Piracy in Asset Store

You misunderstand me, I buy an asset on the store, invest alot of money and time into customizing it, and then it turns out its a pirated asset.

 

My apologies. I assume Unity would be more than happy to refund you due to a severe loss of reputation if they were to refuse refunds for stolen content.

There might be a need for some clarification from Unity.

1) buy an asset from the store and use it in a published game
2) turns out the asset is stolen, original owner comes after you for copyright infringement/stolen content

I am curious how Unity would handle this situation. If a company comes after me for using stolen content... but I bought that stolen content from Unity's asset store, what obligations does Unity have to me as a customer?

 

They have 0 obligation to do anything.

 

I'm not sure where you live but in most places selling stolen goods is illegal - digital or otherwise. If Unity sells me a stolen asset and then the owner attempts to come after me then most reasonable people (and courts) would expect Unity to shoulder some of the blame.

You can just say "lol oops." and wash your hands of it. I'm not saying Unity should be taking the bullet for people in terms of monetary loss (although they should refund purchases for stolen assets) but they do have some kind of obligation, if not legal than at least morally - to curtail the amount of stolen assets that appear on the Unity store.

What next? Are you going to argue Google have no responsibility if I install an app from the playstore and it has malware?

If I buy a stolen car (unknowingly) the car will be repossessed and I lose my money. However, the person who sold me the stolen car has still broken the law. I don't see how this is any different just because it's a digital asset.

 

Read the terms of service for the asset store.

There is a section where it says that if Unity gets in trouble, you have the obligation to defend them, there is nothing about the opposite.

In fact there is a general vibe of “we know nothing, we just provide a service, we are not liable for anything.”

And when was the last time Google got into trouble for apps spying on their users? (Which happens a lot)

 

Just because a section like that exists doesn't mean it will necessarily hold up in court. Over the past year there has been work going into making companies liable for the products that they sell for third parties thanks to Amazon being a great way for people to sell products that otherwise would have been questionable if not illegal to sell.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ller-products-u-s-appeals-court-idUSKCN1TY2HM

https://retailleader.com/bill-would-require-amazon-police-its-marketplace

 

So we probably have another decade or so until it starts to apply for digital goods as well.

 

For the United States. The EU may be another story.

 

My point is this:

If I get sued because I used something from the Asset Store that wasn’t legal, what are the actual chances Unity comes to my aid, without me having to force them by breaking new legal ground and making new precedents to happen? Because all that sounds like a lot of work to me.

Unless of course I email Unity’s legal department, tell them about moral obligation to which they will obviously reply “O SNAP you got us there, we have no choice but to defend you now”...

What I’m trying to say, unless I’m willing to break new legal ground against companies with full legal departments, for all practical purposes Unity will not provide any help in case I get in trouble for illegal content on their Asset Store.

 

The first step would be to ban the publisher of said stolen assets that they are selling and at least show that you are being proactive in trying to quell such behaviour. Unity though aren't even doing that.

 

I'm aware but I have to point out the South Park episode that pokes fun at this very topic wherein by signing up to iTunes then Apple could do some pretty sick stuff to you because "terms and conditions". Don't get me wrong - I certainly don't want to see Unity get caught up in constant legal disputes etc, but just because it's in the terms and conditions doesn't mean it holds up everywhere.

Take Fallout 76 in Australia where Bethesda said no to refunds and were forced to do it anyway.

https://www.mmorpg.com/fallout-76/n...lia-halloween-event-caused-crashes-2000102133

Again this defence is suspect at best as they directly profit from the store sales. If I buy a stolen car and the police come to recover it "I didn't know it was stolen" is not going to do anything to stop the car being taken away. If a manufacturer sells an aerosol can that accidentally explodes and kills someone, "we didn't know" doesn't cut it.

Does it work both ways? Can someone use Unity to create a game, make $20,000,000 and never give unity a penny because they "didn't know you had to do that". I'm sure Unity would disagree in that case.

True. But not getting caught doesn't mean they have done nothing wrong. By that logic I can steal from shops and people and, as long as I don't get caught it's not theft.

Again, I'm not advocating a witch hunt but to claim Unity would be able to carelessly allow stolen assets to be openly sold (specifically AAA stolen stuff in this example) is ludicrous, especially when they would take the same position were it their property.

(Can i reverse engineer Unity and sell the source code because I didnt read the T&Cs and therefore "didnt know" you aren't allowed to do that? )

I'm not sure why you would take such a hard stance of "they have no obligation whatsoever" considering it can have a massive impact on the community (asset store flooded with stolen content/scams, asset creaters get discouraged and leave, people dont buy as much stuff as they are scared it might be stolen and unity doesnt care) etc.

There is a lot of incentive for Unity to be pro active about this issue.

Again, I feel you might change your stance were it your stuff being openly stolen and sold online?

 

I am not taking a stance. I’m talking legally and practically it’s what will happen. Read my previous post where I think I explain it better.

