to the use of another's IP--no licensing or rights whatsoever. The two are only vaguely similar, and I'm dying to see one instance where someone has sued a Unity customer for doing what is right with their licensed properties and winning such a suit. Now, I don't have a problem with you, but it's beginning to feel like tag-team forum posting. I can't see his commentary, so you've picked it up for him. I've stated my views in a pretty logical way based upon real world experiences. I don't think this needs to be carried on and on. Fan art and parody don't even enter into it.
     
  29. frosted

    frosted

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    4,044
    There is no need for any frustration or argument.

    You're right that the Koons case isn't relevant. The important thing about the Koons case was that it solidified boundaries for what constitutes parody. The case established that in order to be protected from suit, parody must be satirising the work itself, directly, not society at large. The problem for Koons was that he reproduced a copyrighted work, threw a couple flowers in their hair and called it a satire of society.

    The Koons case basically states that you can't copy something exactly and say that the work itself is parody. Which is basically what Koons' defense was.

    In terms of the actual question at hand though, you're right, this isn't about copyright law, its about contract law.
     
    CaptainStardog likes this.
  30. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    You are using the assets to make a game. Marketing materials are part making of game. End of.

    To be a bit more clear,
    And:
    If you purchase assets from the asset store and use them to make a game, you absolutely, 100%, no question, can make and distribute a trailer of your game. The legal term is "reasonable expectation".

    If you purchase an asset, and never use it, that would be a violation of the Eula as well. Right? Only games and interactive media. Not drive filler, not opportunistic sale speculative purchase, not evaluation, not impulse buy never to be used. Of course not, that would be silly.

    In the case of using an asset specifically for a non-interactive film? That may be a little grey, however unity itself is promoting and showing off films made in their engine. And the presentation blurs the line. For example google's Pearl is a linear story, but presented in virtual reality, by definition, interactive. I imagine unity will need to update that part of the Eula as time goes on.
     
  31. ippdev

    ippdev

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Posts:
    3,850
    He is correct. The attorneys my son works for verified that the block funds exchanged from a third party (the bank, debit card or credit card funds transferring party)between Unity and the buyer is good enough to seal the deal under UCC.
     
  32. ippdev

    ippdev

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Posts:
    3,850
    The process of making such a film would leverage Unity editor interactivity at the very least turning that grey area white even for a wet under the collar first year litigation attorney.
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  33. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    Yea, that's a good a point. Ultimately, also since would unity that would have to bring the suit, I just can't imagine them actually suing a filmmaker for using unity to make a film. More likely they would feature on the site and promote it. ;)
     
    Martin_H likes this.