Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
"DID I ACCIDENTALLY JUST GO COMMERCIAL?" (A PATREON CONUNDRUM)
Posts
Merlandese
3235
Merlandese
View playlists
Closeauthor=Liberty
The argument isn't "Do they have the right to have their assets covered if there's a commercial endeavour?" (which they do), but "Is this thing considered a commercial endeavour?" (which it isn't).author=MerlandeseAh, but that isn't donations from outside the scope of a particular game. That's pay to play which is definitely a commercial endeavour within the game.
I generally agree with all of this, but what if Adventure Capitalist used nothing but Hirei's non-commercial assets? Where does that fall, and what sort of difference does it make in terms of, like, game busking? XD
It isn't always Pay to Play. Maybe this game is (I'm not sure, I tried to find one that doesn't have micro-transactions), but not all of them.
Imagine that you and I, Liberty, release a completely Free to Play game on Steam. Can we use non-commercial assets? It's making less money than a Patreon. Or what if we release it but as soon as someone makes a transaction it locks out all of the non-commercial assets?
What makes it commercial, I guess it what I'm asking, and why would a Free to Play game without micro-transactions--or even before micro-transactions--be more commercial than a game that, though "busking," generates revenue?
Uh, if you release a Free To Play game on steam, pretty sure you're not making money anyway so there's no issue there? It's not a commercial game because there's no money being made.
However the moment that there's something INSIDE the game that is an option for payment, it becomes a commercially viable game.
Patreon, however, is a different format entirely, at least in this instance. There are people who do ask for donations in order to make a SPECIFIC game - they promise a game through the donations, and that makes it commercialised. Fair enough, easy to understand. But in this case there is no such promise made. The donations are just that - donations. No promises made, no expectations to meet. This makes it non-commercial because there is no pay-to-create. There's no contract between payers and creator. It's like an artist making art for themselves vs commissioned art.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that it would be an issue. It's pretty much common sense.
However the moment that there's something INSIDE the game that is an option for payment, it becomes a commercially viable game.
Patreon, however, is a different format entirely, at least in this instance. There are people who do ask for donations in order to make a SPECIFIC game - they promise a game through the donations, and that makes it commercialised. Fair enough, easy to understand. But in this case there is no such promise made. The donations are just that - donations. No promises made, no expectations to meet. This makes it non-commercial because there is no pay-to-create. There's no contract between payers and creator. It's like an artist making art for themselves vs commissioned art.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that it would be an issue. It's pretty much common sense.
Merlandese
3235
author=Liberty
Uh, if you release a Free To Play game on steam, pretty sure you're not making money anyway so there's no issue there? It's not a commercial game because there's no money being made.
However the moment that there's something INSIDE the game that is an option for payment, it becomes a commercially viable game.
Okay, cool. I think if that definition is true, then, the defining part of the game being commercial would be direct revenue.
And if a game doesn't make money directly, then it can use non-commercial assets.
So if Valve makes a Free to Play game and uses all of the non-commercial assets on this site, then there's no issue, because it's only making more money through the visibility it's gaining from the assets, not from the game that uses the assets.
I don't have an issue with the circumstances either way, but I could end up hearing one of my songs in a free Square Enix phone game in this series of far-fetched definitions. XD
author=Merlandeseauthor=LibertyOkay, cool. I think if that definition is true, then, the defining part of the game being commercial would be direct revenue.
Uh, if you release a Free To Play game on steam, pretty sure you're not making money anyway so there's no issue there? It's not a commercial game because there's no money being made.
However the moment that there's something INSIDE the game that is an option for payment, it becomes a commercially viable game.
And if a game doesn't make money directly, then it can use non-commercial assets.
So if Valve makes a Free to Play game and uses all of the non-commercial assets on this site, then there's no issue, because it's only making more money through the visibility it's gaining from the assets, not from the game that uses the assets.
