Can I use it commercially for my freelance work?
Yes, the InstaMAT Pioneer license can be used for freelance work, as long as your customer would be able to acquire a Pioneer license under his name. In other words, if your customer or final recipient of your work exceeds the USD $100,000 in annual revenue or total funding, you cannot use the Pioneer license.
In this case, the InstaMAT Indie License or a InstaMAT Pro License must be acquired. The InstaMAT Indie License has a revenue/funding cap of USD $250,000 but you can use it for any kind of freelance work. The InstaMAT Pro License has no revenue/funding cap at all.
TLDR: Only use the InstaMAT Pioneer license, if your customer could use it as well. Otherwise, you need to get a InstaMAT Indie or InstaMAT Pro license.
My question is as follows:
How to interpret these statements in various scenarios?
What if I sell assets on Unity Asset Store or Fab, how these rules apply there?
If sell my assets on stores I also do freelance work and my clients are technically making money; together with either Epic or Unity.
How checking their profits apply there? Because I’m afraid it’s impossible for me to do that.
What if I actually decide to do freelance work?
How can I possibly verify my customers, together with their income from my sold assets?
If you sell your assets, you’ll need to include attribution, and your end users will need to keep that attribution.
If you’re doing freelance work under a Pioneer License, you still need to attribute, and it’s only allowed when the end user also qualifies for a Pioneer License. These are lightweight requirements for a fully subsidized license that we offer to the community, and a paid subscription removes them entirely.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Regarding freelance work for specific clients, the rules are clear to me now. However, I need to press slightly on the regulations regarding Asset Stores (Unity Asset Store, Fab, etc.), as there seems to be a conflict between InstaMAT’s Pioneer License and the Standard EULAs of these marketplaces.
I am happy to give credits myself in the asset description or documentation, and that is not an issue at all. The difficulty arises with your requirement that “Your end users will need to keep that attribution.”
When selling on these platforms:
Enforcement is impossible. I sell assets under the platform’s Standard EULA. I cannot legally force a buyer to attribute a third-party tool (InstaMAT) in their final game, nor can I police their compliance. Once they buy the asset, they use it under Unity/Epic terms, which generally do not require them to credit the software used to create the assets.
Anonymity. Marketplace transactions are anonymous. I have no way of knowing who buys my assets, nor do I have the means to track them down to verify or enforce that they are attributing InstaMAT in their own projects.
Given that I cannot enforce attribution on the final buyer, nor identify who they are, does this mean the Pioneer License is effectively banned for use on Asset Stores?
I want to remain compliant, but I cannot agree to terms that require me to police anonymous buyers.
This is a really good question, and I wasn’t aware of the attribution “carry-over” previously.
Initially, it might sound like one could be technically compliant for a marketplace like FAB by stating in the product description something like, “This asset pack was created using the Pioneer License of InstaMAT, and requires attribution in your end product. Please visit The Free InstaMAT Pioneer License | InstaMAT Documentation for details on how to provide attribution in your work.”
However, as @martinson1232 pointed out, there are some points to consider:
The documentation explicitly states, “if your customer or final recipient of your work exceeds the USD $100,000 in annual revenue or total funding, you cannot use the Pioneer license”.
There is no way of policing WHO is purchasing your assets on FAB (both “Personal” and “Professional” versions of FAB’s Standard License exist, based on the buyer’s proximity to a $100,000 revenue threshold).
Anyone can purchase a “Professional” version of your product on FAB (implying, though not proving, that they earn over $100K revenue).
In light of the above, it would seem the ONLY safe license to ensure compliance if selling things on FAB is the InstaMAT Indie License (providing that you personally earn less than $250,000 annually).
At least, that is my reading of it. Perhaps @Pixby can share some extra light on whether point 4 above is correct?
If you cannot verify the buyer’s status, such as when selling to unknown third parties or through marketplaces, it may be best to purchase a paid subscription. This ensures compliance with licensing terms in most cases.