License issues for bought assets

Under the new terms, do I now have to worry about what Unity license an asset creator has versus my own license if I buy a Unity asset somewhere other than the Unity Asset Store?
https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/software
"any user of the Unity Software may use content properly acquired from the Unity Asset Store regardless of the tier of Unity Software that was used to develop such Asset Store content."

 

https://forum.unity.com/threads/mixing-unity-tiers-in-a-project.415676/

 

You are fine! The thread linked there also came to that same conclusion. Honestly, it wouldn't make much sense for Unity to require you to have the same license as was used by the asset store product creator. They make a fair bit of money from people who don't need Pro/Plus licenses but get things off the store.

 

That's an older thread though. The terms seem to have changed? I don't remember this being in the old EULA? :

"If you are an individual or a Legal Entity providing services to a third party, your Total Finances is deemed to be your customer or client’s Total Finances"

Taken literally this means a Unity asset developed using Personal can't be sold to someone who needs Plus or Pro?

 

That hasn’t changed, it’s been that for quite a while. All it says is that it doesn’t matter what the asset store creator used, you can use it with any license.

 

Thanks - the faq also supports that although it seems to conflict with the wording in the terms I posted above? From the faq:


Can third party content (such as user generated content, game mods, and Asset Store packages) developed in Unity Personal Edition be used to develop a game in Unity Professional Edition, and vice versa?

Yes, you are free to license content from a third party for use in the development of your game, irrespective of which version of Unity that content was originally created in.

 

No conflict. The wording in the first post specifically addresses asset store content. It makes no mention of other sources.

 

I'm referring to the Total Finances part

 

And you can use Unity asset you baught on another 3D engine game for example.
The assets are not dependent on Unity , you do what you want with them once you buy it like from any other regular 3D models shop.

 

That's an entirely separate issue... let me try to clarify them:

Issue #1: Asset Store Assets
When using assets from the asset store, it does not matter if the assets were developed with Free, Plus or Pro and you are using Free, Plus or Pro... assets from the asset store are exempt from the mixed license rule.

Issue #2: Total Finances
This is to provide clarity for contract agreements and freelancers. It's basically this... Let's say your annual income from Unity is $25,000, so you fall well under the requirement to have to purchase Plus or Pro. However... if you're contracting for another company (they have hired you to do work either directly or via contract), and that company's income exceeds $100k (which it's almost sure to), then you must use a Plus or Pro license. This is to prevent companies from skirting the rules by just hiring their people as "contractors" with free licenses. So, if you're going to be doing contract work, make sure you build licensing into the cost of your contract.

 

Is this accurate interpretation? It seems really heavy handed. What constitutes contract work in this situation, and for what length of time? If a company hires you to create a model or script which takes you a week, you are then required to purchase a year of plus/pro license just because of that one transaction?

 

It does seem heavy handed but...

... this literally says that if you're "providing services", then the company's income is counted as your own.

 

Crazy. That is going to be "overlooked" by a lot of people, both intentionally and unintentionally. Their penalizing the small guy in order to reign in potential abuse by the big guy.

 

The reigning in of abuse was pure speculation on my part. And in all honesty, that isn't the type of clause I would see them aggressively enforcing anyway... most likely more of a CYA mandated by the company lawyers.

 

I wonder if "service" means that you're working on the client's project, while not affecting a deliverable like a Unity ready 3D model?

 

Yes, you have to distinguish between "goods" and "services". If you're selling a model, that's a "good". I also think there's a difference between a company coming to you and saying "We want you to build widget X" and "We want to contract you for X period of time to work on our stuff". If you're selling the service as part of your company, then it's your company but if you're acting as an extension of your client (i.e. you're a contract employee), then it's their income that matters.

 

Exactly. If you go and buy an existing asset / plug-in / model off of a site or store front then it doesn’t matter how the created it (license level or tool). If you are having them work on your project either directly or creating something specific to your project, then they need a matching level of license. (Assuming they are actually using unity... if you are having someone build a model and the are delivering an fbx or whatever, then it doesn’t matter).

 

Ok. That's a little disappointing I guess since it prevents you from buying custom art as .unitypackage?

 

If it is only art assets, just get the source files. you don’t need it in a unity package. In fact it is probably better that way.

