While I’m aware this is a low risk, I feel as if this is a potential issue that’ll surface after the assets are used commercially on a global scale. What I’m trying to determine is if this is a scare tactic that companies use to discourage pirating or if there’s a backdoor that we’re not aware of. If there is, than wouldn’t the project leader be held accountable for their employees crime?
For example,
If there’s a backdoor, than how can a project leader minimize the damage done by a pirate. Would it be possible for us to check how the file was created before we distribute it commercially? Should I require proof of a valid license rather than assume it doesn’t violate the companies TOS?
What solutions have you thought of so far?
I’ve currently come up with a few flawed bandaid fixes:
Prohibit usage of paid software.
Throughout the interview process, add a questionnaire trap that requires applicants to disclose what software they’re currently using, if it’s usable commercially or if it isn’t.
The problems with the solutions listed above:
People can be dishonest about what software they’re using.
Some paid software are considered industry standard such as PS, adobe illustrator meaning substituting paid software out of paranoia for free software may limit what an artist is capable of.
If you’re legally employing an artist to work for you and produce assets, you as the employer are responsible for the software the artist is using and the licenses. Whereas if you are paying the artist on a per-product basis, more commonly referred to as freelancing or commissions, the software and the way these assets are made are the responsibility of the artist.
In other words, if you commision art from someone who uses pirated software, that person is breaking the terms of use / license terms when producing the artwork. You are simply buying the produced product and have nothing to do with the tools the artists uses.
For your questions of how employers can find out if their artists are using the proper license, I’m assuming that these are freelancers or artists you don’t plan to employ. If you are employing artists I and they would expect you to provide them with the necessary tools and licenses to do the work you are requesting them to do. For freelancers, you might be better off not asking about the specific licenses they are using. While this can definitely be morally questionable, it saves you the trouble of going through the licensing process and now being partially responsible because it’s no longer something that you can assume the freelancer has taken care of personally.
In my game development university track, we quickly found out that commercial software such as zBrush contains code that communicates the used license to the developer. It allowed them to find out that most students didn’t shelf out 400$ for a student license, and these students were fined by the company.
If I’m not mistaken, I believe most editing software will tag any files created using a non-commercial version.
This tag cannot be seen by simply looking at the file, it’s hidden somewhere in the file information for the developer of the program to check if needed. In most cases, only the developer of the program knows where it is to protect it from being tampered with.
Roblox itself does not look for any sort of non-commercial license. Your only worry is if the developer of the program actively seeks out the file and is able to determine its origin with the embedded tag.
If they do find it, you would be in a world of legal trouble. The developer will most likely try to cease all financial assets gained from using the file, along with other fees on top of that.
To play it safe, I always recommend sticking with the commercial version of software as to avoid any legal trouble. But @Wsly is correct, if it is a freelance artist they are the one that will face legal trouble if you bought it from them with the idea that the file was cleared for commercial use.
If the payment was % based rather than hourly would it still be in my best interest to provide my team with the necessary funds to cover any commercial software being used?
Players receiving percentage based commission are receiving their payment with that percentage, and will not be considered part of your development team unless being paid a salary (unless otherwise stated or agreed upon). It still may be in your best interest to provide that person with the software neccessary to create commercially acceptable assets, but legally it is still their responsibility to use a commercial license when selling them for commercial use.
Just going to pop in and say that unless anyone here says explicitly that they are giving legal advice, do not treat it as such. Both you and the advisor can get in some legal trouble if you do so
I’m aware which is why I didn’t mark either of the responses as a “solution”. Unless a certified lawyer speaks on this topic than it’ll remain open for discussion.
I do however want to thank everyone in advance for taking time out of their day to respond to this question while also providing valuable information that I wasn’t aware of. The responses have managed to at least put my worries to ease so far. Unfortunately I’m on a tight budget ATM so consulting with a lawyer isn’t an option I could take which is why I resorted to the dev forums.