Author Topic: License clarification.  (Read 14341 times)

I'll copy paste what I posted on Polycount on this subject:

The way we see it is for a material, brush or filter used to paint or texture an asset that's part of a larger project, this project can't be considered "altered material" or "derivative work" as its scope is much larger and the original creators do not need to be credited.

BUT assets being used to create and redistribute a similar (single or group of) assets require the creator to be credited. eg. You download a smart material that you tweak and embed in another smart material that you redistribute or you use a substance material as is or slightly modified to texture a prop that you sell on an asset store.

That would be quite a nice license, but that's not what the current license states.

The license defines Adapted Material as material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor.

That would include the game itself but also trailers, screenshots, gameplay videos, video reviews...
Otherwise the CC-BY-SA license wouldn't have been a problem.

Please update the license to something more practical.

We are finalizing a new license for share, more on that soon!

Awesome! Thank you Jeremie.

And yet, here i am in March 2017, and I feel that I am being forced to once again ask these same questions others have already asked. What you say you mean doesn't matter if that doesn't jive with what your legal documents state as EULA, a binding agreement. So while I generally appreciate the fact that you guys allowed me to get this software on monthly payments, I'm left at the end scratching my head. I'm kind of upset and discouraged with what I'm seeing. Please allow me to explain.

So, I shelved this software for a bit, knowing that I was not at the skill level to use what I was buying. And I come back after having completed purchasing my definitive license, only to discover that my license for the old Substance Painter 1.7.3 will now run out in 20 days. I'm looking at my Substance Painter 2.5.1 and see that the goodies that are packaged with it are  not the same. I go looking and discover that they were moved to Substance Share. I can't see the materials on my hard drive anywhere to just move them (was that changed? another forum user mentions being able to do so), so I figure I'll just get my account at Substance Share and re-download those great materials. ONLY I discover that I am now being forced to agree to a new EULA that basically places all of the materials you already gave me along with my purchase of Substance Painter 1, which is now being taken away for some reason I cannot fathom---behind a new legal agreement, AND I find out that you want me to agree to a Creative Commons license for goods you've already given me rights to use. Here, from Substance Share's EULA agreement you put at the front page: In addition any Asset that you download from Substance Share that has been developed by Allegorithmic or that has been made available by third-parties ("Providers") that are not affiliated with Allegorithmic, will be subject to Allegorithmic‚Äôs standard Substance Share End User License Agreement ("Allegorithmic-EULA"), which is Creative Common's "Attribution 4.0 International" (please refer to, is copied in Appendix 1 to these Terms... To clarify further, the webpage states:

If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

Retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
a copyright notice;
a notice that refers to this Public License;
a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.

So please explain where you provide us with the information that we must supply along with any of the materials we use and the manner you request we supply it. What exactly are you asking? Please state for public record what it is you request that we do if we use any of these materials commercially--because the legalese in your EULA does not appear to explain what you require in exchange for our agreeing to be so bound. Maybe I missed it. It was a wall of legalese.

I don't know if you're aware, although I assume you are--and I only know this because I researched it for something I myself released under Creative Commons--but you cannot enforce a change in license under Creative Commons once you've delivered the goods under another license. As in, you are not allowed to push a more restrictive license off on someone after you've given them something under another license. Maybe I'm mistaken, but essentially, you're denying me access to goods I've paid for and should be able to use commercially because that was my understanding of the deal I made with your company back when I began purchasing these goods. But now you're telling me that if I do want to use them commercially, I've got to agree to a license forcing me to give credit and describe how I've modified the goods, in theory, whenever they appear--as others have stated, in screenshots, etc. If that is true, I can tell you why there aren't tons of raving reviews of your products over at Unity. Until this realization, I was kind of wondering why that was myself.

How dare you take goods that were installed with the previous version of your software, which I did in fact give you money for, remove them, then stick them up under a Creative Commons license you then attempt to force me to agree to if I wish to continue using them? It suggests that the license agreement was your motivation for removing them from your software when you moved to the new version. When you take away my license for the original version of the software in 20 days, I will effectively lose access to something that should be mine to continue to use regardless of whatever new EULA you desire to place upon them. Can you possibly provide a workaround so that I can simply copy the alphas, materials, particles, etc into my newer version of your software, or will you insist upon attempting to force me into agreeing to a license that you cannot legally bind me to since you introduced it after money was exchange for goods under the previous EULA? I can't believe nobody called you guys out on this. Giving you credit is not a bad thing, nor is paying for what you're selling--but I'm not talking about anything like that. I'm talking about something I had that I feel is now being taken from me when I've done nothing but be a loyal, paying customer for all this time. Why is that?  :(

Furthermore, if I read the agreement correctly, you're essentially asking me to agree with you that you aren't responsible if someone else's goods are delivered unlawfully through your website and furthermore you are not in any way responsible for damages that arise if I then use those goods and get sued. That's rich.
Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 12:27:06 pm


Legally the assets delivered in Substance Painter, whatever version, do NOT belong to you. They belong to Allegorithmic, and we give you a right to use them according to the EULA of the software.
We can add / remove / change any of the assets as we wish, if we feel it's better for the product.

If you have SP 1.7.3, you can find all the assets on your disk. You can just install SP 1.7.3, locate the files and transfer them.

Head of Product Management

Hi guys. New here.

What about using it for an advert purpose for TV. How do you credit then?


I note that no reply was ever given to this question so, I will ask it again.
Can Substance Share materials be used commercially in Stock images, adverts, printed images on a duvet-cover etc. where crediting of the original creator is impossible?

I am sure I am not alone in wanting this clarified and PLEASE DON'T just point me towards the wall of legal waffle.

Thank you.

They can be used commercially if you can credit the original creator. Conversely, If you can't credit the original creator, then you can't use the Substance Share files.
However I don't agree that for all the examples you gave crediting the original creator is always impossible :
  • For stock images, you can provide them with an additional file attributing the Substance file to its original author, as well as terms of use for said stock image.
  • For printed ads, it's probably going to be difficult to negociate that with most clients, but some (e.g. non-profit organisations) may agree to add credits in proximity of the printed ad.
  • For printed images on a product like a duvet, the attribution can be done in print in an accompanying notice. For clothes, it could be also done on a label sewn with the product.

Those are just examples. Again, in case you can't find a way to give credit to the original creator, then you simply can't use the Share files. Some more ideas about how to provide credits can be found here :
Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 03:11:01 pm