Author Topic: License clarification.  (Read 8557 times)

Hi All,

It's already been discussed briefly in the Announcing Substance Share thread, where Sebastien Deguy (Founder and CEO, Allegorithmic) have tried to clarify the license terms for Substance Share...

Well, let me clarify: what that means is (please read the entire text there: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode), if you download an asset from Substance Share, you can use it in a game, to produce a film, etc. whether it is a commercial or personal project. You JUST have to credit somewhere the author and the link to the source.

Then, IF you modify the asset AND decide on distributing the derived asset by itself, THEN, because what you distribute is based on the original asset that is licensed according to CC-BY-SA, the new, modified asset has to be licensed under CC-BY-SA too.

This is to basically prevent from anyone downloading the assets, barely modify them and redistribute them (or even sell them) on other platforms.

I hope that helps! :)

I assume we can all agree that this seem fairly straight forward - right...?
And then again - perhaps not really, cause as Tokri wrote subsequently...
I'd be happy on those terms that you described, but unfortunately that's not how I'd interpret CC-BY-SA. For example this answer pretty much sums my fears on using SA copyleft license:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23171816/creative-common-sharealike-3-0-commercial-game

I've read that (4.0) license you linked and I didn't catch anything that would state that I wouldn't need to share my own product using CC-BY-SA even if I used only one CC-BY-SA source asset for my entire product. If you can point out the part on that legal text that states otherwise, can please quote that for us? I'd be more than happy to be wrong here..

I feel the license terms are getting more and more blurry and make it close to impossible to use in reality without further clarification...  :-\

In example, I only use some materials in architectural renders of 3D models...
From what I understand, I will need to credit all authors of materials I use in a render, provide links to the source and my renders are all of a sudden under the CC-BY-SA license... (??)

If this is how I should interpret the license, then I need to leave this, as it will means that I can't use any materials in any of the renders I make...

Moreover... If I use a material in a 3D model and share this model with others, I'm not allowed to do so in the future, although the material is only a very small part of the entire 3D model...  ???

Or if I want to share the material I've made based on an asset I got from Substance Share, that would be a direct breach of the license...

I think this needs further clarification, as it may lead to a completely useless system - at least for me...  :-\
Cheers
Kim Frederik
Thea Render - A Team
"If you have no critics you'll likely have no success..."
-Malcolm X

The impression I've gotten from discussions on a number of other sites seems to lay it out like this: Yes, your entire render would be under CC-BY-SA. You can share it, but only as CC-BY-SA itself. If you distributed a model with the material combined (such as part of a game/unity demo/whatever) it would all be BY-SA, but if you distributed it as parts (a zip file with the model file and the texture files) then you could specify.

The primary concern is commercial use. While the license allows commercial use, it also allows anyone who buys the product (or even just sees it) to copy it and sell it themselves as long as they give attribution. In some cases this may not be a concern, but it is a concern to anyone selling something they expect to sell more than one copy of. Like, it might be fine to use it to make a poster to promote a commercial concert (if you don't mind people copying your poster), but if you're selling a game you probably want to stay away from SA.

I sure hope you're wrong, Scott!

If you're right, then I will consider Substance Share as useless and I believe many others will have to do the same, unless they breach the license.

If the license terms are as strict as you interpret them, then users will breach it - not because they want to, but because they have to.

Then again...
How on earth would you (not you in person, but in general) be able to determine if I've used a material or three in one of my renders...?
It certainly isn't obvious in most of the renders I'm making.

I.e. can you tell if I've used a material from Substance share in this fairly simple render I've attached...?
Cheers
Kim Frederik
Thea Render - A Team
"If you have no critics you'll likely have no success..."
-Malcolm X

How on earth would you (not you in person, but in general) be able to determine if I've used a material or three in one of my renders...?
It certainly isn't obvious in most of the renders I'm making.

It would be pretty easy to spot if you have a specific pattern, like for example https://share.allegorithmic.com/libraries/76 .

If the license terms are as strict as you interpret them, then users will breach it - not because they want to, but because they have to.

This is where I strongly disagree. If you can't agree on terms, you shouldn't be using the product/service at all. There are always alternatives even some of them don't always feel as attractive as the one you'd want to use.

To get back on the topic, often when people are not sure what the terms are, common sense jumps in and people start to interpret the vague parts so it's "feels right" to them, but that doesn't always mean it's seen the same way in court if someone sues you. Clear terms would remove all the guesswork from that.

It would be pretty easy to spot if you have a specific pattern, like for example https://share.allegorithmic.com/libraries/76 .
Yes - if they're obvious, however, that's certainly not the case in most instances.

This is where I strongly disagree.
If you can't agree on terms, you shouldn't be using the product/service at all. There are always alternatives even some of them don't always feel as attractive as the one you'd want to use.
Actually - we don't disagree at all!
I'm on the same page in the same book as you.

What I'm trying to say is that if terms in a license are too strict, users will be more likely to breach them.

