Sharing the response received from Unity's legal team regarding the ongoing SPUM NFT infringement case.
First, here is a summary of the previous case. Please refer to this if you are unsure what the case is about.
And this is the content of the article.
To resolve this issue, I contacted Unity Asset Store to confirm whether this case violates the EULA license.
Unfortunately, regarding the handling of matters related to the Asset Store, it was stated that Unity Korea does not handle them, so after waiting for several days through the Legal team at the headquarters, I was able to receive a response.
It should be clarified that the attorney from Unity's Legal Team is Unity's attorney and therefore did not provide legal advice for me, but rather confirmed the contents of my inquiry regarding where it is stated in the license.
First, I was able to hear about the End User License Agreement (EULA) 2.2 item.
Section 2.2 of the User License Agreement is as follows.
2.2.1 Non-Restricted Assets. The following concerns only Assets that are not Restricted Assets: Licensor grants to the END-USER a non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual license to the Asset to integrate it only as incorporated and embedded components of electronic applications and digital media and distribute such electronic application and digital media; reproduction and display in distributed physical advertising materials is permitted solely for marketing purposes in respect of such electronic applications or digital media. Except for services software development kits (“Services SDKs”), END-USERS may modify Assets. END-USER may otherwise not reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, distribute, sublicense, rent, lease or lend the Assets. It is emphasized that the END-USERS shall not be entitled to distribute or transfer in any way (including, without, limitation by way of sublicense) the Assets in any other way than as integrated components of electronic applications and digital media or in supporting physical marketing materials. Without limitation of the foregoing it is emphasized that END-USER shall not be entitled to share the costs related to purchasing an Asset and then let any third party that has contributed to such purchase use such Asset (forum pooling). 2.2.2 Restricted Assets. The following concerns only Restricted Assets: Restricted Assets have license terms different from other Assets. Those license terms are found in the materials accompanying Restricted Assets ("Restricted Asset Terms"). For clarity, to the extent Restricted Asset Terms are different from this EULA, the Restricted Asset Terms will control; otherwise, this EULA will continue to apply. No other use is licensed or permitted and END-USER may otherwise not use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, distribute, sublicense, rent, lease or lend Restricted Assets. Without limitation of the foregoing it is emphasized that END-USER shall not be entitled to share the costs related to purchasing a Restricted Asset and then let any third party that has contributed to such purchase use such Restricted Asset (forum pooling).
In other words, this means that it cannot be produced or traded in other items other than electronic applications or digital media, as specified in Article 2.2.
In other words, the Dead Knight project appears to violate Section 2.2 regarding its use. This is because NFT trading occurs through exchanges other than the applications or digital media specified above.
Additionally, I was able to review the mention of End User License Agreement (EULA) item 2.8. The content of item 2.8 is as follows.
You agree that no modification or use of those Assets shall (a) infringe, misappropriate, or violate a third party’s patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, moral rights, or other intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy; (b) violate, or encourage any conduct that would violate, any applicable law or regulation or would give rise to liability of any kind; (c) be fraudulent, false, misleading, or deceptive; (d) be defamatory, obscene, pornographic, vulgar, or offensive; (e) promote discrimination, bigotry, racism, hatred, harassment, or harm against any individual or group; (f) promote violence or actions that are threatening to any other person; or (g) promote illegal or harmful activities or substances.
In other words, it should not be used by infringing on copyright, but the Dead Knight project has infringed on copyright as well (working and uploading it as if the Undead Lich King were his own design), and it also appears to be a license violation.
Also, I asked the legal team if Unity could directly impose sanctions on the project in such cases.
When I sell assets on the Unity Asset Store, I also agree to the seller terms of the EULA. According to Article 1.1, copyright ownership remains with me, so Unity cannot be the party claiming infringement, and they say they cannot take direct action regarding copyright infringement.
Therefore, I believe I must now report to the platform where the project is conducting business, based on the license violation and copyright infringement content confirmed by Unity's legal team.
Furthermore, to find my rights, I am also considering directly selling SPUM as an NFT. Since it is a work for which I hold the rights, I believe there is no clear notification because I am the one selling and promoting it.
Almost two weeks of studying while dealing with the stress of this issue. Unity Asset Store also gave a detailed response, and with the help of those around me, as I came to understand the NFT space, I was able to realize just how much the Dead Knight project screwed me over. (I'm really angry..)
Anyway, now that I have almost figured out the situation, I will diligently report it, start selling my own NFTs, and simultaneously update the progress on the Asset Store, while continuing to organize reviews to help domestic developers as well.