Guy selling ripped copyrighted models on the asset store

Came across this guy on the asset store selling some models ripped from asian games. https://assetstore.unity.com/publishers/41637

For example https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/characters/humanoids/ssrcharacterpack-143165 is from this game https://store.steampowered.com/app/551170/Onmyoji/ and the mobile version https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.netease.onmyoji.gb&hl=en the models can be found on this chinese site for ripped assets https://www.byzhihuo.com/thread-13311-1-1.html

He's stupid enough to buy and review his own assets so it was also easy to figure out that it's the same guy that is behind the assets published by this account https://assetstore.unity.com/publishers/42888 and this account https://assetstore.unity.com/publishers/9117

I'll do some more digging but it's really obvious where "his" models are coming from. Is just reporting him enough? Seems like he's just making new accounts all the time. NetEase looks like a pretty big company, I wouldn't mess with them if I were him.

 

Dates all line up too. Unfortunately, there's no way to really report these things unless you're the rights holder.

 

Only if you report him to the actual copyright holder. Unity isn't able to act on any reports unless you own the copyrights.

 

Unity chooses not to act on any such reports. They could do something, but don't. If I am most generous, they fear they might determine rights-holding arguments wrongly in a muddled situation. If I am more cynical, they find that ignorance is more profitable than investigations.

 

Contact the owners of the of the content. They can report it to Unity. Unity will (and has) take action if warranted.

 

I'm more happy knowing I didn't buy those models. I was looking for toon models and had them bookmarked. Guess I should research things a little more for now on.

 

5 bucks for 59 hand-painted-anime-styled 3d models?
That sure is fishy...

 

Read up on copyright law, especially with DMCA. It's not this simple as you present the situation.

 

I think you're trying to suggest that DMCA restricts what a publisher can do in the face of allegations of copyright infringement. It's the other way around. If the ostensible owner posts a notice, then the publisher must act. I am not talking about that at all.

DMCA says nothing about what the publisher must do, should do, is morally justified in doing or not doing, if some observant but uninterested third party says HEY YOU SHOULD CHECK OUT THIS RIPPED OFF SPONGEBOB THING, MAYBE TWINKLETOES69 ISN'T PART OF NICKELODEON AND NOT THE HEIR TO STEPHEN HILLENBERG. If Unity looks at what's on their site for any reason, including their own due diligence, or including some random person pointing out an obvious ripoff, then Unity can choose to act, and it's my opinion that they are morally obligated to do so.

 

All published assets uploaded to Unity when the publisher states that they have the rights to publish such content. I really don't understand what do you mean "can choose to act". There is no legal term "obvious ripoff", the publisher stated that they have the copyright to release the asset. There is no obvious ripoff.
Moreover in circumstances, Unity can be held liable if they choose to wrongfully remove some user content from their sites. Which may or may not a real threat to Unity at any given time, but certainly makes a bad idea to just removing assets based on "random person's" opinion. Because "random person" isn't in contractual relationship in this matter, the publisher and Unity do. Also Unity does not have any way knowing what kind of license the publisher has. And you don't have any way knowing either, you just choose to rely on "obvious ripoff", which is either true or false, there is no way of knowing.
So yes, I understand why you're saying what you're saying, but I also think that you're wrong.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, whatever I stated here is my opinion, blablabla...

 

I posted on their discussian board and linked to this thread. https://steamcommunity.com/app/551170/discussions/0/1639788130266534417/

If it is legit then cool, if not, then lets hope they contact unity to have them removed. In the mean time I hope unity freeze this persons account temporarily until this is resolved.

 

Really? If I run a shop I can choose what products I do and don't want to sell at my own discretion. I'm pretty sure Unity similarly aren't obliged to sell anyone's particular product. I doubt they have to give a reason.

I understand that they can't be expected to recognise every possible copyright infringement, but if one is brought to their attention I, as a customer, sure as heck want them to do something about it. Otherwise I can't even slightly trust what's on their store, and using anything from there is high risk.

