Using non-redistributable 3D models

DaveTheCoder

There's a TurboSquid (turbosquid.com) model I'd like to use in a Godot project. The project will be exported to one or more of the Web, Android and iOS platforms.

Here's the relevant part of their license:

b. Access to 3D Models. You must take all reasonable and industry standard measures to incorporate 3D Models within Creations to prevent other parties from gaining access to 3D Models. 3D Models must be contained in proprietary formats so that they cannot be opened or imported in a publicly available software application or framework, or extracted without reverse engineering. WebGL exports from Unity, Unreal, and Lumberyard are permitted. Any other open format or format encrypted with decryptable open standards (such as an encrypted compression archive or other WebGL programs not listed here) are prohibited from using 3D Models. If your Creation uses WebGL and you are not sure if it qualifies, please contact us and describe your Creation in detail if this is your desired use.

Full license: https://blog.turbosquid.com/turbosquid-3d-model-license/

I've submitted a support ticket to them, but I wanted to get an opinion here. What do you think?

Tomcat

DaveTheCoder What do you think?

I would try my best to avoid using content with such a licence.

MagickPanda

I lol'd when seeing even lumberyard is listed in permitted engines and godot is not.

fire7side

I think I won't use their models. Personally, if I paid for it, I would just use it. I wouldn't have it in a separate file but that's about it.

DaveTheCoder

fire7side Personally, if I paid for it, I would just use it.

In this case, it's a free model, and it's exactly what I need.

LoipesMas

I am not a lawyer, but I probably wouldn't use it without an explicit approval.

DaveTheCoder

The issue is that the only reason they might object to using it in Godot is that it might be easier (compared to Unreal and Unity) for someone else to steal it. That seems like an odd restriction. Especially in this case, when it's a free model.

To clarify: TurboSquid is concerned that someone might steal the model from a Godot export, when anyone can download the free model from TurboSquid. Does that seem logical?

Tomcat

DaveTheCoder Does that seem logical?

Are you looking for logic in this crazy world? It's not logical anymore!

fire7side

DaveTheCoder It would be way too much legal hastle to do anything about it. If it's a copyright, then at least they have some legal grounds, but putting the model up for download for free and then arguing someone didn't protect it enough isn't going to happen. It's not like you are using a model from some famous game or something, which would probably be worth hiring a lawyer to do something about. It wouldn't be worth hiring a lawyer to send a cease and desist, but that's as far as it would go if they did something, so you might have to find another model or take it down. I'm sure this is some standard thing they put on all their models. It's up to you, but in todays world, nothing is going to happen. There are about a million games around. I bought some models a while back and talked to the author about using it for Godot and he had no problem with it and even gave instructions on how to use it. This is just some fruit cake deal.

retroshark

DaveTheCoder when anyone can download the free model from TurboSquid

My assumption that the addition of this clause it to try and route people back to TurboSquid - in hopes of them converting into a paying customer. Instead of simply poaching it from a project they found online.

fire7side It would be way too much legal hastle to do anything about it

I tend to lean towards this as well. This is most likely an attempt to scare off anyone, but not action would be taken other than an email to a contact they can find attached to a project they believe is voiding the license.

DaveTheCoder

Another absurdity is that I've seen what appears to be exactly the same model in two other stores. I think it's a free download on those sites too. I didn't register there to see whether it's identical or just very similar. 🙄

DaveTheCoder

I received this response on my TurboSquid support ticket. This applies to my submitted support question, and might not be their general policy.

Thank you for writing to us. My colleague has told me that Godot is open sourced but that does not necessarily preclude use. In order to use a TurboSquid model in a game engine, you need to ensure that the engine is designed to protect that model from being ripped from the final program. The goal should be to preclude customers from accessing the model itself and using it for their own purposes. I would say that this is a judgement call on your part since you are familar with the Godot system - if you believe that customers won't be able to access the underlying model, that should be fine.

Tomcat

DaveTheCoder

I would say that this is a judgement call on your part since you are familar with the Godot system - if you believe that customers won't be able to access the underlying model, that should be fine.

This formulation is rather soft and loyal to users (I would even say — democratic).

LoipesMas

DaveTheCoder
To me it seems like a non-answer. Not enough to give you any answers, but enough to give them basis for any legal actions (how ever unlikely). On one hand, no engine can truly protect a model from being ripped. On the other hand, you could say that Godot does protect that (to a degree), by packaging assets into a .pck file, so it's not easily¹ accessible.
If I were in your position, I would probably use this asset as-is. If you want to be extra safe, you could try encrypting the model and decrypting it in runtime.

¹ There are freely available tools for extracting .pck files, but the same thing can be said for Unity and Unreal.

DaveTheCoder

if you believe that customers won't be able to access the underlying model, that should be fine.

That doesn't sound like they're giving themselves a basis for legal action. How could they prove or disprove what "I believe"?

I think they provided a very reasonable answer.

Armynator

Extracting assets from Unity builds isn't that much harder than extracting them from a .pck file.
Personally I'd say that exporting your .pck file with an encryption key should be enough.

If you want to go further, you could simply add a "proprietary" model loader and converter. You could do something very simple like reversing the byte order of the first half of the file or adding some random bytes inbetween which you filter out on load again. That way only your game knows how to handle the model correctly and actual reverse-engineering would be required to convert it back into a standard format.

DaveTheCoder

Armynator You could do something very simple like reversing the byte order of the first half of the file or adding some random bytes inbetween which you filter out on load again.

That's a good idea. I'll experiment with that. I've loaded 2D images at run time, but I haven't tried that with 3D meshes. The model, which is exported from Blender, is currently either a .glb or a .blend, although I could try other formats if needed.

DaveTheCoder

I figured out how to write the ArrayMesh of a MeshInstance3D to a resource file, and reload it from a resource file. Those are the basics needed for encrypting a mesh.

Armynator Personally I'd say that exporting your .pck file with an encryption key should be enough.

After reading about that in the documentation, I agree that's a better approach.