Trolling confirmed. Called it.
Let me correct you. I’m that guy that makes objective reviews of Unreal Marketplace assets and shows FACTS and EVIDENCE whether to buy it or not. I simply help those that want to avoid purchasing terrible products and not waste hundreds of dollars on terribly made assets only to waste months at a time trying to refund them.
I show through example and if your product is good I recommend it. That is why my thumbnails tell you whether to buy it or not in advance to avoid any clickbait.
You have recreated a better, working version yourself, why are you asking if it’s any concern? Can’t there be more “Footsteps with Bp” on the Marketplace?
Problem here is not a second Footsteps BP but that it is based on top of another blueprint that is already on sale. As far as I know, Epic doesn’t like it.
The difference between mine is that mine ACTUALLY WORKS otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.
My quote was towards Errvald, not you.
You already proved long ago that there is literally no way to change your opinion so it’s no use telling that to you personally. You will get your answer by Epic Staff anyway.
A lot of contradictory statements haha
Maybe this might help?
I was actually wondering this myself, there is only a few ways of doing a task, but there are many ways to improve and alter it.
I would say you go through and rename as much as you can, streamline, iterate and improve what you have in front of you and remove any assets you did not create.
It’s not recreated. He bought a working solution from Marketplace, modified it and now want to sell it.
@TheUnderNetwork The difference is that your BP is a derivative work, literally. You took someone else’s work and improved it. The license doesn’t allow it to be re-sold.
If you wanted to sell your footprints BP, you should have created your BP from scratch. Then you could have sold it without any issues.
It’s like if someone makes a 3D model of some creature (let’s say Chimera), releases it on the Marketplace. If I buy it and see it is poorly optimized, looks ugly (in my opinion), etc. etc. I would simply make a new model of Chimera, (the way I see it fit) and then I can release it. Even if it resembles Chimera that was already on the marketplace, I would have no issues with legality of my actions.
“It’s recreated. He bought a broken blueprint from the Marketplace, fixed it and now he wants to sell it as functional that is fully tested and working.”
I just corrected you and secondly didn’t I mention that the blueprint was broken and has remained broken for several months now? Or do I have to repeat this every time.
My personal opinion. Dont do it. Completely recreate it from scratch, and dont even base some stuff in your own blueprints on it. Then its ok. Everything else is at least morally bad; If the original pack was bad and not working, well, thats cra*, but it doesnt give you the right then to sell an “optimized” version based on the same setup.
What i dont really understand is, why are you even asking here? I mean, you ask if people think its ok, people say no, and you go like “i will submit it anyway” and “trolls” etc. Did you just look for some absolution from the community for your submission and are now mad because you didnt get it?
“Similar with large changes” / “fixed version” != recreated. Recreated means, you did it from scratch which you clearly did not, as you yourself stated multiple times in your post.
And indeed, code counts as intellectual property too from a legal perspective. Granted, its not yet completely clear where the line is, but ask Oracle and Google about this topic.
I was expecting to get some professional feedback but now I know that was a mistake. It seems that the least successful game developers lurk here instead of actually making themselves useful. I may as well just create my blueprints and simply get my results.
Please keep this thread professional, there is a lot of heat involved in this debate and there is no need to stop being professional or get insulting with other members.
Please make sure you have read our Forum Rules/Code of Conduct.
I am referring to this section:
If you want professional feedback, act professional. Simple as is.
Reselling a (even heavily) modified pack is not professional. Getting emotional is not professional.
I myself was basing my question about the “absolution” on the fact that you started with the question, what everyone would think and when you got responses that didnt fit into your expectation you started to accuse people of being trolls and not professional.
I am ready for a serious discussion without emotions involved, but would require that my counterpart would at least consider that what i say may be valid.
Software is copyrighted the same as literary works; the language the code is written in is not relevant, it is a form of intellectual property and as such you cannot duplicate, modify and resell anything you have purchased on the marketplace without the appropriate license from the original author.
The marketplace allowing it or not is irrelevant, copyright law trumps that outright.
Copying the Unreal Engine and calling it 4Real engine. That’s copyright. Getting a line of code from a tutorial regardless if it is purchased or not is not subject to copyright. You are comparing apples to oranges. Last I remembered mathematical formulas are not copyrighted so anyone is free to use them as they seem fit.
The U.S. Copyright Act provides a set of exclusive legal rights to the owner (or “author”) of a copyrightable work (which includes software): 1) the right to reproduce the copyrighted works; 2) the right to prepare “derivative works”; 3) and the right to distribute (sell, license, etc.). This set of “exclusive” rights includes the right to block others from doing the same thing.
jeez now I kinda want to take UE4, fix some of its broken features and sell it
cant’ unsee :eek:
You can argue the toss with me all day, it doesn’t matter - you are wrong. It is as simple as that. You cannot distribute or sell your derivative work in any way other than that already granted by the license of the original product.
You cannot use someone else’s code and there are numerous precedents for this. Tutorial code is subject to copyright (though most tutorial authors generally waive their rights to it if you want to sell a product using it, I’m pretty sure they would take offence if you start selling the code itself). A line of code is not a mathematical formula, that precedent does not apply. Small sections of code can (and frequently are) formally protected, and even authors who come to the same solution independently can come under fire (see Carmack’s Reverse).
The relevant legislation in the US is under Title 17 in the US Code. It is a long and painful document, however it state quite clearly that “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” is subject to protection. Similar legislation also exists in the EU and a large number of other territories.