 

Indeed, they have conditions that are vague enough to let the pull anything, most stores do. It's up to them (unity) to balance how they want deal with it. People incorrectly complain about "rips" all the time. And people post stuff they don't have the rights to. Dunno what the ratio of those occurrences are. But Unity has to weigh how much time they want to invest in investigation (a few hours of staff time could represent more than an asset will ever net them). They don't want to unecessarly tick off asset producers with false claims. And they don't want to tick off customers with having to pull files or pass on problems to them. Really it all kind of sucks for the people who deal with that.
That's why I make games and don't do customer service or anything related to commerce. Blech..

 

True, but the negative impact on customer confidence isn't really measurable.

 

I hope Unity removes these assets. For game models, pretty much the only places I trust are the Unity asset store and OpenGameArt. Turbosquid and CGTrader are crawling with stuff like this. It's a pain to have to thoroughly research the models on these sites so I always check if the asset store or OGA has what I need first.

I don't want to see the asset store turn into a copyright minefield as well.

 

Unfortunately if big outfits like turbosquid and CGtrader whose sole purpose is to operate an asset store struggle to remove them all (they do remove them when copyright owners report) then I doubt UAS will ever be better in that regard.

Personally I think UAS does pretty well compared to others in terms of % of stolen content available

 

Has been for a while, just less noticeable of one because it's extremely engine specific.

 

Yes, really. Please, keep in mind, I'm still not a lawyer. But there were cases when these non-negotiable contracts didn't hold up exactly and if the other party get some damages due to takedowns, they may can seek compensation for the damages. Also Section 230, I believe, protects Unity by default, unless the court finds that it is used on a wrong way. The DMCA defines the way how providers should be notified and how copyright holders should notify providers about their wish to remove their copyrighted material. If Unity do other ways (like removing content on third-party notice) it is a danger that a court would deem section 230 no longer in play because the attached rules weren't followed.
Obviously I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just drawing my own conclusions based on my limited knowledge of law and pervert interest in court cases. I could easily be wrong, I'm just stating why I think what I think.

 

DMCA defines a way for copyright holders to issue specific takedown orders. It's defined so the publisher cannot claim ignorance. It's not the only way that a publisher can be notified.

Section 230 is about the Communications Decency Act, and has little to do with copyright at all. It holds publishers like this forum administration to have a little bit of "safe harbor" from outside calls to hold the publisher liable for falsehoods, slander/libel, indecent materials, and the like. Publishers are seen as offering content that has not been formally reviewed before publication, and far more than they could possibly review before publication, so holding them liable for the things posters say is too big a risk for an open society. The Unity Asset Store requires specific Unity approval for every asset posted, so Section 230 has far less power if any at all.

And both DMCA and Section 230 are specifically American law, not global law, so there are definitely concerns about international companies and their commitments to agreed/treaty/standardized conventions like the Berne Convention.

 

The EULA is written so that Unity can remove whatever they want, but they rarely do. If there's a copyright issue then you can report the asset to them and notify whomever owns the content so that the copyright owner can send Unity a DMCA for the asset.

The store team is generally not going to act on something without a DMCA notice unless it's completely obvious that there's an issue and the asset has traction which would affect users negatively. In all other circumstances the copyright owner must file a DMCA notice and then Unity is required to remove the content until the publisher contests the takedown notice. If they do not contest it, then it stays removed. If they do contest it, then the entity that issued the DMCA basically has to file a suit on the violator, but the violator is in deep crap if they lie because contesting it is legally binding - asserting that you own the content rights.

Generally, these are taken care of reasonably well and repeat violations are tracked.

 

I'm not saying that it has to be a "takedown" or that Unity has to accuse anyone of anything. I see no reason that they couldn't just decide to no longer sell some particular product(s). It's common enough in other stores.

No store is obliged to sell any specific product.

 

This is so filthy. He has 30 reviews, which means he probably made at least a few hundred dollars. Likely more.

Does Unity reimburse the buyers when they unknowingly purchased copyrighted works?

This kind of thing should be taken really seriously by UT.

If there is no repercussion for sellers who rip game assets and UT is slow to act, this problem will only get worse.

 

This is generally the case for all financial crimes, Enron aside (don't mess with the SEC). I have had my credit cards and debit cards swiped numerous times and the thieves always get away with it. Always. The only thing that keeps all of us from doing it is a moral compass.

