Would you allow your 3d work sold on photo-video stock platforms?

"P.S. According to CGtrader support the current license allows it under any conditions." The only way you can sell static render/s that include 3d model bought here on cgt is via incorporated product, wich means that user that bought 3d model, must incorporate that model in his own scene where model in question isn't a "hero" model, and sell render as that. Selling static renders of a model with plain background where the model itself is "hero" model is forbiden. As far as i know, nobody need to give anything to the artist if rules are followed as described above. To answer your question would I allow selling renderings or video that contain 3d model made by me, it depends on the offer / proposed deal. Dealing with those kind of stuff isn't just your price is that give me % that. Also don't forget editorial license wich complicate things for "stock" sellers even more.

Sadly, we have a real case here, which in short means that many of 3d artists have to switch to custom license right away.
We have found that our product https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/character/fantasy/3drt-crazy-santa
is sold on multiple video stock platforms in numerous videos.
For a clear example, one of them Pond5 https://www.pond5.com/artist/merlin74?tab=footage&search=crazy+santa&pp=1&sb=1
As you can see the models are not "a part of a media project", but simply rendered in their pretty original state.
After trying to reach the author for some time, we have notified shutterstock. They reacted that they will deal with the situation only after DMCA submission, which we did.
As a result the videos on shutterstock were removed.
We were contacted via CGtrader chat by the buyer and tried our best to explain that we don't allow such reselling without a special agreement. Looked like he took a wise step in the end, proposing to come to an agreement, which we were ready to settle with just a single extra payment, allowing him a lifetime unlimited platform resale on videostock.
But then, for some reason, he decided to prove that we are wrong and complained to CGTrader support.
Below is an unedited ultimative messege through the CGtrader chat.

------------------------------------------
Hi there,

We have been recently contacted by one of your customers (under the username merlin74), who provided us with information that you copyright claimed their Shutterstock account.

We would like to request that you remove your claim on his works, as they entirely fall within bounds of the license and the user is entirely within their right to use the models incorporated into videos and images that are used for commercial purposes.

Please see the terms written in our Royalty-Free license page:

The Buyer’s license to Product in this paragraph is strictly limited to Incorporated Product. Any use or republication, including sale or distribution of Product that is not Incorporated Product is strictly prohibited. For illustration, approved distribution or use of Product as Incorporated Product includes, but is not limited to:

as rendered still images or moving images; resold as part of a feature film, broadcast, or stock photography;
as purchased by a game’s creators as part of a game if the Product is contained inside a proprietary format and displays inside the game during play, but not for users to re-package as goods distributed or sold inside a virtual world;
as Product published within a book, poster, t-shirt or other item;
as part of a physical object such as a toy, doll, or model.

This is not a case that allows room for disputes - if you want to control future use of the items, upload them under a custom license instead.

Kind regards,
Kristupas
CGT team
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will respect their choice "not leaving any room for disputes" and are starting updating all our products to custom license.
We will leave the license agreement exactly intact as original one, just clearly stating that our models can not be simply rendered and sold on video stock. Any such use is possible and should be discussed individually.

We have a confirmation from a CGTrader legal team that buyers are allowed to sell your unmodified original models as render on photo and video stock. Even when your origian model is 100% of the scene.

As our terms state - the render creation can be counted as the incorporation of the model since the final product becomes different (image file, rather than a 3d model file) and original model files can't be reached by anyone.

P.S. good to have it finally cleared after so many years, so keep this in mind and update your licenses accordingly.

Thank you for bringing this to community's attention. I certainly wasn't aware of this. The fact that cgtrader's license allows outright re-render purchased standalone asset and put it on sale on stock images marketplaces, it's shocking! To my eye, such usage is no different than printing purchased model and selling this print en masse, yet according to cgtrader's license the former usage is ok, while the latter is not. I'm happy that everyone is allowed to benefit from my hard work so effortlessly, reselling other's work on stock marketplace should be licensed separately at much higher price and ideally it shouldn't be royalty free.

@3DRTcom, do you know if other 3D stock marketplaces have similarly liberal license agreements in place? I'm probably going to update license with custom text on cgtrader, but as far as i'm aware, cgtrader is probably the only marketplace that allows custom licenses.

@3DRTcom, it's totally understandable that updated licens will only have effect on future purchases and not on the ones that has been bought under old license, otherwise licensing would be practically meaningless. It's pitty that we discovered such important issue so late, but it's better late than never.

I'm surprised to see that there's so little reaction from community to something that affects all of us.

Hello,

We have heard your concerns about our licensing policy and we would like to clear up the confusion.

