Download

Using Paid Content in products for distribution on the Marketplace

I’ve read the Marketplace Distribution Agreement and EULA (as well as various articles and posts) regarding this topic and I’m still confused. The general commentary around using “Paid Content” (purchased from the marketplace) in a product that is then also sold on the marketplace is pretty much that there are few restrictions, but the MDA and EULA don’t appear to support that view.

Here’s the issue. Assume I buy a product on the marketplace e.g. a tool that has blueprints and textures for making landscapes. Using that tool I make a nice landscape and decide to distribute it on the marketplace. The landscape is standalone but needs the tool to display correctly. One reading of the MDA and EULA this is allowed providing my landscape is unique and the tool is just a component. Another reading suggests this is not allowed because the tool is “Paid Content” in object form.

As a matter of common sense, it seemed to me that I would in fact breach the EULA because I am in effect distributing the tool with my landscape, so other developers could then use the tool without having to purchase it through the marketplace. This would mean using any “Paid Content” to make end products distributable through the marketplace is at best risky and at worst not feasible because the answer could only then be, if the product doesn’t work without including the “Paid Content”, then it should not be distributed on the marketplace - extreme but simple.

I don’t want to break the rules. I just don’t want to spend hours and hours making stuff using “Paid Content” from the marketplace only to find that I cannot distribute it on the marketplace because other developers can then use the “Paid Content” in some form or another.

Does anyone know (I mean really 100% know) the answer to this question. What can I do with “Paid Content” when it comes to making products for sale on the marketplace.

[USER=“3956297”]Hairy Primate[/USER]. You can’t do anything. 100%. Don’t try to fool yourself with this. All you can do is make personal collaboration with the chosen content seller.

Thanks, that was my feeling after reading the EULA although it’s a difficult document to read. Wasn’t trying to fool myself, I think creators should get credit/paid for their work. I have been using marketplace assets to make stuff, but it then occurred to me that if I wanted to distribute something on the marketplace there could be problem because everything is in object form (as opposed to being cooked in a game).

I haven´t read this whole stuff, but i guess, in your case, you would have to take this imaginary landscape and transform it in a way, that it does not require your bought tool anymore (make it a completely independent standalone landscape/product), like baking all the textures etc.
Otherwise you would just have created a dataset for this tool, with which the tool, and any user who bought this tool, can recreate your landscape… something like a preset or a mod. In such a case, i would assume, in best case scenario, you could only sell this data without that paid tool, AND with a big fat warning, that it absolutely requires tool XYZ from another user to work (which probably would be the dealbreaker and prevent your dataset from being released as a standalone product).

However, you could try to partner with that other creator, and see, if he likes your dataset enough to include it in his tool and give you a fair share from his sales.

Thanks @Suthriel. Have straightened everything out.

I think the EULA was the issue as it is a difficult document to read. Anyway, I now understand the basic position which is (a) paid content can be distributed commercially when “cooked” into a game or the like, and (b) it cannot be distributed in “open content” form as this creates the problems you describe. So a product needs to be an original standalone work to sell it on the marketplace.

I have since put forward a suggestion to Epic that marketplace developers have a licensing option that allows derivative works. Basically, a developer could sell a product with the existing licence (no re-distribution) for $X or with a derivative licence (distribution inside another product) for $Y provided it has additional creative content. For example, for a higher up-front price, a developer could permit re-use of textures or a blueprint in another marketplace product.

Would probably lead to a greater diversity of products which would be good for Epic and may also help reduce piracy too as I suspect (don’t know) that some people are re-using content with minor changes and not disclosing this. Just a suggestion though, not fussed either way : )