Getting replies in their favour at the top. Not surprised.
.
.
1. Incorrect, as confirmed by the attorney in the email at the bottom.
2. They are indeed valuable part of the NFTs. What you are saying does not stand in court.
you can argue that NFTs are "Incorporated Products" and the 3D Assets themselves are not the actually valuable part of these
But don't listen to me, and watch hundreds of other similar cases where entire projects were blacklisted from marketplaces for much less.
3. Incorrect as well.
.
CGTrader license
And that's only one of the 5 platforms used.
.
You cannot re-sell it.
In most cases it is illegal, and where it's on the edge it's still...
DISHONEST AND UNETHICAL
...to profit from someone else's work without attribution or compensation.
NFT = Derivative Work
. . . . .
PS.
Is this attorney an attorney who is an expert at licensing agreements? Did you send them the licensing agreement for CGTrader or some other licensing agreement?
There is only one snippet saying it is a breach of the licensing agreement, but there is no context for the whole e-mail. There is no context if all the facts of the matter were properly communicated to said attorney.
There is no evidence of this attorney being a real attorney.
If you replace the model does that make the NFT lose value, if not then they are not a valuable part of the NFT. That is one criterion. The second criterion is whether the NFT is considered an "Incorporated Product".
There is nothing incorrect about this. This is what a licensing agreement is. If you have evidence of them not getting a license, feel free to share so. If not, getting a license is permission and the amount the author put on their license is proper compensation.
Have a wonderful day.
That's only for CGTrader.
CGTrader is only 1 of the 5 platforms used
.
.
That's what hundreds of similar cases on other blockchains say.
.
It is not. They do not allow you to re-sell them.
While you listed some of the products used on different platforms, they are also available on CGTrader.
For example; Drone.
If NFTs are considered part of the game, they are part of the "incorporated product". This is a highly nuanced part of Intellectual Property. If you can find one where there is an actual similar case with proper licenses purchased and an actual ruling about. I would like to read about it.
Yes, they do not allow you to re-sell the model files themselves. That should be pretty obvious. An image however is not the model itself. And if the NFTs that are sold, don't grant to purchaser any rights to the image then there is no violation here.
Edit:
I am not going to waste more of my time on this, as I do not particularly care whether you or PsyberX is right.
The incorporated product in this case is the NFT. Who cares about the game.
.
NFT = derivative work
.
And even leaving aside legality for a second...
If the derivative work is too similar to the 3D asset. (Here the printing refers to 3D printing of the asset and selling it. As they are both 3D models. Which would make them too similar.)
Whether the NFT is considered part of the game matters. If the NFT is part of the game, the game will be considered for the purposes of the license, not the NFT. As incorporated work would be the game, not the NFT.
There is nothing dishonest or unethical about this, if the proper license agreements are followed, and there is no breach of the agreement. Unless the authors of the works sue for breach of the license agreement and the courts decide there has been a breach, there is nothing wrong here.
I don't see the point of arguing about this anymore.
Selling a game with thousands of different assets and selling an NFT with someone else's work are very much different things.
And hundreds of similar cases on other blockchains back my statements.
.
Right, innocent until proven guilty. After spending 10/100 K on a court case. Everything is allowed until is decided by a judge, sure.
Or just
IF the NFT is part of the game, it is pretty much the same thing. As I said earlier, I haven't played PsyberX, and I do not own any assets from the game. I can't comment on whether they were part of the game or not.
Show me these cases, show me that they had proper licensing and they did not just straight up copy the assets without a license. Show me whatever license they had, if they had any.
You are saying the cases are similar, without actually giving those "hundreds of cases" or elaborating why they are similar.
Even though legal issues might seem similar on the surface, the nuances of each issue can make something a violation or not.
Ethics are subjective, whether something you deem ethical, I might deem unethical and vice versa.
If you are here to push an agenda under the guise of "ethics" be my guest. But don't expect everyone to subscribe to that agenda.
And as I said, as long as proper licensing had been followed there is nothing unethical about this.
Tell me where you read 3D printing
That is the example they give for similarity.