The licenses have not been updated and nothing has changed. There are no new rules introduced. The Royalty-Free license is the same as it has always been and it allows a wide variety of use cases, including the making and resale of model renders.

User “3DRTcom” has contacted us back in 2020 to ask if buyers can legally sell renders they made from the model purchased under the Royalty-Free license. We have confirmed that such use is legal, and while the designer was disappointed with our position, they have proceeded to sell their models with the aforementioned license.

User “3DRTcom” has recently raised this topic once again, and we have confirmed that the Royalty Free license allows such use in the legal sense. Rendered images of 3D models can be considered as a grey area from the IP perspective, as it is difficult to say where the line has to be drawn. Most designers would agree that using and selling the image which has creative input and uses the 3D model renders with additional elements added would be fine. Some designers might believe that the model render should not be sold if it does not have much additional work added to it, but some people or lawyers could argue that there is no clear description of what this creative input should look like. Taking the model render from a specific angle using software, using some desired background, etc. could be argued as enough input making the resulting work a separate creation and, therefore, having a different author who has their own intellectual property rights and a right to sell it.

One example similar to this situation is photography, or, real-life objects (buildings, sculptures, etc.). Intellectual Property rights to the object belong to the author who has created it. If someone makes the photo of the object, this photo shows the creation of the original author, but the image is considered a separate creation, a new product with a new author who has their own Intellectual Property rights to the creation.

The royalty-Free license allows a wide variety of uses to the buyer of the model and it does not forbid making renders and selling them, as it is not an original creation (3D model) and the new creation with a separate output, different form (image) which has no impact on the original author, the original creation and their revenue.

If you would not like people to use your models in such a variety of ways, please feel free to restrict this use legally by setting a custom license, as we have such option available and some designers are already using it for their own reasons, based on their situation and preferences. However, please note that it might harm your sales and revenue, as some buyers will not be willing to buy models with very limited use cases.

Thank you for understanding, we hope this will help to clarify the situation.

Kindly,
Greta from CGTrader

Assigned custom license to all my products over a year ago after this topic was spoken about back then. Can report no loss in revenue so far, on contrary, my revenue is growing year after year.

The idea that someone can just take my file hit render and call my designs in that resulting picture a new product ready to be licensed out in mass, that is something I absolutely disagree with. To me this is sub-licensing my designs.

I was aware CGtrader license makes no mention that this type of use is not off limits so I made this clear in my custom license and most customers seem to be ok with it. My custom license clearly states a license is a single personal license that cannot be transferred (meaning, no one ells can license out my designs), and the designs cannot be used to make other stock-media products. Also making clear that a customer is conducting a transaction with a separate entity apart from CGtrader (in my case iterateCGi).

Allowing for creations of other stock-media products is so counter intuitive if you think about it?

Suppose at some point in time you decide to render your own scene and put it up there on shutterstock, now you would be violating the copyright from this individual that made a copy of your work and put it up there first? So now he can basically tell shutterstock to take down your work because its to similar as his? What can you say then, no I'm original designer and “he” needs to take it down so I can sell my own original work? Other probably replying to have purchased the rights?

CGtrader license basically makes no distinction between a design and the 3D model that is depicting it. The license protects the 3D files but not your designs.

Anyways, CGtrader is not doing any wrong, they are perfectly in line with law, they just provide this license for use but you do not need to use it, you can just use/make your own.

"and the new creation with a separate output, different form (image) which has no impact on the original author, the original creation and their revenue."

Please let me try explain to you and artists how this is dangerously wrong on so many levels.

- We have several cases when customers came to us asking if he has to buy our original 3d product or can buy directly from video stock. It wasn't even us selling our model in a video at that time.
- there is an unimaginable demend for a video content today as the youtube production alone have grown astronomically.
Most of creators are sitting on video stock platforms all day to have a quick acess to quick fill into their video project.
And let me tell you they are rich, some youtubers today can afford spending close to a decent film production company. And some produce content daily.
Now can you imagine them going grabbing your 3d model from CGTrader, figuring 3d format, messing with shaders and 3d software? Why, if you allowed your model to be so conviniently resold by a random dude who bought it for 10usd?

We have been members of a creative video production community blackbox.global for 3 years now. In short this is a platform built by video creators with a goal to work in artists's ineterst as a main highest priority. The owner Pat McGowan is a video creator himself working alongside others.
This is how we always visioned CGTrader, as this is the only way to grow, by an unconditional transparency and trust to each member who is making the community grow wealth wise.
And CGTrader definitely felt like it during the first years. When we had friendly discussions with people envolved in platfrom development and many cases were resolved in a friendly casual converstations. Compared to sometimes faceless conflicting responses today and refusal to clear things out on public (I am not trying to blame/shame anybody, but this exactly how it feels today) All this legal paranoya is eating CGtrader from inside.

