Tom's Forum Posts

    • Post link icon

    New Draft

    Please download/view from here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/7w2qff6ef4888ra/License%20draft.docx

    Any comments welcome as usual.

    • Post link icon

    tulamide good question. For audio assets obviously I think it's perfectly reasonable to change the format. As far as modifying the royalty free assets themselves, what are sellers thoughts on this? If you sell graphics/sounds would you mind if someone were to heavily modify them?

    Edit, in fact the current license does not prohibit modification so I think it's OK to leave at that. We do have the clauses:

    [quote:39rq7sbj]Licensee may not superficially modify the Licensed Content and sell it to others for consumption, reproduction or re-sale. For example, but without restriction, Licensee may not resell audio tracks as backgrounds, hold music, ringtones etc.

    Licensee may not incorporate the Licensed Content into a logo, trademark or service mark.

    • Post link icon

    Fimbul, thanks for all the feedback!

    [quote:zirq6k20]What if the licensee purchased the content to create an advergame or interactive banner? What if the licensed content (say a sprite or a piece of music) is featured in an advertisement for the game?

    Added an exemption clause "There is exemption is for online advertisements that are solely advertising the Work For Distribution.".

    [quote:zirq6k20]It would be better if the licensee just acccepted all liability on behalf of the content creator

    I don't think it's necessary to change this.

    [quote:zirq6k20]RE: Defamatory content; Again, why not? If the licensee accepts all liability, I don't see any reason why this should be forbidden.

    Not going to change this without consulting a lawyer, and as this would probably represent a very small minority of customers I don't think it's worth opening this up.

    [quote:zirq6k20]This part should mention modding and map editors, which are legal modifications of the game provided said game supports it.

    Have updated to "You are not permitted to modify or reverse engineer the games in any way...". Re map editors, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume if the game comes with the capability then that is permitted activity.

    [quote:zirq6k20]The "explicit written consent from the seller" is sometimes present and sometimes not, in several portions of the agreement. Why not add a "clauses may be waived with explicit written consent from the seller" in the top of the license and be done with it?

    Fair suggestion, have modified agreement to state this at top. I need to think about it a bit more as there might be a few angles here but it sounds fine.

    [quote:zirq6k20]This means teaching as well, right?

    Not at the moment. Will think about this though as there's obvious benefit to permitting it for teaching purposes.

    [quote:zirq6k20]Allow conversion to different formats as long as its for your own purposes (i.e. pdf -> epub)? This is probably nitpicking on my part though.

    Nope, it's a good point and added!

    [quote:zirq6k20]However, the tool author should be exempted from liability (tool is provided "as is").

    Have added this to the pre-amble.

    [quote:zirq6k20]In addition, licensee should also abide by the tool's license if it has one.

    Will be covered under special product conditions on terms and conditions.

    [quote:zirq6k20]Typo there. Should be "Licensee".

    Thanks

    [quote:zirq6k20]This is confusing. I get the impression that the licensee is authorized to create derivative works and then resell said derivative works under his own chosen license even if minimal modification is done.

    It's saying you can modify the source, but you can still only publish to the Domain Name and the derivative work is licensed under this Agreement also. Rephrased for clarity and removed second paragraph as it's not necessary in retrospect.

    [quote:zirq6k20]Might want to rephrase that as "the sales figure on the item page can be used as indication to see how many have been sold" to avoid liability (such as a bug with the counters).

    Good suggestion thank you!

    Made a few minor changes as well on other suggestions. Will be uploading soon.

    We're also in the process of finding a lawyer to review all these terms and conditions once they have reached a stage where Scirra and the sellers are all in agreement as to the spirit of the agreements.

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

    • Post link icon

    —, bundles are a planned feature yes.

    megatronx no support for serial numbers except on rare occasions for items that need special conditions which must be negotiated with us directly.

    • Post link icon

    necromaster, it's unfortunately a risk of selling anything online. If you do find someone who is patently breaking the terms of your licensed content you should consult a lawyer and determine if it's worth your time/money to peruse compensation. If required to by law we will provide information to help with any investigation.

    As far as going on the warpath on behalf of our customers, not going to happen I'm afraid. We simply provide a service that connects buyers and sellers and allows sellers to distribute their content under the terms we provide.