The best thing that could happen would be a lot of people selling straight up game torrents. Unity would certainly take notice if their asset store became a warez dump.

 

I agree the situation isn't ideal, but do not forget as a creator the responsibility ultimately falls on you to not to infringe other people's copyright when you create your application, game or video or whatever. Many times you can buy third-party-copyrighted material for the sake of personal use but you're not allowed to use them commercially or any public way.
So does not matter what you think Unity should or should not do in such situation, please, protect yourself and exercise due diligence and investigate the assets and IPs you're buying and want to use in your publicly released products.

 

People are way too forgiving of large corporations these days.

Ultimately UT is taking x% from each sale on the asset store. That would include sale of copyrighted works like the above. If UT was using the asset store for personal use, that's one thing, but they're not.

In this case, they're directly acting as a vendor for stolen goods which are being sold under false pretense (as royalty free).

That UT can afford the legal protections that a half billion dollar corporation can afford and swing around the clout that a half billion dollar company can swing doesn't make it morally "your responsibility", they are selling copyrighted works just like you'd be.

This all just comes down to an issue of it being too small of an issue to sue over and most copyright holders being too small to legally press their claim.

If UT was selling copyrighted works by major multinational corporations, trust me, it'd become "their responsibility" quite quickly.

 

I really won't go through all your rant, I'm not interested in the company-bashing.

If you read my comments carefully I never said anything about their responsibility. They may or may not have one.

No, it does not make it. It is ALWAYS your responsibility to not to release a copyright infringing product, no matter what. Of course, after your lost court case or take-down where the IP owners bulldoze you, you can try to sue Unity because of their negligence. Good luck with that. It may or may not work. But it does not negate your inherent responsibility you're bearing towards your own product release.

 

The real problem here is that UT has so little actual financial risk in most of these issues that they don't have any incentive to clear their own store of copyrighted work.

If by policy they took responsibility for illegally selling copyrighted works (for example, by refunding customers who purchased copyrighted works and at least eating those costs), fewer cases like this would slip by.

At this point, for UT, its not even so much a question of legality as it is a risk/reward equation. They have little to no risk and can collect huge reward, so little or no effort will be made to police the store, and little to no effort will be made to do right by their customers.

[Edit] This assumes that UT doesn't already have any policy in place like that - and they might. TBH I have no clue, the whole issue may not be on their radar even. I hope it is, and if not, it aught to be.

 

Mind, there is not always possible to detect, weather asset has any infringed materials.
I suspect, that is common to games, containing tons of such assets, without actually knowledge of game dev.
Even script which is claimed to be original work, can become issue, if it is stolen.
Is just like buying second hand stuff. You never know, if has been previously stolen.
Rest what happens, may be after thought.

 

Yeah. Realistically there is no way any customer can determine if something they bought on the asset store is copyrighted or not.

I got some icons the other day. Even if I could search online and find a match I can't tell if they're the one selling the icon. Only ut has the vendor info and that's not even a guarantee to determine who actually owns the copyright.

 

I would expect some level of protection from Unity in this regard though.
suppose I live in a place where Futurama wasn't ever a thing (god forbid), someday I find a model of Bender in the AS that was published under some generic name like "Robot 01" instead of "Bending Unit 22", and I use that as a model in my locally distributed game, for years no problem, but what happens when I go world wide? Am I forced to hand over all I've made with the game to the IP owners? Do I need to take some form of retroactive action? assuming the IP owner is totally upset and wants me jailed.

I totally understand doing some research, but in this example, I gotta go around asking everybody about this, what if the people I ask are also unaware of the IP?

I make all my models so this isn't a real problem for me, but I can't help but wonder about this.
also, if the IP owner and me are in different countries, can I just go tell him to get bent with out any repercussions or is it like an extradition agreement type of thing?

 

Also there are cases like this one, where author provides nice quality models, but also are based on real existing designs.

Spoiler

 

Sure, that's why I said investigate. Obviously the court will weigh your negligence and or intention. But if the plaintiff has some damages because of the copyright infringement, well, bad luck. You as a non-US resident may claim lack of jurisdiction, although IDK if you are in better position with the EU IP law...

Sorry, I won't repeat myself anymore. IDK whom you're debating with.