 

I don't expect Unity to come to my aid. What I was pointing out was that there is an inherent risk that if Unity do nothing (or not enough) to stop the issue then it's possible people might end up buying stolen assets. Those assets are then used in a game that is published and sold on steam.

The original owner sees this and contacts the developer. The developer says "Well I bought it from Unity asset store." Most likely, people will not want to take Unity to court and would prefer to go after the person/dev company. Considering laws around this stuff are still archaic I could imagine it not going well in court.

However, I would think that that person who was sued could then take Unity to court in an attempt to claim for damages (as they sold them the asset and you can't use a defence where you expect people to check if the object is stolen - I mean if a shop sells stolen goods they are still liable).

The problem is due to the only recourse most likely being "take Unity to court" to recover whatever you spent fighting your own case - most will not do it as Unity is a huge company.

Therefore, it's more about the potential impact it could have on the asset store itself and those who are part of it's economy (especially those who make a living selling assets or buy them to make games)

I don't expect Unity to come to anyone's defence. But I would expect them to at least consider the impact it might have on people. Again - I'm not asking for the moon. "Obvious" AAA assets should be removed quite quickly. They could try giving the community more power to report/help (like Unity answers).

 

The thing is both of you, @AcidArrow and @Aviryx, are correct. That's why, in these cases, lawyers; expensive ones, are always involved.

 

Yes, but doing nothing is easier.

Expecting things from Unity is a trap IMO. Assume the worst and plan ahead. It’s one of the reasons we’re not using the Asset Store any more.

 

Likely outcome: Unity doesn't feel responsible and points fingers at the seller, and you would have to sue the seller and realistically will be unable to get any compensation out of them because they are in another country. Really sucks and I truely hope that none of your assets are affected!

 

Next Logical Step -> Asset Store Insurance: $9.99 a month, protects you, up to $100,000 in liability coverage,

 

Its really scary, you need todo huge amount of background checks before committing to a asset that you think will not be easy replaced.

 

In most cases, nothing. These are 3 separate cases.

Case 1: You bought the asset and you used it. You have a responsibility to exercise due diligence and ensure that your asset is original by whatever means. If you get sued, you get sued. If your due diligence is Unity's terms and condition, then that's your defense in court. whether that holds up, is up to the court. However, SINCE you posted here, the lawyer for the party suing you can now easily prove that you are aware that pirated/stolen assets were being sold on the asset store, yet did not do you due diligence when buying. In other words, you are screwed. This is between you and the asset owner.

Case 2: The asset owner can also sue the asset store for selling the asset. Then it'll be a battle between the 2 lawyers in court to see who can convince the judge they are right in terms of liability, the store or the seller. This is between the asset owner and the asset store.

Case 3: Then similarly, if you have the the budget for it, you can try to sue unity for not exercising due diligence and selling you a pirated asset, and covering your loss for customization etc. and fighting with them over who is liable, the store or seller. This is between you and the asset store.

Unity will try their best to push the liability to the seller and anyone suing the store will be suing to prevent that. Unity cos they don't want to pay. The asset owner and yourself cos well... the seller probably just vanished without a trace, and even if you find them may be just a script kiddie in some third world country.

Whether unity can convince the now vanished/kiddie seller to take responsibility/defend them is another matter and once again between them and and asset seller.

Hence there will be multiple multiple cases involved which are all interlinked, resulting in cases which last years. So unless significant amounts are involved i doubt anyone will sue anyone else.

To use an analogy if you go out and buy a phone, and it turns out the phone is stolen, then owner is going to try to get it back from you. He is not going to go to the shop to demand payment. Then you have to try to get your money back from the shop. If you're want to try to demand payment for the new case, new screen protector and any other customization you did to your ex new phone (ie, any customization done to the asset), that's between you and the shop. So when looking at this from a legal perspective, these are 2 separate case. If owner goes on to sue his supplier, that's more or less his business.

BTW, its better not to treat the asset store as a brick and motar shop but rather the guy from the flea market or the corner alley with his pile of wares or your shady acquaintance (Unity is NOT your friend). "Is this legal/Legit ?" "Oh yeah baby! Thats what i was told *wink* "

 

Whilst this might be "practical" advice I really dislike people pushing for this status-quo of "unity doesn't have to do anything". We should all be communicating this concern to unity.... for them to read

"lol nothing you can do"
"unity has no responsibility"
"meh what can be done about it though"

will give them the impression that it's either 1) not an issue or 2) they don't have to do anything about it.

"CEO John Riccitiello says Unity Technologies is currently valued at more than $3 billion and earning about $300 million per year in annual revenue.11 Feb 2019"

Unity is not like the guy at a flea market, or the guy standing in an alley.... they are an international company who make a lot of money and have an obligation to users - regardless of if they like it or not. They directly profit from crime (stolen digital assets being sold) because they take a percentage of all store sales.

If Unity sell stolen (digital) assets then, at the very least, they take on some of the responsibility - irrespective of if they want to or not.