We have opened a video production division as 3d modeling was dropping down to point of non-profitability. In short, we decided to try sell the 3d models as video stock. To our surprise some videos of a model were selling more than original models themselves. Now compare the effort it took you to create a 3d model and make a render?

Many of you already have prepared video products sitting there! Amazing creative video previews as an extra means to promote your 3d product. Did you ever imagine that preview alone can potentially give you x10 income than 3d model ever will?

The media market is changing all the time and very rapidly. While we argue on an ancient vaguely written license agreement interpretations, some people are earning some crazy money reselling your IP. If we keep at that pace, next time you 3d model that took months to create and was sold for 10usd on CGTrader will "legitimetely" be sold for $100k in NFT

The most funny part. Those video stock platforms already protect your creations more than platforms you sell 3d models on. They require seller to clear a permission with an IP owner for each 3d element used in your video work. Yet we say "ok take this model for $10, render it on geen screen and sell it to Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon.
Are you serious ?

Next moment, the prices are regulated in most cases of video sales and this allows platform to control a high value for their market.
Turbosquid did this back in 2000 not allowing artists to set a price for a model. There were lots of objections but most calmed down when their simple rabit model was selling regularly for usd 250.
We had a single sale of a video with ~400usd our comission. Video platforms know how to fairly sell your product to a big production company and you don't have to negotiate anything.
This is a reason Shutterstock buys Turbosquid not vice versa.

I see several working options that will benefit Artists and Cgtrader.
1. Include a distinctive statment in a license agreement that any use on a stock platform should be consulted with the model owner
2. CGtrader takes a radical approach by integtaing into video production industry.
Didn't you already make first steps publishing on AdobeStock? I can explain later why this amazing idea has a weak implementation if you wish.
I am willing to personally kindly ask Pat McGowan to connect with CGTrader management, share his experience, visions and even probably collaborate in this expansion of CGTrader on video stock market.

The longer you ponder the more of your products fill the video stock and you will have to compete with people who don't own your model rights.
I urge artists to share their vision. CGTrader is not looking to punish you for opinion. They sincerely care about what you think about the future of a platform.

Sorry if I formulated some ideas too emotional or unclear. I have to go try evacute colleagues and parents from Kyiv.

Dear all,

Our existing Royalty Free license allows a variety of use cases and we have never experienced such a major backlash or escalation regarding any of the uses. Please understand, that it was never brought to our attention this way and we have not been aware of such designer sentiment and position.

Considering the strong and detailed arguments that you have shared here and in your messages to us, we believe that it makes sense for CGTrader to review our current licensing.

Please understand that it was never our intention to do any harm to the sellers - from its very beginning CGTrader was created as a platform that is first and mostly aimed at the designers and their wellbeing.

Thank you all for sharing your feedback and opinions. We can’t promise quick changes as we would need to review and update our legal terms, but we will escalate this matter internally and work to review our licenses and update them to accommodate your suggestions, make them more designer-friendly and avoid any such misunderstandings in the future.

Kindly,
Greta from CGTrader

To the community, please show your support to this topic. Tell to cgtrader that you are not looking only for a quick buck today, but also thinking about long term solutions. Don't be passive, it's your future at stake!

I fully support all of the Artists opinion above.
Such use of our work is unacceptable and unfair.

All angles have been covered well already, so no need to repeat everything.
I'm glad that CGTrader considers changing the license agreement to cover the problem and hope it will be solved soon.

Thank you @3DRTcom for raising that topic and to all who participated.

@Greta from CGtrader,

Thanks for joining the conversation, wouldn't call this a major backlash though but 3DRTcom is indeed making valid concerns most designers probably agree with, if only they would be aware these things happen with current standard license (actually have same problem to a degree I lost almost all sales on one of my best selling items due to others selling the 2D output elsewhere). (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-illustration/neurons-neural-connections-3d-render-neuronal-1791689543) (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-illustration/conceptual-illustration-neuron-cells-glowing-link-1155821227) (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-illustration/conceptual-illustration-neuron-cells-glowing-link-1155821275)

(Thanks 3DRTcom taking the time to explain it in detail, I hope you and everyone there in Kyiv can get to safety!)

Also, legitimate points 3DRTcom makes on missing out here on the demand for stock-video and images is unfortunate.

