Many of the promotional images for plugins these days are generated by AI, which can easily mislead consumers, yet the actual user experience is not particularly good.
Anyway, i think that no machine learning allowance should be explicitly stated in those licenses. Because now there is no word about machine learning in any of licenses on page.
It’s easy to say that, much much harder to prove
1 Like
As much I hate AI, for addons, a no ML rule in the license would violate the GPL (and addons have to be GPL iirc, since the Blender API + Blender as a whole is under the GPL. Or at the very least compatible with the GPL’s terms). In fact, the GPL doesn’t allow restricting how a user uses/modifies a program/program source code (that’s the whole philosophy of the GPL)
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
(Arguably any restrictions to use or modifications renders something as not “open source” in general, as the term “open source” is often understood to mean “no restrictions, regardless of who you are or what use cases you have, period”, but that’s a separate debate)
Edit: I should also add that, other than Standard Royalty Free and Editorial, the licenses on that page aren’t authored by SuperHive. The GPL is authored by the FSF, for instance.
1 Like
Whenever someone says : “We made it ‘easier’ for the customers.”
This is only true when the terms and conditions are “explained” in simple and not lawyer language. (But still the lawyer language is the one that counts.)
It’s also always a bad idea to change some options to the opposite (expect when this is required by law.. but then this also does cast a certain light on that people/organisation/enterprise ).
There is nothing wrong to make money, but there is something to gain very hard and loose very quick. It’s trust and when customers does not trust you then they will look for alternatives and will not come back that easily. Especially when a “trust-losing-event” is not in singular.. Fool Me Once, Shame on You; Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
Changes in terms and conditions should be plausible.. not making you feel bad.
But..
..my head is starting to hurt..
1 Like
This may be true.. but superhive as a “market place” should not do a default opt in doe such thing like AI training on the products they do not own.
Also authors do sell assets on that market.. and now they have to **additionally" opt-out.. that’s not easier.. because some may simple have overlooked this..
Imagine if you pay for something at the supermarket and they simply add a 10% tip.. or sell the data to.. 
oh.. they do if you do not pay in cash.. so image they make photo of you and sell it then…
..because they had made the terms and conditions “easier for the customer”..
1 Like
Hi Jonathan, I’m glad you’ve responded since my goal was to start a dialogue and hopeffuly make some things a bit clearer to creators.
The screenshot I’ve provided clearly states “all” not “any” meaning it will never be shown to enterprises regardless if for AI purposes or not if a user opts out. Maybe it’s just badly worded? Could we get a checkmark to manually opt in to “enterprise AI purposes” instead?
This doesn’t align with the current TOS, where SuperHive will email the creator, and if the creator doesn’t respond, the sale will be carried out anyway. Since when is inactivity considered consent?
My problem isn’t that there is an option for one thing or another, it’s the way it’s being handled. Inactivity is considered as desire to be opted in and as consent. Opting out of AI training potentially makes you miss out on other enterprise deals (or maybe I have a lack of understanding what enterprise deals actually are)
2 Likes
To be clear, I’m not saying what SuperHive is doing isn’t wrong (I’m of the opinion that default opt-in for this is bad), I’m only saying adding a no ML clause to addon licenses isn’t allowed for Blender addons (based on the GPL).
1 Like
I’d almost expect geometry node type addons that let one create a near infinite amount of parametric type models, etc would be a pretty big target.
One assumes photorealistic quality would be an issue, but lets say you had a rock generator that could do just that. Now you can code Blender, with the addon, to generate 100,000 images of rocks. Bingo, near instant training data.
1 Like
Good luck on that one.
The question should probably be “How is gumroad suppossed to be an alternative to those upset by Superhive’s policy?”
From Wikipedia:
In February 2012, Gumroad announced a $1.1 million seed round.[3] Three months later Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) led a $7 million Series A round.[4]
[…]
The company also raised an additional $1 million from investors Naval Ravikant, co-founder of AngelList and Jason Fried, co-founder and CEO of Basecamp.[9][11]
Gumroad has private equity written all over it.
greetings, Kologe
You are perfectly free to distribute your Blender add-on / extension using whatever license you desire.
