selling same models as existing models on site
i saw many blender tutorials on youtube.
they make many lowpoly and highpoly objects like sheep, houses, rocket, donut, furnitures and etc.
when i searched them on this site, i saw the models in tutorials on this site too.
is it ok that i upload mine? they are similar cause we saw same tutorial.
my question is, can i upload them and sell them or it would be a problem and my account will be banned?
If your models does not violate following, you can upload it:
18.1. Members may only upload Content they own or otherwise have the right to use and upload. CGTrader does not own any Content uploaded by Members.
You can find more information there: https://help.cgtrader.com/en/articles/2402234-member-s-rights-obligations-and-representations
If you have any questions, please contact us via email@example.com and we will provide you more information about the situation.
Austėja from CGTrader
If you created the model by looking at tutorial, then the model is yours and you can sell it on the marketplace. It would be legal, but not necessary ethical. However if you used some starting material provided by tutorial creators, or obtained on your own, like base mesh, or starting scene, then you need to see how that material is licensed. If it has CC0 license, then you're ok, otherwise you probably can't sell your model. In any case, many thinks that profiting from assets made by tutorials is unethical and i tend to agree with them. People make tutorials to learn you new things - trying to make profit directly from their work, is almost like robbing them. The call is yours, but it always better to selling things that are made entirely by you.
@msjavadzade, can you put a link, from the tutorials you mention, where you were inspired to make your models?
@ austeja-ambrazeviciute, referred to with original content. Can this be considered original content?
The modeler probably worked hard to create a plan and paste Leonid Afremov's original work on it, he was so tired that he didn't have the strength to name the artist. And of course it is not sold with an editorial license.
There are many models that should not be here, nor can those who sell them be called artists. They have another name and we all know what it is.
or even this:
I believe that something original is something unique, different, coming out of the imagination, creativity or inventiveness of a person. Not something done following step-by-step instructions. Originality derives from origin, it is the initial, the outset, the first, the others are copies, replicas, imitations, duplicates, forgeries ...
The first one to do it is the author and from the moment it is created, its creation is protected by copyright. Even if you share or sell property rights, you always retain personal rights, such as the right to recognition, among others. Tutorial authors are sharing their knowledge and time to help others and they deserve respect. The function of a tutorial is to acquire some knowledge and develop it in your own work, not to make copies and sell them.
Someone who dedicates himself to doing the same as another person, without adding anything of it in the work, or who incorporates the work of another, without permission of the author, is usurping the work and therefore violating the rights of the author. It has as much originality as a scanner, a photocopier or a machine to make duplicates of keys.
@ austeja-ambrazeviciute, in the case of the mentioned seller, has removed the signature of the original author, in many of the models that he uses without authorization. It is not a derivative work, it is an illegal copy, sold WITHOUT THE PERMISSION of the author. In addition, the cases established by law, do not contemplate in any case the sale.
By selling donuts and illegal copies of authentic artists, you are ruining your reputation and may be in serious legal trouble.
I think this tricky situation could be easily avoided, if everyone who's making models by tutorials, would try not only follow them step by step, but also would try to add something from themselves. Make different shape donut, change its colour, add different frosting and sprinkles, in other words, make the donut trully yours. Not only it will be much easier to sell it on a marketplace, but you also may learn something new in the process. And of course, the least you can do when selling an asset made by tutorial, is to credit to its author and provide a link to the tutorial. You own him at least that much.
What I'm saying, plain and simple, is that copyright is not respected. Calling the person who is selling the work of a great ARTIST like Leonid Afremov without permission an artist is an insult to him and an infringement of his rights.
I also say that selling identical models, made by beginners following a step-by-step tutorial, is not illegal but it is not beneficial at all for CGT. It is not what is expected of those who claim to be a great platform of artists. There is more quality on the illegal download pages than here, (and they work better too).
Wanting to ignore both, I think is also a big mistake.
What you say in your previous comment is the same as I said, accreditation of the author (who is the first to do it) and contribute something different in your work, not make mere copies, identical to the original. And I am not referring specifically to donuts or stones, I am talking about clearly identifiable characters and objects, which came from the imagination of their creator, in which, in addition, sometimes, unauthorized use of the brand is made, such as with the work of Leonid Afremov.
Obviously, a tutorial has the function of helping you learn how to use a program, and, at another level, how to deal with the construction of a certain object.
And I think that two different artists will extract different ideas and lessons from the same tutorial.
But following a step-by-step tutorial and wanting to sell the results is, at best, innocent.
Because you are building (or destroying) a reputation, you present yourself to the public on a very weak basis, and it is unlikely that you will succeed in selling such a model, but, assuming you make a sale, there is always the possibility that the customer will feel ripped off. .
Too many risks and little benefit.
My two cents, having been someone who created tutorials for both Blender and 3dsmax is that I have seen several of my own tutorial models for sale here, and on other marketplaces, even though I myself sell these models as well. I am of the opinion that there's nothing I can do about it, nor would I want to, because I'm teaching people how to model these objects for free, and I really don't care what they do with the results after they've successfully created them, based on my tutelage. If I really didn't want them to sell the models in my tutorials, I would specifically mention that fact at the very start of the video and I would probably charge a small fee for the tutorial so that I filtered out most of the less ethical persons from the start. I'm not thrilled that they're selling the models in the same places I am, but why would I be surprised by that? As long as they have honestly created the models themselves, using their own hand and mouse, then more power to them if they can sell it. In some strange way, I find it flattering that they would even try to sell it. haha
Leaving aside the appreciation and recognition that people who spend their time helping others deserve and almost never receive, trying to sell models that seem mass-produced doesn't seem very smart, because there will be many of the same models and little chance of making a sale. It is not very professional either, because if you need to follow step-by-step instructions to make a model as simple as the famous donuts, it is clear that you do not master the necessary skills to satisfy the needs of a demanding client. There are some models that even look like they were made by 5 year olds, like this one
Many low quality models are published daily, many practically or literally identical, such as the 13 currently available of the Audi 8 (with the same images all of them), others in which the quality / price ratio does not make any sense, such as for example this one sold for $ 160
this simple cube, published a month ago, for sale for $ 1,000
or this one, with 11 rig characters, sold for $ 10
Not to mention the multiple infringements of copyright and the terms and conditions of CGT, together with the multiple errors in the operation of the website, form the worst possible scenario. All this not only harms the publisher, but also CGT and by extension all of us. Imagine for a moment, that you are a potential buyer who comes to CGT for the first time, what would you think of all this? Seeing this panorama, I am sure that many business opportunities are lost.
I always wanted to own a golden cube! - Hope the gold and a free donut are included in the price!!!
But the worst is definitly too copy others artwork as the paintings and use them too texture objects (e.g. by Leonid Afremov), Tecna tried to explain in many posts above.
Therefore ignoring trademark rights / copyrights stated on the artists website Tecna posted above.
Apart from that it would not fit in to what is written on the forum already
( https://www.cgtrader.com/forum/general-discussions/what-textures-can-can-not-be-used )
I think it would be cool if those folks go out take some nice photos, enhance colors / lighting if needed and change them with filters to look like a painting / mosaic or whatever, maybe model a nice frame. ;)
In order to post an answer, you need to sign in.