Made stock-video and images here in the past and uploaded them as regular products, unfortunately the site is just not geared towards that and as a result it does not work. Stopped doing it all together as it actually creates a confusing user experience.

Why does CGtrader not simply add images, textures and stock-video menus on top, instead of a single subcategory “textures” in 3D models?

lingering with the idea to make stock images and video for long time now but have no interest in making jet another account on some other website and distributing different products to a bunch of different locations (in the process scattering my viewers/followers, etc), and supporting terrible royalty deals elsewhere.

As a participant in the process referred to by 3drt, I would like to voice my point of view on this issue.

Firstly, 3drt was a little cunning. He wrote that my videos using his models were removed from Shutterstock. Actually my account was disabled completely.
It continues to be disabled, which means that 3drt does not withdraw the complaint, despite the fact that CGTrader support has repeatedly confirmed the legitimacy of my rights.
Moreover, there was no need to file a complaint at all. My Shutterstock account has my Instagram and Facebook. It was possible to contact me and resolve the issue. Obviously I would go towards 3drt.
Blocking my account and then offering to pay an additional amount looks like blackmail. Is not it? Especially when you consider that according to CGTrader, they knew back in 2020 that the license allows the use of 3D models in stock videos.

As for changes to the license, it seems to me that there is no need for this. Authors who want to expressly prohibit the use of their models in stock videos can explicitly prohibit this in a custom license. This completely solves all the questions and removes all the fears of the authors.
As I read here, not all authors want to render their models and sell them on stock marketplaces. In fact, there are not many of them here.

In addition, I believe that the division of labor is a normal phenomenon in business. Some make models, others make videos of them. This is fine. And I agree with the opinion of CGTrader. If this is limited, this will inevitably lead to a drop in sales of model authors in general.

3drt got clarification on the legality of Merlin74's rights and filed the DMCA anyway? Under the law, this is tantamount to perjury and is a criminal offense. There is a warning about this in the text of the DMCA.

If I were Merlin74, I would go to court to demand damages.

And if I were CGTrader, I would have already blocked the 3drt account here instead of listening to their opinion.

Obviously, changing the standard license will harm both model designers and CGTrader and video authors and the entire stock business in general and will confuse the understanding of the terms of the license. Now the terms of the license are absolutely clear.

@tis77, 3DRTcom appears to have fallen victim not fully grasping the consequences of the text in the license (probably lots of artists here do), if artist knew someone can just hit the render button and become the rightful owner of a new work (including all designs depicted in it) there would probably be no one agreeing to this, it is basically a license transfer of the copyrights to the design.

(((Obviously, changing the standard license will harm both model designers and CGTrader and video authors and the entire stock business in general and will confuse the understanding of the terms of the license. Now the terms of the license are absolutely clear)))

For you they are, but No, in my case the drop in sales coalised exactly when just two clients decided to use my work (just hit render) and provide it on a different platform as 2D images (in the process taking away 80% of my clients for that specific item).

I decided to not pursue them because of the license loophole and immediately updated all my licenses to a custom one. Also realized my mistake and uploaded the images and video myself here, but they are lost behind a 3D model interface and overshadowed by the shutterstock giant. I believe artists and CGtrader are making loss on just a few clients like this (majority of clients here are not “hit render” 2D stock media makers).

Why don't I simply join shutterstock to counter these people?

I pic my partners carefully and don't want to be forced to join a different platform because of a few people that use my work and provide it for few bucks there. The platform has a business model I don't like, only supporting platforms that have good royalty and where I can measure the value of my work myself (set my own price). The subscription model on shutterstock does not work for me as I cant see how many subscribers shutterstock takes and what percentage they hand over to the designers (they actually call designers a contributor, not a seller), just how much they actually contribute will forever be unknown to them.

@merlin74, the division of “labor” is something I can agree with, downloading someone ells work and clinking a button and taking away 80% of his clients, not so.

iterateCGI, you are supporting 3drt actions which are essentially extortion. He knew the terms of the license, he consulted with representatives of CGTrader, he agreed to these terms (although he could create a custom license as you did), uploaded his models under this license, received money for it, and then, when he saw that someone's work was being sold better than him, he filed an illegal DMCA, which blocked his source of income and began demanding an "additional payment" from Merlin74. With this action, he committed a crime and violated the rules of CGTrader. His actions are the result of ordinary greed.
Merlin74 suffered in this case, who came to the store, saw the product he needed at a good price and used it strictly under the terms of the license. And then he ran into blackmail from a manufacturer who seemed to have little money.
If I'm wrong and 3drt is an honest person he should immediately withdraw the illegal DMCA and apologize to Merlin74.