Again, I'm not looking for a witch hunt and I certainly don't want Unity to fail. However, that doesn't mean Unity can do no wrong. No matter how you word it - selling stolen assets is selling stolen assets. They might not have sold them directly but they provided the platform and took profit from stolen goods being sold.

That last part is where Unity may fall foul of the law and if they want to operate in multiple countries then they have to accept that "if you sign the T&Cs it means John Riccitiello can come round your house eat all your food and then take your TV" doesn't mean he can actually do that.

 

does anyone know how turbosquid, sketchfab, unreal store or others handle these cases?
(as in, do they also require owner to take action, or user reporting is enough?)

for asset store reviewers:
surely they could add simple google image search tools for their queue (1 click to check if similar images appear) ?
alsopretty sure AI could give a similarity rating, or even recognise obvious cases..

 

AFAIK (this is from other people I speak to that publish stuff on epics store) they are very quick to take stuff down on the assumption that it can be proven it's stolen content... but they don't pro-actively look for stolen content. The community is responsible for letting Epic know "hey this is stolen" and then it looks like Epic are pretty good at removing content.

This is in stark contrast to Unity's apparent hands-off approach of "wait for a DMCA".

I honestly think Unity should implement some sort of community-based system where those with high ratings/etc can report assets. I mean why bother going through the processing of reviewing assets in the first place? Unity obviously care to some extent. They did this with Unity Answers and they don't seem unhappy with the results (to the point where a non-Unity employee can stop people from posting on an official Unity platform (by rejecting their question).

Why not something similar with the asset store.

 

Hmmmm... I thought that comparing their store to a dodgy guy at a flea market was clearly communicating concern and a lack of trust. Also the bit where it says "Unity is NOT your friend".

 

Well, lets be honest here, they are not. Any nice guy "I understand you" statements are just PR and Marketing BS. They are in the end a company who needs to answer to their shareholders etc. The difference in attitude between Unity and Unreal is once again probably down to their different markets.

As i mentioned in another thread on why people pay to use the unreal logo, while people pay to remove the unity logo. When people think of Unreal, they tend to think of AAA and Quality games they've seen. When people think of Unity, its probably easy to get into, cheap, and a million crappy games they've seen. One seeks to cater to studios who will mostly customize their own assets, the other seeks to cater to the ocean of indie developers who will probably buy some assets from their store at some point in their career/hobby.

The asset store is a significant part of unity and allows practically anything to be sold as long as they get a cut. Just look at the difference in number of assets. Unreal has 293 2D assets for sale, Unity has 7958. Unreal, after you combine all their different 3D categories (Props, characters, environments, animations, materials etc etc) has about 8000 3D assets, Unity has 34798. Its obvious that one focuses more on on quantity then the other, probably earns a nice amount from it, and their business model obviously works for them.

Also even if studios buy, they care about more about IP and that kind of stuff and have their own workflow process to verify the legitimacy (and also have more resources to go after unreal if there are any issues). When the indies buy if they don't have the resources/interest in verifying IP themselves, i doubt they have the resources to do much to unity (and their legal team) if anything happens, maybe write a few emails and hope for goodwill? No matter studio or indie, your obligation towards verifying that an asset you use is non-pirated is the same. How you go about fulfilling it is another matter. If you want to claim you are an indie and don't have the time/resources and rely wholly on the asset store to verify this for you then...

 

Its probably not an issue to them because of what i GUESS is their business model. Please refer to my reply above

There is a significant difference between this an say a fence. A fence is knowingly taking stolen goods, selling it and taking a cut. In this case, unity is renting sellers the space to sell stuff, whereby the payment rate is a cut of their sales. Another analogy. If you go to a shopping mall, bought stolen goods at a shop in the mall, are you going to sue the shop or the mall? The mall is owned by this mega company as well, and may be charging shops a % of sales on top of rent (an increasingly common model in retail)

Also, as far as i know, despite the long history of online market places, there are no precedents with any market place being sued for selling stolen goods.

LVMH did sue ebay for selling counterfeit goods. The case took 6 years, a resulted in a small fine. Tiffany also sued ebay but the case was thrown out. Both were luxury companies with significant brand name cachet. Nike a much more common brand never sued ebay, but instead opted target some bigger more popular sellers/shops on the platform instead.

This is true, and i agree. I know it doesn't hold in my country. But this also has to factor in some context and is normally determined on a case by case basis. As i mentioned, now that you have posted here, its enough to proof that you knew that there were pirated assets on the asset store and if you get in trouble, its more or less your own fault for not doing your own due diligence. Also, even if it holds, as i mentioned, resources ($$$) is an important factor. A common strategy is to basically drag out the case till you can't afford to fight it anymore. Unless you are filthy rich (why are you buying a pirated $6 asset), want to try a class action suit, or are some megacorp its probably going to be difficult. The Ebay vs LVMH case i mentioned above basically resulted in a slap on the wrist for ebay.