I don't have an issue with the circumstances either way, but I could end up hearing one of my songs in a free Square Enix phone game in this series of far-fetched definitions. XD
Well, of course it depends on the Terms of Use with the resources, of course. For example, my own resources have the caveat that any game using them MUST be made in a legally owned RPG Maker engine since they're based on the RTP. As long as they abide by those, then sure, that's not an issue?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Merlandese
What makes it commercial, I guess it what I'm asking, and why would a Free to Play game without micro-transactions--or even before micro-transactions--be more commercial than a game that, though "busking," generates revenue?
Game that is free and has no microtransactions: Noncommercial.
Game that is free and has microtransactions: Probably commercial, IANAL.
The patreon income is NOT CONNECTED to the game in any way other than the fact that the person receiving the money is making the game.
If patreon income makes a game commercial, then so should gift money or money from a separate job, because they all have the exact same connection to the game itself.
ETA:
author=Merlandese
I don't have an issue with the circumstances either way, but I could end up hearing one of my songs in a free Square Enix phone game in this series of far-fetched definitions. XD
I... what?!
I mean, if the songs are licensed for noncommercial use, then yes, you could hypothetically see that happen. Why would you ever think otherwise?
Merlandese
3235
author=Liberty
Well, of course it depends on the Terms of Use with the resources, of course. For example, my own resources have the caveat that any game using them MUST be made in a legally owned RPG Maker engine since they're based on the RTP. As long as they abide by those, then sure, that's not an issue?
Yeah, but what you're saying here is that if they follow the rules then they aren't breaking the rules. I can get behind that. If I'm not misreading the topic's, like, "core" or whatever, it's an issue for people who are trying to get something out of their assets.
Not every asset is given out to be completely nice. Let's say some of these assets are semi-free to help get exposure for the artist. Easiest way to make sure people don't just take them and profit (while still releasing them) is to make it clear they are for non-commercial use. And for the sake of normality, the person isn't going to write an extensive set of guidelines for donations and what-not. In fact, a lot of those distribution sites only have a checkbox for usage, not really a blank area where you specify engine or country or hair color or etc.
The heart of this choice is that if someone else benefits from the creator's asset, in this not-uncommon example, the creator also wants to benefit. They want the chance to share the gold or the glory or both. Using the "non-commercial" label doesn't feel very thin... until we get into the gray area of a topic like this.
So now Sooz has released a bunch of sweet songs on the pan flute for people to see and use, but pay for if they start making money with them. And Kentona, the savviest, makes a bunch of successful free games that launch him to Hideo Kojima status and leaves Sooz still broke, still not famous.
If Sooz gets upset by this, I can at least understand. If all is standing as it is, I agree with you (Liberty) on the last word because you're on solid logical ground. But I wouldn't feel comfortable saying, "hey, that's what you get for not specifying better," or that "dude, calm down, Kentona's stuff isn't commercial, it's donation" like this is all so completely obvious.
Shinan
4314
So now Sooz has released a bunch of sweet songs on the pan flute for people to see and use, but pay for if they start making money with them. And Kentona, the savviest, makes a bunch of successful free games that launch him to Hideo Kojima status and leaves Sooz still broke, still not famous.
Well credit always has to be given. So while Sooz will still be broke, Sooz might be famous.
Merlandese
3235
author=ShinanSo now Sooz has released a bunch of sweet songs on the pan flute for people to see and use, but pay for if they start making money with them. And Kentona, the savviest, makes a bunch of successful free games that launch him to Hideo Kojima status and leaves Sooz still broke, still not famous.Well credit always has to be given. So while Sooz will still be broke, Sooz might be famous.
I have no idea who else Hideo Kojima works with. And they get paid. XD
author=Soozauthor=unityAny idiot with a computer can be a site admin.
Several are, like, site admins.
Case in point
That's nice, but you can bet the names are still in the credits with his.
If you release something out there for free-to-use, without expanding on that general license, then people are going to use them for free. How they use them is up to them unless you actually stipulate what they cannot use them for. That's how free-to-use works. You can, if you don't want them to use said resources a specific way, actually rescind the right for that free-use. Or add conditions to it's use after the fact - if kentona is using Sooz's work and she said "Hey, kentona, I know I said free to use, but I didn't mean in youtube videos, so can you remove my content from them?" then that's that. He removes the content from them.
