This feels bad. In their content license agreement they already have given me a license to use this stuff. Why should I pay additionally because they are intermediary in copyright infringement and didn’t do a good job at vetting the content they earn money on in the first place?
Feels a bit like a conflict of interest as well… why make good job at vetting content in the first place as this will make ‘enhanced license’ pointless?
Well exactly 
but if they are expecting UE5 to get used more extensively for other fields like ArchViz where the possibility of a stolen asset getting widely distributed is less probable then there is perhaps a rationale for a two-tiered license…but I agree that indemnification should be a feature of the basic license.
And in fact this is how it works for most other 3D marketplaces as well; there is often some level of indemnification in basic licenses, and the only difference between basic is enhanced is the $ amount of coverage. This I believe is how Turbosquid’s works anyways (I think theirs is $10k vs $1M depending on license tier or something like that).
I posted it here because I intended it like: “You can pay an additional amount to buy an insurance, in case the pack contains copyrighted material”.
In my opinion the seller should be responsible in case of copyright claims (not the store nor the buyer, I don’t know which laws apply in this case)
Looks like this seller was found guilty of IP infringement on Unity Asset Store as well… and got removed from that store entirely. Also looks like their facebook page and twitter accounts are gone.
They still have assets up on UE, just a select few were removed.
I sent them an e-mail about it for information on some of the other asset packs.
I was in touch with them in the past and my understanding is that they contract out some of their work, so probably whoever they contracted ripped off some pieces and they never caught it.
That’s also what happened with sidearm studios…I think these marketplace sellers with tons of content are the problem because they’re not actually the original owners/creators, they are subcontracting the work and then selling the products which means their store packs are a high-risk mix of content from all over the place.
In that sense it is the subcontractors who are to blame but it makes for a high-risk storefront when your stuff is coming from all kinds of different subcontracted sources
it’s like those Chinese bootleg gaming systems that advertise having over 999-9,999,999 games in one. which of course is just the same game duplicated multiple times.
seeing that everyone removed his products/accounts, except Epic, doesn’t make them look good. at least give us a replacement asset like what Epic did when that Jetpack asset pack was pulled.
Uhhh yeah not a good look for epic. They are down from the marketplace but I think it may have been the seller that did that voluntarily so…good on them for acting in good faith but marketplace customers should not have to rely on the good faith of vendors to make good on problems like this when they arise.
Ok. Sorry
pls Forgive Me
Looks like Epic finally has taken care of that SFX bundle that was included in the free-for-the-month set a few months ago. They just sent an email saying it’s been fully removed from the marketplace and warns not to use it in published games, movies, etc due to containing stolen content.
Now, the real question is, just how often does stuff like that happens?
Granted, I mainly purchase the free stuff on the off chance that it might be useful. But it’s kind of annoying how something that you’re using turned out to be unusable an few months after you’ve started working around with it
Only today I received the email. “apoligies”. The same publisher has 13 other sound packs online… One other which I have in the Vault.
it’s so bad for natural content. now sfx will leave the sponsored reel. not having risk.
I saw.
So was the pack also pulled from everyones library? I ask because I don’t see it in my library, whereas I do still see the jetpack content that was removed some time ago.
I actually don’t remember ever owning it anyway, though I do still have the farm sounds pack that @Roy_Wierer.Seda145 mentioned.
However, whether I owned it or not, there is an issue with the email that Epic sent out in that they do not name the content creator.
This is bad, because I own another sound effects pack, it was part of a PRO bundle, it includes a pack with a near identical name to the one that was removed, the only difference is the pack name doesn’t end with the word PRO, however you can understand how confusion could arise.
Therefore a perfectly innocent content creator could have had all their content condemned from my project simply because of this lack of information.
It was from mine. Which is odd since afaik it would still be usable for personal use if not published. Not that I’d even do that. Makes me wonder if it would also be removed from the engine’s plugin folder if installed there. It would corrupt blueprints depending on it.
Oh wow I did not even notice that at first! you are so right, any pack with a similar name will simply lose added “value” because of the similarity in name as there will surely be confusion. And it’s not the only product out there using PRO in the name. I hope Epic will take a look at this topic I linked to them on email.
It was not pulled from mine; I do still see it.
Strange. I double checked my search and category filter. Gone. But I don’t mind. At least I did not pay for it.
hmm good i did use my own sounds made with audacity… but that makes all much more work if you can not be sure it is not pirated 