It is only if you wish for your add-on / extension to ever be distributed with Blender or added to the Blender Foundation’s official repository that you must accept GPL licensing — not GPL-compatible, GPL specifically (see the docs).
No you are not.
No it isn’t.
Add-ons (Python scripts)
Blender’s Python API is an integral part of the software, used to define the user interface or develop tools for example. The GNU GPL license therefore requires that such scripts (if published) are being shared under a GPL compliant license. You are free to sell such scripts, but the sales then is restricted to the download service itself. Your customers will receive the script under the same license (GPL), with the same free conditions as everyone has for Blender.
What about add-ons or my Python scripts?
If you share or publish Python scripts they have to be made available licensed as GNU GPL as well, if they use Blender Python API calls.
Can I sell add-ons for Blender?
Yes you can, but only if you provide the add-on and the sources to your clients under the GNU GPL license. The client then benefits from all rights the GPL offers; free to use it, or even distribute it when they wish.
see the licence page and the FAQ.
3 Likes
There is a difference what’s allowed to publish on the extension platform and the GPL..
from Wikipedia:
The GPL additionally states that a distributor may not impose “further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL”. This statement forbids activities such as distributing the software under a non-disclosure agreement or contract.
..so.. one is not “totally free” to choose whatever license one wants.
But that’s not the topic here. It’s about what SuperHive “suddenly” do with the products for what they are “only” a market. This reminds me of some very “famous” market which also is a “producer” and so when you search for something you products are copied and/or placed further down the list.. if at all.
Also: because of this some other places may be more favourable or have “a better change” to be known..
Some “associated” place comes to my mind..
https://bazaar.blendernation.com
( But there are some others lately “poping” up.. you can buy or sell now on BlendSwap for example..)
Edit:
..or this one (i knew or a while) showed free, freemium and payed addon/extension from the start (linking directly to github or others and gumroad or others):
I’m not sure if i saw this one before; they “specially care” and are no-AI:
1 Like
Not any part that uses Blender’s Python API. That must be licensed with GPL compatible license. You are free to make a bridge that uses Blender’s API and then license that with GPL compatible license and then have a part of the add-on that does not use Blender’s API and therefore can be licensed any way you want. Some renderers work this way for example.
1 Like
I think they should always default to opt out for anything that could negatively impact a creator, not capitalise on creators missing an email advising of a new option.
For example late last year I was caught with my pants down. After several months of reduced earnings as a result of dedicating virtually all of my time to writing Turbo Tools X for Blender 5. Almost immediately after it’s release, when sales are usually high enough to provide a much needed wallet boost, I was flabbergasted to find that they were selling it for 5% of it’s list price!
This happened because I’d missed a short sentence stealthily placed midway down one of Superhive’s seemingly generic marketing emails, stating it would be included in a bundle unless I contacted them. A number of other creators were also affected, so credit to them, they did add an opt out option for that too, but still, I think it should be defaulted to ‘opted out’.
For that reason, I use these settings.
I did ask that they remove it from the Bundle within 30 mins of the first sale, but they refused, as they didn’t want to disappoint people who had been told it would be available. I thought to myself, what about disappointing the dude who’s generated over $150,000 of sales for you with Turbo Tools V4 and other addons?! I think often they look for the quick buck without fully considering how much pissing everyone off will negatively impact their future success.
4 Likes
It should be an option to opt in, though, by default. Not the other way around. That would be more honest.
5 Likes
Well.. i found it always “weird” when they do “advertise” that “they” did donate so and so much ( see their Market Stats -page ) to the blender foundation.. when it is the authors who do as stated in their “Become a creator”-page:
Which is why we have built functionality to enable creators to easily, and automatically donate a portion of their profits to the Blender Development Fund, thus empowering more creators to help support Blender
Authors donate from their profits..
2 Likes
Yeah, and if there is no option, authorisation should be obtained, not assumed. When I argued that point, their response was they were completely within their rights to sell it however they wanted as per the terms of service. It’s left a lasting bad taste in my mouth.
1 Like
I asked them if the donations come solely from creators enabling the dev fund option, but apparently they also make a sizeable donation of their own. So that’s a positive.
1 Like
An awful attitude, and completely at odds with the whole concept of what Blender is supposed to be. 
2 Likes