If what Scott have written is the way the license terms should be interpreted, I don't see much use for commercial purposes.
At least not for the work I do, but I'm sure it's the same for a lot of other users.

To get back on the topic, often when people are not sure what the terms are, common sense jumps in and people start to interpret the vague parts so it's "feels right" to them, but that doesn't always mean it's seen the same way in court if someone sues you. Clear terms would remove all the guesswork from that.
Exactly!
I also assume that users sharing materials don't see the license terms as strong as Scott are interpreting them.
If I share something I accept that my eventual copyrights are no longer in force.
Otherwise I wouldn't share the material or I would sell the material with specific copyrights.

Hence the need to make the terms clear and unequivocal for Substance Share.
At the moment we're assuming and guessing.
Cheers
Kim Frederik
Thea Render - A Team
"If you have no critics you'll likely have no success..."
-Malcolm X

Just posting a heads up from the Founder and CEO of Allegorithmic, Sébastien Deguy!
License terms should be crystal clear for all now!

Ok guys,

After numerous internal discussions, and with the help of our lawyer, we agree that CC-BY-SA is NOT the proper license to be used here.

My intent was to make sure that what could be found on Share could be used for any purpose, personal or  commercial work both included. But I also wanted to make sure to protect contributors, in such a way that would impeach anyone to simply download your creation and basically resell it somewhere else...

It looked to me that CC-BY-SA was the answer, but in fact it does pose a threat to the entire production integrating content licensed under these terms. That was obviously not my intent, and I misread the text.

The proper license does not seem to exist and we might in the future work on a license reflecting what I originally described and truly want, but in the meantime we picked a CC-BY license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

I sincerely apologize for the mess... and hope this will be found practical to our community.

Sébastien
Cheers
Kim Frederik
Thea Render - A Team
"If you have no critics you'll likely have no success..."
-Malcolm X

The new license is available here: https://www.allegorithmic.com/legal/substance-share

And it will be available in the coming hours on Share, you will need to check it before logging on the website.

Cheers,
Nicolas
Director of Product Management & COO

Kim,

Thank you for getting this resolved.

Bob James
SketchUp, Thea Render, Substance, 
"Never underestimate the intelligence of your audience nor overestimate your own" - Bob James

Just posting a heads up from the Founder and CEO of Allegorithmic, Sébastien Deguy!
License terms should be crystal clear for all now!

Ok guys,

After numerous internal discussions, and with the help of our lawyer, we agree that CC-BY-SA is NOT the proper license to be used here.

My intent was to make sure that what could be found on Share could be used for any purpose, personal or  commercial work both included. But I also wanted to make sure to protect contributors, in such a way that would impeach anyone to simply download your creation and basically resell it somewhere else...

It looked to me that CC-BY-SA was the answer, but in fact it does pose a threat to the entire production integrating content licensed under these terms. That was obviously not my intent, and I misread the text.

The proper license does not seem to exist and we might in the future work on a license reflecting what I originally described and truly want, but in the meantime we picked a CC-BY license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

I sincerely apologize for the mess... and hope this will be found practical to our community.

Sébastien

For the non legal types...and lazy people...what's the new license do...or can't do..

Thank you for getting this resolved.
Oohhh... Please don't thank me...
I just wanted some clarification and the Allegorithmic team acted very fast with a crystal clear answer!
I'm impressed and really happy that I bought a Lincense!

For the non legal types...and lazy people...what's the new license do...or can't do..
The short version is:
As long as you give the author credit, you can:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

As a minimum I strongly advice and encourage you to read the CC-BY:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Cheers
Kim Frederik
Thea Render - A Team
"If you have no critics you'll likely have no success..."
-Malcolm X

So in short, if I make use of a substance or filter for substances I use in a game that I make, I have to add the creator's username in my game credits to make it legal?

I'll copy paste what I posted on Polycount on this subject:

Quote
The way we see it is for a material, brush or filter used to paint or texture an asset that's part of a larger project, this project can't be considered "altered material" or "derivative work" as its scope is much larger and the original creators do not need to be credited.

BUT assets being used to create and redistribute a similar (single or group of) assets require the creator to be credited. eg. You download a smart material that you tweak and embed in another smart material that you redistribute or you use a substance material as is or slightly modified to texture a prop that you sell on an asset store.

Kim,

Good to see you here.
Glad you like and are using SD and Yes the team here are so quick in their response for most stuff.
The development of all their software move at an extremely fast pace.

Quoting the official creative commons website: "If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences."

So... how exactly do we credit the works? Can we get something like a simple copy/paste generated thing to make it simple to give credit the legally correct way?

If anything, this seems overly complicated. Really wish Substance Share just went with CC0 like we did with the last few releases of MakeHuman.

EDIT: Here are some examples for people from the official wiki - now we just need a way to auto generate this info:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution
Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 06:10:17 am

Hi guys. New here.

What about using it for an advert purpose for TV. How do you credit then?

Thanks