You have the exact same tools and opportunities what Unity has. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless you want Unity to use their "gut feeling". (You don't want to ask any company to "use their gut feeling")

And you have. The majority of the assets on the store *probably* is not problematic from IP point of view. But they won't protect you if an IP owner go after you. They have it in their license, they aren't responsible. So even if the IP owner try to include them in a law suit, probably they would get immunity under Section 230. (As long as they take down the asset upon the proper notification)
But you and me don't get this immunity and it's our responsibility to not to release a game with Batman in it. Period.

You really cannot go to jail because of this. You may pay a large sum of money, depending on the circumstances and the damages the plaintiff can claim. But I don't think you can go to jail just because an error like this.

Well, depends, (I'm not a Lawyer and all that) I guess the court appreciates the good faith, so in a lot of cases stopping the distribution, marketing and all that was enough to not to make bigger trouble. And a lawsuit is expensive, they usually cannot get a sizable income from it, so IP owners usually ask you to stop infringing and not sue at first sight. But they can.

I think it's an agreement thing. I know cases when American companies and individuals sued people from the UK over IP and the court held up the suit, so the UK surely has agreement with the US, but I guess the EU has some form of agreement as well. You need to know your own country if they protect IP and if they have agreement with other countries.

 

What are you talking about?

Unity has the contact information, bank account information and some form of identity confirmation on every vendor (they need that data to distribute the money).

They also have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal and can hire someone who spends all day every day validating the legality of the wares they sell.

Users do not have the resources available that UT has. It's well and good to say "its your responsibility" but in practice, there is no way any individual user of the asset store can realistically meet that responsibility.

The asset store isn't some rinky dink operation, it's made tens of millions of dollars and has been a core pillar of Unity's business, its income stream, and it's growth into a major player in the games industry. I hope that UT treats it like the golden goose that it is, and polices it properly.

 

Yeah I'm fully aware of this, I was just imagining a stereotypical fat and evil business man losing his S*** over the phone.

 

I think there is also another aspect of whole picture, which may be not obvious for many devs.
We know, larger companies will look for any opportunity, to make $$, from infringing copy righted materials.
And here are the potential situations, where owners of copy righted materials, won't report back to Unity Asset Store, about infringed asset, even if they been informed multiple times, by other asset users. Case is, they may look at the products, which use their owned materials and wait, when they can open court case, to earn some cash on a pray (dev).

The thing is, lets say hypothetically that is the case. Meaning, Unity will never receive opportunity, to shoot down infringed asset on asset store, since haven't received DMCA. Hence, even obvious case of infringing, will fruit on Asset Store for however long it will take.

Is buyers responsibility, to ensure owning "legal" assets? Sure.
But should Unity get involved in free market ... I am unable to take stance for this case atm.

Probably not

 

That is highly unlikely at least with the American companies because the longer they wait with the take down the weaker their copyright will get. Court will look at the store page and say since they didn't stop it right away they cannot have compensation. Likely.

 

We all have responsibility to produce non copyright infringing games and assets for the asset store.

But why doesn’t the asset store have a responsibility to run a non infringing store? And if Unity and I have the same tools to find if something infringes copyright, why should I do it? I am the one paying for the service and Unity is the one getting paid.

I guess I just really dislike the “I’m a simple host I know nothing” attitude the asset store has.

 

Please, someone explain to me, how this "investigation" would look like to determinate if a piece of asset is released by people who surely don't have the rights to do that. I'm curious what you can come up with. Something concrete.

 

I think there should be some database that you can put something into, a string of letters as keywords, a picture, a 3D model, have some search AI crosscheck it against all of its database and return stuff he thinks may be it.

 

Especially with the 30% cut they take.

 

Database of what? How would you determinate if an asset was uploaded by a person who surely does not have the right to do so? I don't care about how you store the data. How you tell that the person does not have the right to upload?

 

Well, you ask them and you also ask the rights holder assuming the “database” found a match.

“Hey is this thing your thing? If yes, does this dude have the rights to sell it? Kthxbye”

In any case, they have some brilliant minds there at Unity, they don’t need ideas from us, I’m sure. So if Article 13 starts to get enforced, I’m sure they’ll figure something out.