If, however, he got famous from using her tiles and she never said anything about that, then what? What do you expect him to do about that? As long as he's doing what she asked for him and others to do, he's within the rights she gave him to use them as he wanted. It's not his fault that people associate the graphics with him, as long as he gave the correct accreditation as asked. Like... what do you expect him to do but what he was told to? The argument makes no sense. What you're saying is "Don't every use free use stuff because it's not yours and if you get big off the use of it when adhering to the rules, then you're bad."
But this isn't even the question at the moment. The question is this "Is getting paid from other means that have no connection to making a particular game forcing that game to be counted as commercial?" and the answer to that is "No."
If you release something out there for free-to-use, without expanding on that general license, then people are going to use them for free. How they use them is up to them unless you actually stipulate what they cannot use them for. That's how free-to-use works. You can, if you don't want them to use said resources a specific way, actually rescind the right for that free-use. Or add conditions to it's use after the fact - if kentona is using Sooz's work and she said "Hey, kentona, I know I said free to use, but I didn't mean in youtube videos, so can you remove my content from them?" then that's that. He removes the content from them.
If, however, he got famous from using her tiles and she never said anything about that, then what? What do you expect him to do about that? As long as he's doing what she asked for him and others to do, he's within the rights she gave him to use them as he wanted. It's not his fault that people associate the graphics with him, as long as he gave the correct accreditation as asked. Like... what do you expect him to do but what he was told to? The argument makes no sense. What you're saying is "Don't every use free use stuff because it's not yours and if you get big off the use of it when adhering to the rules, then you're bad."
But this isn't even the question at the moment. The question is this "Is getting paid from other means that have no connection to making a particular game forcing that game to be counted as commercial?" and the answer to that is "No."
I don't really have a pony in this race since any assets I don't make, I legally own and am licensed for, and any scripts I use are labeled clearly for what I can use them for, but you are allowed to ask for donations on a page about your work without it having to apply to your work. A donation isn't a fee; it's an optional gift. As long as it isn't paying any of your bills for making games, there really isn't anything anyone can legally do except whine.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
If I release something free to use unlimited, and someone uses it and gets rich and I get nothing,* that's something I should be prepared for when I choose the unlimited free use license.
There are multiple license options for creators, from "totally free and open to anyone" to "only free for noncommercial and/or with attribution" to just plain "only the people who buy the license to use this work."
People who put their work out as public domain know (or should know) exactly what they're doing. It's entirely fair to use the work however, and if they don't profit from it, oh well; that's not why you put work out in public domain.
*This is, of course, ignoring the increased visibility opening new opportunities for commissioned jobs.
There are multiple license options for creators, from "totally free and open to anyone" to "only free for noncommercial and/or with attribution" to just plain "only the people who buy the license to use this work."
People who put their work out as public domain know (or should know) exactly what they're doing. It's entirely fair to use the work however, and if they don't profit from it, oh well; that's not why you put work out in public domain.
*This is, of course, ignoring the increased visibility opening new opportunities for commissioned jobs.
Merlandese
3235
author=Liberty
What you're saying is "Don't every use free use stuff because it's not yours and if you get big off the use of it when adhering to the rules, then you're bad."
I said nothing like that. I didn't even imply it. I agree with you, Lib. Your stance is, like I said, the one that's logical. It falls in terms with the legal, what's sensible, etc. I'm just sympathizing with people who, through laziness or ignorance or whatever reason, may feel taken advantage of.
If someone signs a contract where they have to work the rest of their life, and that's in the fine print, yes, they should have read everything in the fine print, but they aren't crazy to suddenly feel like they've been used or tricked.
And this contract example isn't analogous in method, just in the mentality of the only person who could be considered in any way a victim, because rest assured the person making money isn't one.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
You have to actually state that your work is public domain/free licensed, though. Otherwise, it's assumed you hold the copyright the moment it's created.
