Licensing downloadable models

I have not found the answer to this question on the forum, so I decided to create this topic. Questions relate to licensing of downloadable models. I will give a probable example. For example the author publishes his model under Creative Commons Attribution (Author must be credited. Commercial use is allowed.) Its all ok, the model is 100% owned by the author and there are no problems with it. The developer likes this model and uses it in his commercial project, because the license allows such use of the model. At this stage, everything is fine, no one breaks anything. The author of the model learns that his model, which he published under a commercial license, is used by a certain developer in his commercial project and changes the license from commercial to non-commercial. Sketchfab makes this easy to do. After that, the author of the model sues the developer for copyright infringement. The developer is guilty, because he can not prove the opposite. Such a scheme can also be used for fraud and extortion.

Hi there,

The author changing the license only affects downloads moving forward. It cannot retroactively change the license it was already shared under when you downloaded it.

That said, we should probably start including some kind of license text file with all downloads (although there would be nothing stopping you from editing that file either).

For what it’s worth, the glTF version of every download already has the license embedded in it. You could still edit this in plain text though…

Not sure how hard this would be to make, but why not record download dates and time with info on which license it was under at the time. So if there is any problema anyone could ask you to confirm the fact.
Also, it could show up on the web site the date of first time it was acquire under a type of license

This approach does not work and will not work because the error is fundamental. I think it is necessary to introduce the concept of the cost of the license. For example, the cost of a not commercial license is 3. The cost of a commercial license is 2. When the author changes the license type from non-commercial to commercial, the parameter changes from 3 to 2. The author cannot switch to a license with a higher cost. I guess that would solve the problem once and for all.

Sorry, that’s not possible. The author always has the right to change or remove the license, but they can never revoke the license you already received.

The CC licenses are irrevocable. This means that once you receive material under a CC license, you will always have the right to use it under those license terms, even if the licensor changes his or her mind and stops distributing under the CC license terms. Of course, you may choose to respect the licensor’s wishes and stop using the work.

I am not a lawyer and english is not my native language, but I have not found in the FAQ CC paragraph where it is said that the author has the right to change the license to his content as he like at any time. If such point exist, show please.

If you have very specific questions or doubts about Creative Commons licenses and don’t trust our answers, I recommend you talk to them directly.

1 Like

I didn’t find what you wrote about in the CC, but i found some user’s text that you copied:
I have big doubts that this is a weighty argument.

The text I wrote is copied directly from CC’s FAQ page that I linked to.

Yes, it’s true. I’m sorry, I didn’t see it. However, this does not eliminate the problems of proving the fact of good use of the license and the ownership of a particular license to a particular developer (the one who downloaded the model and used it in his project) at a particular time.

If the CC license itself forbids you to impose restrictions on changing the license type of a particular content, then why doesn’t Google create its own licenses like CC? Is this a daunting task for Google’s army of lawyers? The current state of affairs has created a loophole for fraudsters. This not only creates big problems for the developer but also exposes Google as an accomplice of scammers.

Again, if you have very specific questions or doubts about Creative Commons licenses and don’t trust our answers, I recommend you talk to them directly.

This is going way off topic for this community and I’m closing this topic.

1 Like