 

By awaiting validation before actually getting into the database? if someone uploads something that isn't their work you can update the database later with the real owner once notified, but if someone looks for it, he wants to know if what he has is original or not, whomever submitted the work isn't really the question, just the fact that it already exists. (and not done by your artist as he claim, for example)

I'm not saying this should be the place to get a solid yes/no answer about this issue to settle a court case, but it would certainly help people check for not buying stuff like discussed here and can be used by companies to raise red flags on certain products on their store.

I realize getting something like this is nothing a government will ever spend their money on in the near future, but it could be a payed service, and besides, a man can dream.. (;

 

I like the thoughts.

However, it would be extremely difficult, to execute such mechanics.
The only feasible way I could think of, is when certain part of asset appears in DB more than once.
For example teapot model. If appearing more than once, check who has the rights, or quote.
Now that providing, it is exactly same teapot. What if will change by slightest. That leads to tons of similar models. Or even same models, with different names. And that only models, among many other things.

Chasing some random places in the world, if such difficult thing.
And if using different languages, that even more cryptic.
For example Chinese game I would never play, nor even see.
How I, You, They could know, whose asset is. Unless indeed discovered, that asset x, has something from game y. Just like per OP thread title.

 

Ah I see. "I don't care, do something", well, that's helpful. I don't really understand how you would build this magical database either. You get some data, someone released something, but how would you tell if what you found is the original.
Example: you have a "stuff" on the store. You have a version of the "stuff" elsewhere (game or whatever). The store publisher says it's his work. The other guys say it's their work. Good luck.
Maybe the other guys' stuff is the original and the store publisher is infringing, maybe the other guys' bought this publishers' asset and built a game using this asset.
There is no incentive to answer such question. You just elongated the Asset Store release process by at least a week or two and possibly exposed Unity to a possible law suit. (If they're the owner and don't answer, Unity wait for a week or so, release the asset, the owner can claim that Unity shouldn't have release the asset since was in suspicion - it's dangerous).

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/

It's more complicated than that. No one owns the right to the teapot. And still every creator owns the right to their own teapot model. So even if they are virtually identical, if they did it separately, and they didn't copied the files, they can have two separate but virtually the same assets.
And this is not helping cases like this, where the source is unknown until someone does not look for it or comes accros of it. So the databse wouldn't contain it, probably.

Not to mention, and this is a question for this particular situation as well. What if the asset store asset is the original and the games bought it from the publisher? Or the publisher bought the right of distribution from the same source? Or the game creators infringed the publisher? Why do we assume that the asset store publisher is automatically in the wrong?


--
Exactly these are the reasons I told from the beginning, it's not that simple.

 

How am I supposed to do it before I use an asset from the asset store? Why am I liable for using it and Unity isn’t for selling it?

The asset store has a whole bunch of car models that are replicas of real ones. They are so many, it made it really annoying for me when I wanted to get a non infringing car to use in my game.

What could Unity do? They could ask for some proof from the uploader that he has the rights to use the designs. If user claims they are different enough, maybe Unity could have a copyright specialist to judge if the designs are far enough from the originals. Or err on the side of caution and reject it anyway.

I mean I don’t know, there could be more things they could do, I haven’t spent too much time thinking about it since I’m not the one running a store that sells user uploaded stuff.

 

I really get how “I don’t care, do something” annoys you because it’s so different from your usual “I don’t care, don’t do anything” when it’s something that doesn’t really affect you, but you can’t help but share how we are somehow wrong for caring.

You know what, you had me in your ignore list at some point, maybe it’s time I got back there, we never say anything productive to each other.

 

From my point of view, whole conversation is quite constructive, from either of participants.
However, if you don't feel, you just don't have to replay. Just read, or even stop watching thread, for healthy mind sake
I don't see anything being said against you. There are just arguments about discussed topic and how complex matter actually is.

 

If that makes you feel better.

--
BTW, just to be clear: I do care. That's why I'm here to debate it. I also would like to have a safe to use Asset Store, even if I know that it is impossible. That's why I'm asking questions, how can be achieved such thing. And that's why I try to put reason behind my claims. So if I'm wrong, that can be pointed out and if I'm right and communicate something new to someone, that's great.

 

We just need reviewers that have played every game and watched every movie.