Ownership rights should include resell rights unless agreements explicitly state otherwise.

[leaden coral]

According to Scam Rule 2.2.2 / 2.2.3, an asset you purchased you cannot resell. This is actually quite dumb, because once you purchase an asset from a worker (on a commission basis; I'm NOT talking about buying pre-made assets), you own that asset. After all, it was custom made for you.
Many legal jurisdictions, including the EU, recognize that "work made for hire" (aka: commission jobs) becomes property of the client once they have paid for the work.

^ Just to reiterate: What this means is that unless explicitly agreed otherwise, the client should become the owner and have ALL rights to the work (modification, reselling, transfer of ownership, etc.) after paying.

[earnest sonnet]

95% of the time, if you’re purchasing an online asset, you are buying a license to use that good.

This is the same with video games as well.
Reselling a digital asset you buy IS a scam because you own a license of the product unless otherwise stated…

Not to mention it completely undermines the original creator

[ocean goblet]

Ye but look, what if we dont specify that we dont want our items to be sold

If they sell it without knowing, then i will just report them

[tribal lava]

Disagree, the person who did the work should be protected first.
If you wanted to resell it then ask them and make an agreement, not the other way around.

[tribal lava]

a lot ppl probably wont know if the rule changes to allow reselling and then they will be upset

[leaden coral]

that argument is valid, however, you're dealing with individuals here rather than companies and you're dealing with custom work made for hire rather than say, some game from steam. situation is clearly different here. work made for hire, at least legally, becomes the buyer's property completely unless agreed otherwise and following that legal principle, the buyer can resell if they want

[leaden coral]

i think legal precedent takes priority over the lack of explicit resell rights when legal precedence says "no agreement stating it's NOT yours means it's yours"

[tribal lava]

id think that no agreement means no rights(except the implied rights to use the asset)

[tribal lava]

also that would probably lead to a lot of manipulation..

if a buyer wants ownership rights, then simply ask and make a deal i dont see why you couldnt do that

[leaden coral]

you have an agreement as soon as you sell an asset to a buyer, even if that agreement has no 'terms'. eu laws generally fill in the gaps left in agreements

[tribal lava]

id think eu is stricter than us laws, doubt they allow all rights when no rights are agreed upon

[leaden coral]

the same or similar laws apply in the us iirc

[tribal lava]

even then it would be dumb for the law to allow all rights when no rights are agree upon

[tribal lava]

also like why not just ask

[leaden coral]

@leaden coral if your getting reported for reselling an item, most likely the person your trying to sell to didn't want to purchase a premade item/ a resold item. People generally look for items that are custom made for them that nobody else has. Also at the same time selling premade items is not allowed in the marketplace I think.

So while you may own the item, you wouldn't be getting reported unless the person your selling wanted you to do a commission for them and not just sell them an asset that multiple people could potentially have.

And there is a possibility that the item you purchased and "owned" was stolen itself and now you're the one selling a stolen asset.

That scam rule protects people, even if it means making other people upset.

More often than not, when selling premade assets, they were stolen.

[leaden coral]

luckily im not getting reported for reselling, cuz ion abt that. just think that custom work made for hire = client's property once paid, so they can do whatever they want with it

[leaden coral]

Yes they can, just not in this server unfortunately

[leaden coral]

and we're not talking about premade assets, we're talking about commissioned work

[leaden coral]

If your reselling an asset, it's premade.

Made before a deal was struck

true

[tribal lava]

just ask for ownership rights then?

[leaden coral]

or just follow legal precedent

[tribal lava]

could you send like the legal text

i doubt thats actual legal precedence

and i dont get whats so hard about just asking for ownership rights like whats the reason to not do it?

seems a lil fishy

[leaden coral]

A “work made for hire” is—

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a “supplementary work” is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an “instructional text” is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

[tribal lava]

where does it state that no agreed rights means giving all rights?

[leaden coral]

that doesn't need to be stated

[tribal lava]

yes it does..?

[leaden coral]

you as the worker need to make terms that restrict this

[tribal lava]

no you dont?? no statement on the rights given mean no rights given(opinion, i cant actually confirm this)

[leaden coral]

i wont argue with you. law clearly states that work made for hire = client's property. goodbye

[tribal lava]

where is it if you say "clearly"??

law doesnt rlly matter but rn im just curious

[earnest sonnet]

good thing the eu law u push in every suggestion doesn’t matter in hidden devs

[valid aurora]

Hidden devs is a separate server, it doesn't have anything to do with eu law. Hidden devs has its own rules, I'm pretty sure that this rule is put for a reason: to prevent scams. Which is worse a client who's just upset or a commissioned person got his assets sold without his permission?

The client can also claim that he made these assets to get him more people interested, now tell me if that commissioned person saw HIS OWN assets being "made" by a client, what's his reaction?

That's my own point of view, others may agree and others may not, on top of that I can clearly see that everyone is against you in this thread lol.

[ocean goblet]

I dont suggest adding this tbh

Because as someone who does commissions, if someone resells my stuff without my permission or even asking me, i will just report them

If this suggestion gets added, there will be alot of problems because people who do commissions dont want their stuff to be sold

[leaden coral]

luckily that's why i demand full ownership (resale rights, the whole shebang) before i hire an individual

[tribal lava]

then issue solved, this suggestion is not needed

[ocean goblet]

^
i agree, this suggestion is just useless if you gonna ask for full ownership, and i highly doubt anyone would accept

im sorry but thats my opinion, i dont think anyone wants their assets to be sold for a much less price or even free

[tribal lava]

if they do they will probably up the price compared to a non resell license

[leaden coral]

it should be the standard rather than something you have to explicitly ask for, that's the point of the suggestion

[ocean goblet]

i dont know, but i 100% deny

• almost every dev dont know if it is allowed or not, and they think its not

so they will just report anyway

[tribal lava]

i disagree, the opposite should be standard and full ownership/license changes should be explicitly asked

[coral bay]

This is the reason why the rule is in the first place. You may not re-sell the asset unless the party who made the asset has given permission to you and the party you're selling the asset is aware that the asset isn't yours.

[slate elbow]

yeah let them resell my assets and profit off me without me knowing it 👏

note: this is sarcasm I do not allow my assets to be resold, showing this messsage as a proof won't work

artists sell commercial lisence for a reason and its more expensive for a reason

[ocean goblet]

please dont allow this, it is really bad and will damage the marketplace

[slate elbow]

don't worry there no way they allow this

those who agree with this suggestion should be investigated tbh

if they can't ask "can I resell your asset?" they probably know other party won't agree

so they choose this shaddy path which allows them to not even ask and stay silent, taking advantage of other party's ignorance about rules