Licensing .blend file and models generated by the file with a different license

General Forums Off-topic Chat
1

Hey!

I’ve crafted a rather complicated character generator with Geometry Nodes. There are 100+ objects (modeled by me) that are being placed in specific way to generate a character. Models used and colors/textures can be modified by changing values on group inputs of the geometry node tree. I’ve decided to distribute the .blend file under MIT license.

I could really use some help with a couple of questions:

Can the models created by this character generator (even by other people) be licensed under a different license?
If yes, can this license be applied to both exported 3D models and renders?

If it can be done, I’ll most likely license the renders and models under CC0, but…

Is it possible to add my own condition to the license, requiring attribution only in case the models and/or renders generated by the tool are being sold.

2

I think you should write your own license, then you can have exactly the specific conditions you’re looking for. You can’t directly modify a license like the MIT license, since it’s publicly available and the terms of it are always the same. Situations like this are why so many softwares have unique Terms and Agreements- existing licenses often don’t cover all the nuances of a specific situation

1 Like
3

I’m not a legal expert, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

Maybe you should look into licencing the 3D models (the 100+ objects) so their licence will apply to the model generated as well. At least if it’s CC0…
That way, I can’t for example sell the generated character.

For the render it’s a bit more complicated IMO, lets say I add a generated character into a scene where I model a building, the main subject of the image is the building, and the character is there to fill the space, I also added some car, streets elements from various resources.
Then my render of my building is automatically CC0 because I used that character into the scene. It’s not an issue , but something that the users should be aware and ok with …

I think the best is to use the same system as other resources, like textures, models.
You can download a texture for free, but that doesn’t mean you can redistribute for free or sell it.
But you can use it however you want to make some artwork and you own the rights with that artwork. But of course there is a lot of gray areas with all this…

1 Like
4

Once you have completed your “character generator product,” register your US Copyright to the source-code of this Python script, including any other relevant binary assets. You can do this for $35 at copyright.gov (in the USA …) and it takes legal effect immediately. Include a copyright notice in the preamble comments of each of your source-code modules.

Now, you can license your work any way that you please: “it’s yours.” You can collect money for it, or not. The choice is up to you. This specifically protects you from anyone else taking your hard-won source code and trying to make money from it without acknowledging (and paying …) you. (Unless they were in strict and verifiable compliance with your chosen license.)

The outputs (models …) generated by your tool do not belong to you. They belong to the creators who created them, and you have no say in the matter. The builders of a house owe nothing to the manufacturers of the hammers or the power-saws or any other tools that they might have used to construct it. (“Picasso’s paintbrushes, Michelangelo’s chisels,” etcetera …)

You can, of course, invite these people to “include you in the credits,” and they very well might be very happy to do just that. When people use a tool that really helps them, they’re usually eager to “share the love” as a token of their well-placed gratitude. :+1: But you cannot legally require it.

5

Hum,

Thanks for clarification,
But some software have some kind of free for non-commercial use licence. Meaning that when using these software the result doesn’t completely belong to the user.
How that’s different from there ?

1 Like
6

It is doubtful that such restrictions would have any legal effect. A tool manufacturer cannot tell you what you can and cannot do with whatever the tool produces or lets you produce. The so-called “work product” is yours.

If the work products require some kind of “runtime environment” which is proprietary to the vendor, they can hold the copyright to that, and specify how you may distribute that. I used this concept with a product that I sold for more than 20 years and still occasionally sell today – you could use the so-called “Professional Edition” to create custom scripts, but you had to buy a “Runtime Edition” license for each customer site where you intended to run those scripts. This restriction was copiously spelled out on the many web-site pages which discussed the various available “Editions.” Runtime licenses, usually sold in-bulk for only a few dollars each, nonetheless represented a significant portion of total product revenues for many years.

Usually, the vendors withhold some key feature from the “free” version in order to get you to buy a license for the “real” thing. And, you usually do that because this also gets you a support subscription.

For my product, we made a fundamental decision early on: “no ‘free’ version.” You could buy a time-limited license that was fully functional, then apply the full purchase price to the purchase of another not-limited license using a provided coupon code. This was a repair-product, and some people simply bought the time-limited version to solve their particular problem and never bought anything again. These revenues, also, were significant.

7

I think you’re confusing GPL and creative commons - or maybe you’re confusing CC0 with CC-Share-Alike? CC0 isn’t an “infectious” license - you can use CC0 content to produce non-CC0 work.

If you look at this compatibility chart, you’ll see that if the original work is public domain (which they specify includes CC0), the adaptation is compatible with any of the CC licenses. You also don’t have to release it under any of the CC licenses, that chart is just specifically for finding compatible CC licenses, and it illustrates my point that CC0 is the least restrictive license.

8

Arf ok ! Indeed I was thinking that CC and GPL where similar, thanks for the clarification !
And sorry for my misleading comment then :smiley:

9

No worries, it’s an easy mistake to make. All these different licensing terms can start to get confusing when you dig into them or start mixing them, and that chart wasn’t easy to find.

Worst you’d have done with your mistake is add your own art to the creative commons unnecessarily.
; D

1 Like
10

A very strong incentive for using these licenses is that they are crafted by experienced lawyers who can also tell you how to use them properly.

If you intend to distribute your material under any license for commercial purposes, and that includes sharing them on any website, always register your copyright with the government if your country supports this idea. (In the USA, an entire “collection” can be registered for $35 on-line, and the registration takes effect immediately.) Having made your claim of ownership “official,” and complying with the legal “©” notice requirements, you can now license it however you wish, and your buyer can use your works with confidence that “all the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed.” (Copyright infringement penalties are intended to be very nasty. But the US Marshals are generally nice people.)