Instead of someone tricking someone else with a contract, it's offering someone completely unlimited use of your car and then getting upset when they use it to work for Uber and don't give you a cut. (Assuming they pay for all other costs, etc.)
ETA: Actually, it's even less harm than that analogy, because your work can't get broken or otherwise unusable if someone else uses it. There is literally no actual harm to the creator.
Instead of someone tricking someone else with a contract, it's offering someone completely unlimited use of your car and then getting upset when they use it to work for Uber and don't give you a cut. (Assuming they pay for all other costs, etc.)
ETA: Actually, it's even less harm than that analogy, because your work can't get broken or otherwise unusable if someone else uses it. There is literally no actual harm to the creator.
Merlandese
3235
I'm showing sympathy to a laborer who might feel that they aren't getting their fair due because the term "non-commercial only" isn't as clean cut as they thought. Just sympathy. I had to get clarity on if a Free to Play game was commercial, so I understand why it's not clear to everyone. I'm not on saying any person using "non-commercial only" assets is in the wrong.
I wouldn't worry so much about this and I completely agree with Sooz and Shinan. They give you money, cuz they like your games. I think, that there is nothing commercial about it. Frankly, It's quite the opposite as donations can help you to avoid selling your game. I think that it's even manageable to have donator's only content and stay non-com from the legal point of view.
Also borders between personal and commercial versions of software aren't usually that strict. As long as your donators aren't throwing tens of thousands of dollars at you, nobody cares.
Also borders between personal and commercial versions of software aren't usually that strict. As long as your donators aren't throwing tens of thousands of dollars at you, nobody cares.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Merlandese
I'm showing sympathy to a laborer who might feel that they aren't getting their fair due because the term "non-commercial only" isn't as clean cut as they thought. Just sympathy. I had to get clarity on if a Free to Play game was commercial, so I understand why it's not clear to everyone. I'm not on saying any person using "non-commercial only" assets is in the wrong.
As a creator myself, if you don't bother to understand the nature of commercial vs noncommercial work, you only have yourself to blame. It's pretty simple.
The questions are going to be as follows:
"Is the developer making money specifically on the game?"
"Is the developer correctly representing all assets?"
"Can any funds received be specifically designated a fee or payment for any of the materials in question?"
"Are all moneys received optional?"
The answers should be NO, YES, NO, and YES. As long as this is the case, there really is no legal grounding for a complaint. Put it simply, as long as the only money you're getting is going to your pizza fund and you're not actually requiring it, you should be cool.
"Is the developer making money specifically on the game?"
"Is the developer correctly representing all assets?"
"Can any funds received be specifically designated a fee or payment for any of the materials in question?"
"Are all moneys received optional?"
The answers should be NO, YES, NO, and YES. As long as this is the case, there really is no legal grounding for a complaint. Put it simply, as long as the only money you're getting is going to your pizza fund and you're not actually requiring it, you should be cool.
author=Soozauthor=unityAny idiot with a computer can be a site admin. There is no reason to trust their opinion on ANYTHING just because they have the power to ban users.
Several are, like, site admins.
god. this is feels decadently good to read. lol SOOZ HUG MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
(kent is awesome too. all rmn mods are. really. i love you guys. i do.)
Anyway I double sooz's words.
Patreon != commercial, it is unrelated the game as you're supporting the creator and not the game.
Free to Play with iap == commercial,as iap = in game transactions that affect the game directly.
Just make sure not to put a paywall behind anything non-commercial-only on your patreon rewards. IF your patrons need to donate $5 at least in order to download the game, it's not actually free. If the $5 reward is, however, acess to game documents (to which you own the rights, concept art (you own or you've drawn yourself) etc. then it's good.
And that's that. It's not complex.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=JosephSeraph
god. this is feels decadently good to read. lol SOOZ HUG MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
(kent is awesome too. all rmn mods are. really. i love you guys. i do.)
<3 :3
And yeah, I think we happen to have some great mods here, just I would not trust any of them as legal counsel. At least not until I saw a bar certification for this country/state.
