important issue with legal entity

hello ,
I'm learning with unity personal for one year , now i need to work with legal entity ( not related to video games ) as a freelancer to build promotion application to its customer .
i know that i will need pro license for that if the customer earn more than 200k / year .
but I'm hesitating about some issues , as when i read terms and conditions for software and end user , i feel like it is a complicated process .
my only all experience is on programing on unity .
so i have some questions :
if i purchased pro license and take care if i used assets from store in a legal way . is it all ? even end customer uses the application with internal team's devices or publish it on stores ?
also , if i build the applications for legal entity by creating pro account for it . is it so good for me ? can i use its account at my PC unity editor and use my personal account also at the same PC ? also at this issue who will be the owner of the application , because i need legal entity or its customer is the owner in front of unity , I'm only programmer .
sorry for asking more questions , but really it is the only points that delay me working with legal entity .

 

Because it is.

First: I am NOT a lawyer. If you need real answer, please, talk to a lawyer who specializes in licenses and other contracts for hire cases.

Now, my interpretation of these things is this:

- if you're truly a freelancer and you aren't legally an employee of this business, you do not necessarily need a pro license. If you made (from game/app development using Unity) less than 100k last year, you can use personal, if you made less than 200k, you can use the plus. Although if you want to deliver a built application, you may consider getting at least a plus license so you can build without Unity logo splash
- if you're an employee of this company, then the income (from anything) of the company matters
- if you act as a freelancer and you buy some assets and you deliver the entire source to the company with another Unity account, any assets you bought they will have to buy for themselves (no transfer of assets). This does not apply to a built application, you are okay to use any bought (regardless if it's free or for money) asset store assets in your final build and can deliver it to the client or to people to enjoy
- if the company wants a Unity license, then they will need to give up their password to you and you will handle their account (this is extremely risky from their part), currently there is no asset store asset reassign between accounts
- using two accounts on one PC with different licenses is risky and generally isn't supported very well. You should not mix & match unity licenses in a project, which means if you accidentally open up the client's project with your personal license or if you open up your personal project with the client's pro license, it can be problematic and Unity may freeze your account until you sort this out with them (it may or may not happen)
- as of the question, who will own the application you make for hire depends on the laws of your place, the company's place and on the contract you sign with them (do not work without proper paperwork, most importantly contract)
- in US law you can work for hire, and if it is the case or if your contract contains it, the company can claim the ownership of your application. It is a good idea to demand to put it in the contract and don't go with implied work for hire. Also a proper lawyer can help you with this as well.
- be careful how they are wording this contract for hire to make sure you only give up this specific application and code, not all of the code you're working on in the time frame your contract is alive
- sometimes you only can give up the distribution rights, sometimes you can give up every rights to the application, it depends on your and the companies location and the relevant laws.

Finally, get a lawyer at least for the first time. It worth the money to educate yourself about these things.

 

I think that even I’m freelancer I should follow tier eligibility of my customer ( organization) .
I think that at this time the best solution is the legal entity should create its Own account and I create the app from it , until I communicate to a lawyer.
I will be appreciating If any body can help me to connect to a lawyer.

 

See this post from Unity. If you're a freelancer, and not an actual employee, you aren't required to use the same tier. Quoted:

If you import paid assets from the Asset Store into the customer's project, the customer must also buy a license for the asset. If it's a per-seat license, the customer must buy a number of licenses equal to the number of employees who will open the project. Even if some of those employees won't use the asset directly, as long as they open the project they need a license for assets in the project.

[EDIT: Sorry, poor memory! After the thread linked above, I posted in another thread that I opened a support case to Unity's legal team and they confirmed the opposite -- that the EULA is indeed correct, and if you're freelancing for a company that requires a Pro license, you also require a Pro license.]

 

thanks for your replies , but according to this term if I'm individual i should have pro account if third party return exceed 200k / year .
also the agency and customer not related to games software and they haven't any account for unity . the customer will need application for internal use in its teams device . no publish .
so , i think that the account will be related to me or the agency ,

 

Unity has clarified in multiple threads (probably in the one I linked above, too) that "services" do not include freelancing or contract work.
[EDIT: Sorry, I forgot legal clarified that the EULA still applies.]

On the other hand, if you are developing software with Unity and will only deliver builds to the customer, then the customer does not need a Unity license at all. The customer only needs a Unity license if they are going to be using the Unity editor, not if they will only be receiving builds from you. In this case, their total finances are irrelevant.

 

Stop spreading misinformation, you need to be on the same tier.

The Unity employee you are quoting later said

"@Martin_H It's not an official definition -- just how I understand it, which could very well be wrong "

And it's wrong.

The EULA says it clearly. No mixing of tiers.

 

Thanks! You are indeed correct! After that inconclusive thread, I reported in another thread that I opened a case to Unity's legal team to get the definitive answer, and the EULA is correct. If you're freelancing for a company that requires a Pro license, you also need a Pro license. Apologies for my bad memory!

However, it's still true that if you're only providing builds to a customer (or Steam, or the App Store), then they do not need a Unity license, so of course you don't need to match theirs.

 

feel free to email legal@unity3d.com with unity-related legal questions

 

It may not have been at the time it was posted, back in 2016. There has been at least one major license update since then, and this exact issue has come up in discussion many times over the years.

I still wouldn't be happy with how the license now is if I were doing freelance work for clients on any kind of regular basis. (For starters, how am I supposed to reliably assess my clients' financial positions?) Do as @hippocoder points out and email the legal team if there's any kind of doubt. This will both cover your backside and help them know where things still need improvement.

 

Sure but the no mixing of licenses has been constant throughout the years, though even Unity employees are confused about it sometimes. So if things are to be improved we should all first realize how terrible the current terms are, and that won’t happen with misinformation being spread and people privately contacting the legal department.

The truth is, the licensing has always been terrible for small teams that try to work with freelancers. It definitely has stopped us from hiring freelancers in the past.

 

I know the high level "no mixing of licenses" has been consistent. It's the details of what that means in particular cases which have been issues, as is evidenced by Unity's own staff being "confused".

 

Current rules are that you have to have a lisence marching the financial requirements of whoever is paying for the work. It's actually pretty straight forward, and has been for a while.

It still kind of sucks for small time hobbyist freelancers, like myself. But at least it's clear.