Dear authors of 3D models.
I respect your opinion and your concerns.
But please understand. The average YouTube content producer needs a simple product that they can effortlessly put on their timeline right away.

He will not buy a 3d model, buy a powerful expensive rendering computer, buy a license for expensive 3d rendering software, spend several years studying it, make a scene, spend several days rendering and so on. He has simple problems and he is looking for simple solutions. He will still buy content on photo video stocks.

Netflix or Amazon need to embed your models in their movies in the right scenes, and stock videos are fine for them in rare cases. They will still buy 3d models from you directly.

Register for photo and video stocks. Sell ​​your renders there. There are many videos from different authors with the same 3d models. There is no problem in this. Compete. But do it honestly.

@tis and merlin, you seem to be taking what I’m expressing a bit to personal, never mentioned you are people that push a button and call it a day (there are however people who do). I don't know about your work but 3DRTcom showed some pictures that are almost identical to his.

I’m discussing the consequences some lines in current standard license imply and personally experienced its negative impact. Don't know the details about your case with 3DRTcom, only know about my own and resolved it with adding custom license.

Note, this discussion is not about your cases or to resolve them here, the tittle of this discussion is “Would you allow your 3d work sold on photo-video stock platforms?” I’m expressing my opinions that current standard license has to make nuances in order to avoid a full license transfer to the designs we as 3D artists make. I would also strongly encourage to not allow it as its just very few clients that purchase 3D models to make stock video or images and its negative impact for the artist is way larger then simply not allowing it.

I can agree there are clients who need images instead of 3D models but that does not give someone ells the right to license out the designs of another artist to them.

Again, this are just my personal expressions, I’m not judging, don't take it personal.

@iterateCGIiterateCGI

"almost identical to him"
Only the characters are almost identical, and this is natural, I bought them to use. Because of this, the images are similar, but in no way identical.

"current standard license has to make nuances" - a custom license is just designed to bring into it the nuances and desires of the author of the 3D model. There is no need to change the text of the standard RFL for this.

"the title of this discussion" - the name of the discussion is also not called "let's change the terms of the standard license", but for some reason it is discussed here. My case is presented here as an example of an alleged misuse of a license, although it is not, as has been repeatedly said by representatives of CGTrader. Did they also deviate from the topic of the question?

"very few clients that purchase 3D models to make stock video" - for the query "animation 3d" Shutterstock gives more than 50,000 videos and dozens of their authors. Most of them hardly created 3D models on their own.

"does not give someone ells the right to license out the designs" - 3d model cannot be transferred without its design. RFL is intended for the transfer of rights for commercial use. The buyer and seller agree to the terms of the transaction at the time of purchase. So RFL gives the right to license the incorporated product, of course, along with the design of the used 3D model.

What needs to really change in the terms of the license is to protect buyers from false DMCA. False complaints harm not only buyers but also the reputation of CGTrader. For example, the Shutterstock rules for contributors expressly state that sellers do not have the right to file a complaint directly with content users. Only through Shutterstock. Otherwise, it is punishable by disabling the seller's account.

@melin, the nuance I'm suggesting is that the license should allow someone to “incorporate” the work into his/her work, that can be sold to his/her client (not sell the design itself on another stock market in bulk to the masses), its mass sub-licensing the IP.

Changing a camera angle, framing and adding different background should be excluded from constituting a new original work. My arguments in this discussion align with the topic title as they are arguments for considering to not allow this type of use. I’m taking the time to warn my fellow 3D artists and CGtrader about this, because for me the problem was solved with custom license. Most probably don't know this happens and they wonder why they suddenly lose sales on a best selling item, better avoid the problem beforehand with a custom license.

When my 3D model renders where not presented on other stock markets, agencies opted for my work here (images and video where included with the product), if they needed a different camera angle or animation they handed the 3D files over to internal graphics artists. Now the agencies go strait to shutterstock and take the renders someone else made from my scene (for a few dollars) and my sales here get reduced 80%. After this lesson I provided the renders and video separately on CGtrader but the people on chutterstock outcompete me here with my own work.

I only lost sales on my work that was taken to chutterstock, from the moment custom license was in place no more of this cases occurred and my sales stabilized. So in my case allowing this use harms sales enormously (doubt I'm only one).

@tis That's also one of reasons why I don't want to join shutterstock with my work, but if someone ells instead then takes my work and puts it up there then things get complicated. At least now I can send them a valid DMCA if they do.

nicee