Can I make my own Blender animations and monotize on Youtube?

Is this allowed? I tried it with Maya and got into some huge … er let’s just call it a “dispute”.
I thought if you created your own content you could make money off from it :frowning:

Firstly, yes - you can make animations on Blender and monetize the result.

Secondly, you can do the same with Maya. How else does a movie studio using Maya make money? I’m curious as to the “dispute” you had, because I highly doubt it was due to the tool you used (unless it was the free Maya PLE version which has an explicit “non-commercial use” clause).

Blender is open-source and in short: the GPL licence allows you to do pretty much everything with it.

An exact copy of Blender was even tried to be sold on eBay. However after the interwebs got nose from it, it was soon taken off eBay.

But as far as I know, the seller was never charged. Only with stupidity

EDIT: talking about sales (never buy it: it offers nothing new to the free Blender

ChevyFanDude, I think the question was about making animations with Blender and making money form them, given the YouTube monetisation angle. Kind of hard to monetise the Blender software itself on YouTube :slight_smile:

Info from the source - first question in our FAQ

If you got into a dispute I highly doubt it was due to your choice of software. You probably used copyrighted material that got caught in Youtube`s filters like music or video.

ChevyVanDudeG20 => amazing this e-bay version !!!

With watermarked pictures of Andrew Price and other instructors !
Can’t believe it haha

I don’t actually think the watermarking is funny anymore. It is one thing to sell blender. This in itself is not illegal, although the use of the name blender 3d without crediting the bf or NaN probably is. Watermarking images made by others is a different kind of wrong.

Getting a bit offtopic here, but these luminar people also sell the gimp under the name Image Edit Pro and the drum synth Hydrogen as Advanced Drum Machine. I didn’t check any further.

Not sure what would make you think this?

To abide by the GPL they have to provide offer of source, and the source code contains all the copyright holders (crediting authors too).

Also, Blender copyright isn’t just owned by BF or NaN, there are many individual contributors who own copyright too.

If they made modifications, Blender Foundation could request they rename, or risk a trademark dispute, see:

Here’s a site that is selling Blender under the name 3DMagix for $47. I love the testimonial that says “The best value for money.” You know what’s a better value? Getting it for FREE!

Steve S

I was in this case talking about the trademark. But I was confused. There is a copyright, but it only applies to the logo. And it seems that the rules of using the logo are written to prevent people from claiming they represent the bf. So not crediting the bf at all is apparently ok, as long as they, as you say, provide the source.

They at least have copyright notices on the screenshots. Funny though that they randomly mix screenshot of before and after the gui refactor. The fact they they say 20 MB of harddrive space is required suggests that they sell an old version.

It is mainly 2.4 screenshots posted on here, and by the look of the website, I’ll take a guess and say that they sell the 2.49 version.
Heck, even has a better professional look to it, even being free :smiley:

They probably had a ton of CDs made with the old interface and want to get rid of them all before upgrading to the latest version.

Steve S