 

Not penalizing anyone, at most it is to help prevent abuse of a pretty decent license system. A company that size shouldn’t be underpaying contractors to get around buying software for staff (or avoiding paying for staff). For a contractor, it’s simply a cost of doing business, if you are making a living off it, it’s a minor cost. If you contracting for companies that are required to use pro, and you aren’t making enough to easily justify the pro license cost, something has gone horribly wrong.

 

You're right if you make $100K per year you should be able to afford $420 for a 1 year Plus license for a subcontractor, or $1500 if you make $200K, at least as long as the individual subcontractor is providing something of substantial value.
It does become somewhat problematic if you're considering purchasing a custom Unity asset of smaller value though.
It doesn't seem to prevent a small game developer using personal edition from buying custom Unity content from a larger outsourcing company that must use Pro or am I mistaken?

 

That shouldn’t be a problem, though check with unity sales / support if you are actually in a that situation, just to be safe. It’s at best an edge case, it’s unlikely to come up, and it really doesn’t violate the goal of the terms. It’s also something has very little chance of being abused profitably, as the revenue cap also refers to the budget of the project, so if you outsource 100k, you need to upgrade anyway.

 

It shouldn't, especially with free and plus/pro now pretty well reaching feature parity. Previously, this was similar to the company issue... preventing users from using a bunch of free licenses and then one pro license to customize the splash screen and add additional pro features or simply to publish.

 

I think the important word in the FAQ is license, being a licensor or licensee of a product, even if this product was done for a specific title, should be fine.

So instead of doing contract work you should sell the customer a license to use it. This way you still own all rights to the product itself. Sometimes it would be necessary to give the customer an exclusive license (especially for art), but even then you would still own all rights of your product (although you practically can’t license it to anyone else).

 

As a small time casual freelancer, I like the changes. It takes freelancing and remote working out of the weird grey area it was in. Now I know exactly what I need to do to comply with the Unity license terms, and I can make a cost/benefit analysis on that. It also means I can definitively tell my clients I am in compliance.

There are still a couple of edge cases. (A client that insists on using plus even though their total finances don't require it.) But most of the big cases are covered.

As to the extra cost and paper work, both are fairly minor and don't really bother me that much.

 

Yes there are still a few edge cases that would be nice to get official stands on. In particular as Kiwasi mentioned above it's probably a good idea to mention the cases where obtaining a license without needing one based on finances can seem to be detrimental, and address them.

 

If you have something specific or isn’t covered (most is) you can contact them directly to see if you can get an exception.

 

That will almost never happen, you can try, but almost always if company contracts work, they are going to want to own it. By default, they do. Unless you can get convince them to sign a contract to the contrary.

 

What the default is is actually a bit of a messy subject, that depends on relationship (employed vs freelance / B2B), jurisdiction, type of content (software programs, literature, artwork ...) etc. Some rights might even be unwaiverable, while others can be changed by contract.
Examples:
As an employee the rights to software programs you create for your employer belong to them, while in a B2B relationship rights will have to be either licensed or transferred for the client for them to be able to use the content (edit - this is how Danish law works - other countries have different laws) . In many cases this is taken as being implied by the nature of the work but you really should always get the agreement down in writing. (An email that you agree to is a valid contract - in some jurisdictions...)

 

Yes you should always get everything thing in writing. But in context of this discussion, if you contact someone to work on your game/project, it is work for hire and owned by the contractor unless spelled out in the contract. My point was that virtually no one will do that. If I hire someone to create something for my game, and they want to maintain rights or license it, I’ll find another vendor. It’s not a common situation and doesn’t really impact the main discussion at hand.

 

This might be the case in the USA but not always in Europe. In Germany the developer of a software always owns the copyright. There is no way to transfer the copyright itself to another person or company like the employer.

If the software was developed by an employee then the employer automatically owns all rights to use the software. (like using it, modifying it, selling licenses of it etc.)

If the software was a commissioned work created by a freelancer then the rights to use the software are NOT automatically transferred to the customer. The transfer of any use rights must be specified explicitly in a contract. (Of course the copyright itself can’t be transferred to anyone)

https://www.medienrecht-urheberrech...rag-programmierer-als-freier-mitarbeiter.html