A Blend Shape gone too far....#vrchatcommunity

Big disagree. Got my thoughts here if you are curious: At the end of the day, if you don't want to pay a royalty on that work, then you just can't use the work. It's that simple.

This is true.

Had to go find this myself to see if it was actually real, and holy shit- you calling them a cunt is 100% validated. A lot of avatars I've seen being sold are usually made from other creators' assets that help make a new avatar- which is cool to see! That creator tho- wtf man..

What would make more sense, in your opinion? A person who sells kitbashed avatars is re-selling other artists’ work. Some modelers allow this type of use but why does it make others “cunts” if they want to be compensated for every end-user that receives their asset?

Maybe "cunt" was too harsh, but I’d argue that the specific licensing arrangement can be criticized if the compensation structure is disproportionate to the contribution being made to the final product. Enforcing a system to be head of this ponzi scheme where you have to either join their discord server or have them added...it is, in essence, unfair.

If the asset originally costs $10, what about $10 for every sale?

@2Pish181332 When you sell an art print, the manufacturer of that paper doesn't receive a royalty on that paper when you make sales. Assets made for reuse are just the same. You paid for the asset already, why would you pay more to keep using it.

@2Pish181332 I agree about “assets made for reuse”. But the likeness I’d make is not to the paper manufacturer, it’s to the painter of the art. If you buy a painting, that doesn’t give you the rights to make and sell prints, even though you bought the painting.

Yea that's a cunt creator with an greedy ego~ And actually a bit stupid. "If you don't stay in contact, you're committing theft." That isn't something the creator can simply establish by writing it into their TOS. It depends on the actual conduct and applicable law.

Greed and jealousy is a crazy drug

Genuine question though. Like a few here, I agree. How... would you properly sell your own models out of scraps you found (or bought) on the internet? Just credit them all on the file/store description? Indie-internet copyright morality is weird. I want your honest take.

Yeah, that's what you're supposed to do, the polite, kind thing to do

As someone who actually does kitbashing and avatar editing, this is genuinely concerning to me. There’s a huge difference between saying “you can use my blendshape under these terms” and claiming a percentage of the finished avatar’s sales because that blendshape was used somewhere in the process. Kitbashing already involves combining assets from multiple creators, and we have to respect the licenses and commercial-use terms attached to every individual asset. But a royalty on the entire finished avatar just because one blendshape or asset (no matter the size) was used feels like taking that way beyond what most creators would reasonably expect when purchasing or using an asset. If I kitbash an avatar using a head, clothing, hair, accessories, textures, etc. from different creators, those creators don't suddenly become entitled to a percentage of the entire avatar I make and sell. Their license determines what I'm allowed to do with their asset. That's the whole point of having licensing terms in the first place. And 20% of every sale is especially wild. That's not a tiny attribution fee or a reasonable asset licensing cost, it's a recurring cut of someone else's work and the value they've added on top of it. At that point, you're not licensing a component anymore, you're inserting yourself into the revenue of the finished product. As a creator who works with kitbashing, I really don't like the precedent this sets. If creators can start claiming ongoing percentages of an avatar's total sale price based on individual components used during the creation process, where exactly does that stop?

"resell a fitting for an outfit" reads like the clause is for reselling clothing/full outfits, with the only alteration being the slight sculpting/weight painting to a different base. Does not sound like a bad request, since the draw of the reseller would be the creative work..

Amen. In theory I understand what they try and do, but still… such an asshole way of doing that…

Then why don’t they have a commercial product an then up the price?? Royalties makes no sense in this market..

I don't think these issues get talked about enough. Keep up the good work.

you are correct, but it should have been added that royalties require a mutually agreed contract. adding royalties to a click agreement is not enforceable. most things added to these click agreements are not binding anyways.

Hey @2Pish181332 just a heads up. On mobile your captions are covered up by X's ui when un muting the video because it fullscreens. I had to watch with sound off because I can't turn up the volume too too high, so forgive me if I missed anything. I feel strongly that we should respect creators wishes, TOS should still be fair however. It's really a two way street between creator and buyer. The buyer shouldn't be subject to strange rules for a vrchat avatar for example, (and I've seen this one a lot too) appearing in video content. I use this as a example for one of the wacky rules I've seen a lot on avatar TOS. Since I could just be minding my own business and then all of a sudden some twitch streamer gets mad at me for being in their stream etc. I've seen some weird ones, I dunno about kitbashing though. I'm interested to see what people are saying in this discussion. Lhun already had a take that brought me here, and I think this discussion helps because it's getting people talking about it. Thanks nerd. :)

if you sell an avatar for ten cents and repeatedly message them for each sale giving them 1 cent are they breaking their own contract if they refuse to remain in contact with you

Seeing this on a blendshape specifically seems strange, but I don't understand your complaint. This sounds as if you expect rights to resell by default. You're either buying for personal use only, or you're entering an agreement. If you don't agree you don't get to resell.

Go off pish. He'll yeah

Simple conclusion no one is giving 20% or any percent for a head,body part or anything done 💀

How boring is all of your fucking lives go the fuck outside and do something

Here's my take as a one year peep, Miltina, example, should already be free at this point cause at least 90% of VRChat assets or Avis are a piece of her, so what's ya that point? Also for pixels people? Why is this even a topic?....just redistribute like EVERYONE will EVENTUALLY

while i agree that this TOS is due to its phrasing borderline insane, i must also say that commercial licenses are too cheap in the current landscape. 10$ for a personal Item? Okay. 10$ for a commercial License? nope, that should be at least a 300-500% up-charge or negotiated.

Glad I’m not the only one who raises a eye in confuseion at the unrealistic/unenforceable terms of sale some “creators” come up with

Chargeback???

I dont see it stupid, its there product and there terms you decide if its worth it if not dont use it. If you gonna include this product in your product you technically redistributing his product without paying his share. Also considering theres word outfit its seem its just there copy paste terms, and he is open for negotiation, you can tell them 20% is stupid for small bland shape, maybe he will agree with you. Its also hard to discuss how is this deal worth if we dont know prices and products

I just do it myself whenever someone has that kind of terms

So I do agree on that and also what your take on this scenario because this happened to one of my friend so basically its a helldiver outfit that mostly streamer i see use it and im gonna say this its a good outfit but the issue is that another person blame my friend for -

Hm.

look if they've made the head and all the blend shapes 10 is just to buy it It's not to sell it What don't you get if you want to do that you need to buy the full rights to the model That's how it's done You clearly haven't done that