    I think generally the majority of people and businesses are happy to purchase items legitimately and stay within the bounds of the license. You'll probably find that anyone who is pirating content are total amateurs and will not actually be making any money at all. They likely have no income, they have no business, so they have very little collateral at risk.

    If you find someone distributing your assets on a website, you sometimes have various tools at your disposal such as DMCA requests which we find are very effective and not time consuming to fill out.

    • Post link icon

    Regarding descriptions, I'm so sorry. I made a change a week or so ago that wiped out some short descriptions. I thought it had only affected short descriptions but it's apparently done some long ones as well. It wont happen again, my apologies! (Part of the risk of being on a beta I'm afraid).

    • Post link icon

    Hi all,

    Second draft of license is available to download from here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/7w2qff6ef4888 ... draft.docx

    A couple of things to note:

    • Added a few suggestions to RFL suggested by sellers here
    • Added a new category, "Game Licenses"
    • "Games with Source" state that the source is for learning purposes only

    All feedback is welcome!

    • Post link icon

    fldr, will consider it in the future in the form of allowing seller to set "offer x% discount if y units are purchased for this item"

    • Post link icon

    Fimbul I would consider the current license to cover work on behalf of a client:

    [quote:2s19bbvw]A commercial project is one defined as a Work for Distribution launched with the capability to generate revenue, or intention to generate revenue through the sale of, licensing of, or otherwise intend to generate revenue directly from the Work for Distribution.

    If you create a project for a client you would either be selling the project to them or licensing it to them, in which case the use of the asset counts as a commercial project. Also:

    [quote:2s19bbvw]Licensed Content may not be resold, sublicensed, assigned, transferred or otherwise made available to third parties except as incorporated into Works for Distribution.

    I think this covers your concerns?

    • Post link icon

    megatronx audio previews are not automatically generated, you need to upload them yourself via the edit item page.

    We've done this as auto watermarking/distorting/reducing quality of sounds etc can be highly misleading for customers, so we're leaving it up to the sellers to decide how they do it.

    • Post link icon

    necromaster I do plan on making it all better at some point. I'm really at the stage now where it's all working well, and I want to move on to other things so we can get it released. There really is an unlimited number of things we could do with it at this point. So hopefully in the future I'll revisit those pages and consider those changes.

    [quote:r24yf8ax]Also, the license should allow for the buyer to use the asset him/herself or ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT (that is, for a comissioned project) - this is very important!

    Yes, good point thank you!

    [quote:r24yf8ax]Last thing (for now): envato (biggest and IMHO best general asset store) judges the quality of all items and sets prices themselves.

    We've considered this, but we're not going to go down that route for now at least. We do have the ability to reject items, if something is way out of reasonable pricing (for example a brick png selling for £500) we'll definitely reject it.

    • Post link icon

    [quote:209x1yzn]Item popularity come and go in waves, and is not something that can be predicted or always influenced with price drop.

    Good point, I'll drop this idea for now then.

    [quote:209x1yzn]But for sound effects or graphics there might be the need for a multi-license. So this should be considered, maybe as a separate offer?

    I've got to stop adding features to the store now, as we need to launch at some point. I'm not saying no to the possibility of this, but for initial launch the idea is to have one license for all, at one price for one unit. There's always the possibility of adding a feature in the future of allowing sellers to offer a % discount for minimum x units ordered of course.

    [quote:209x1yzn]The definition of commercial project is a bit loose. Most royalty free licences at this sort of price exclude use in an advert, broadcast TV or theatrical release movies. Although it's unlikely people will use the assets for those things it might be an idea to clarify; maybe using "commercial game project" or "commercial software project" instead of simply commercial?

    Absolutely, will add this in.

    [quote:209x1yzn]A clause that the licensee mustn't claim or transfer attribution or the content might is another idea too

    Again yes good point.

    [quote:209x1yzn]All in all I'm happy with whatever decision is made but an idea would be to add something like: "name of resource" from "Scirra store" by "name of artist".

    I'm afraid after a bit of thought I don't think we'll be adding any requirement for attribution. If sellers want, they can add their logos to the packs and have a polite txt file saying it would be nice if you could attribute, but for royalty free assets I don't think it should be a requirement.

    Excellent and very useful feedback so far everyone, much thanks!

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads