An Update On Licenses

Sorry but you didn't clarified core value, you eliminated it completele and that is now the concern of sellers. We never asked it to be removed at the point of "do what you like always that you don't resell it". As a seller for me is a rotund NO. 11 years ago

I think that it's a good start, it makes it clear that you can't just leave the item as is, but it also makes it clear about how much would need to be changed. You could then also include some images as examples of what is and isn't allowed. I think it's great to leave a license simple to understand but I also think that having a good amount of specific examples further down to clarify points is needed. Look at what our customers do with our items and use those types of situations in the examples. For instance in what ways could someone want to use a font? Or how would you use a piece of clip art to create an invitation to sell in your small store? In that case I'd show an example of what is good, with an example of what is bad. 11 years ago

I honestly also don't think it would be confusing to buyers to have a license that's just for fonts. Not everything can be licensed the same way and if you clearly put in the license page that this is the font license, this is the resource license etc, people would understand that. Stores do have different terms for different sections, it's not something new. 11 years ago

> This is the first site that tells you what you can do or not with fonts. Not exactly. Many basic font licenses prohibit use on retail end products in which the type provides the core value (stickers, blocks, stamps, alphabet posters, etc.). For those uses, the foundry asks the buyer to contact them directly because there are just too many wide-ranging scenarios. They want to offer a fair price, whether it’s a limited edition item for a small shop, or a mass produced product for a mega retailer. The problem with CM’s new licenses for font sellers is that the new Standard License is too restrictive (no end product use whatsoever) and the Extended License is too open (no limit on mass produced objects). I’m impressed with CM’s moxie, trying to conjure a one-size-fits-all Extended License, but it just won’t work for all products. Fonts, at least, will indeed need their own license options. 11 years ago

I still don't get that you keep saying that it was not possible to offer products for resale with the simple license? Both Ken and a lot of other staff members have during the last couple of years, mentioned that it is fine to make products for resale as long as the assets bought from CM just wasn't used "as is". Again here are some "web-clippings" taken from discussions about offering products for resale using the Simple License: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/611936/simple-license-examples.jpg 11 years ago

@Julie Lalonde could you please share a link where they mention something about "a mistake and only some people" and I will be greatfull. 11 years ago

@Kelley Johnson I think having both a small business and a mass production tier would go a LONG way to solving this part of the issues we have with the license. Many people could then choose to have their extended license be the same price, or a few dollars more than their standard license, while allowing the mass produced license to be full price. While some buyers may still be frustrated that some sellers are still out of their price range, I'm confident that the market would correct itself and buyers would be able to find something that fits their budget, and those stores that are outpricing their clientele will see a drop in sales. 11 years ago

Me personally I never figured that people would be redistributing my source files directly, I was more worried about them using my images without making any changes to them. For instance taking a squirrel and plopping it down on a white background and calling it a product. To me that's still MY product, it's my squirrel, you didn't change anything, how can you sell it without any changes? What if they sell it as a printable download. I mean technically it's not the exact same file (mine was on a transparent background and now they've put it on a white background, mine was a vector and now it's a jPG or PDF), but it's still MY image without changes. That's what I'm worried about. That people could basically compete with me with my own product. Because I do have people buying that squirrel to print it themselves for their own wall art. If someone wants to use my clip art all by itself like that for personal use, I SHOULD be the only place they can get that. 11 years ago

Thomas I think almost anyone would say that the items were bought in good faith and with the reasonable assumption that CM staff were all on the same page with the license. It's unfortunate that the mistake was made but I know that I as a seller would never say you couldn't use something you bought before now, especially as we can see that the confusion was so widespread. 11 years ago

As a buyer, one concern surrounding fonts is consistency. I don't want to have to keep track of which fonts I bought with a standard desktop license and which I bought with a CM standard license. I would be less inclined to buy from CM if I knew I could never use my designs on something I might want to sell—even for a single impression—without paying ten times what I'd pay at another site. 11 years ago

@Kelley Johnson It works great as long as it's the same price I'd pay for the same right at another site. 11 years ago

@Kelley Johnson Maybe some type of infographic to show what is allowed and not allowed would help. A quick example I whipped up using my clip art, can you tell that I'm not an infographic designer? :) http://imgur.com/RCZ7px8 11 years ago

@Julie Lalonde and @Kelley Johnson that is a wonderful idea and I would use the word "unique" as Julie suggested. So: You may use the Item in a new end product so long as it is not used alone, but instead as elements or parts of a new unique design. 11 years ago

@Ashley Cee right now with either Standard or Extended Licenses you are allowed to use the product just once. It doesn't make sense to me either, I was just using CM wording. Check here: https://creativemarket.com/licenses "Number of projects 1 (except installable items which allow unlimited projects)" As a seller I have no problem if someone buys any of my products and use them unlimited time. Is what logic dictates: you bought it, you own it. I don't know why CM puts a limit of 1 and I am not sure how graphic sellers stand about that. 11 years ago

@Ashley Cee I agree with you as I am a buyer too! But there are tons of sellers with the same thought that includes an Extended License, sell with fair prices and allow commercial use not so restrictive, for example NickyLaatz ... no wonder why is a top! :D 11 years ago

Fonts? Look at MyFonts. Structure the licensing the same. That's the gold standard. 11 years ago

@Julie Lalonde I would think so too, but now, with these new licenses it seems like you have to clarify more than, "is this core value?" So this didn't solve anything, it just created more problems and more questions to ask so we don't get sued. 11 years ago

@Kelley Johnson Here's how I think the license thing should work, just my idea based on what the consensus I've seen in the comments are. Business License: Since most of the people who buy here use the resources for resale or commercially. The business license would allow you to use the products for resale and commercial use on digital products and physical projects up to (let's say something like 100,000 units for people who sell cards and mugs.) Beyond that contact the seller. If they don't want their products sold on zazzle or other like sites they can add that in the listing Small Business License: If a single product exceeds a certain price point let's say $100 the designer may choose to offer a small business license. (this would encourage fair prices for smaller business and bring in more money for sellers and benefit buyers because more people would buy it.) Most small businesses don't exceed 10,000 per year in profits. Single License: Can be used personally or for one custom project for a client. You could apply this license across all products and it'd be much easier for both buyers and sellers in my opinion. It's simple and fairly cut and dry, something both buyers and sellers can understand. 11 years ago

@ro aar I 100% agree. If you're paying for a font you should be able to use it however you want, they're just complicating things further with all this licensing crap. In my opinion the same thing should go for the other products too you should be allowed commercial use and the seller can decide a fair price for it. In fact a lot of font makers on here use word art in their examples so it's kind of hypocritical of them to show word art as a way to use their fonts and then not let the buyer use it in that same way. 11 years ago

@Kelley Johnson This whole license change is just an excuse to price gauge the buyers, In fact you encourage them to do so! On the old terms it would cost me $65 dollars to buy an illustration package with extended licensing and now it's $250! I know the creators get to set their own price but by changing the standard license and eliminating using the content for sale except for one project you've allowed them to do this. You should at least set some kind of cap for the businesses to charge for extended licenses. Hey , but if I ever need 6 gold textures I hope I'll have $60 dollars lying around to buy it. I don't know how you can see the prices your creators are charging your customers and call them anything but obscene. I know you want to stand by your creators but it's the buyers that keep them and you in business and I imagine you're going to alienate a lot of them with these license changes. Not all the designers here are rich enough to afford to pay $250 for one set of clipart or $60 for 6 textures. Don't you even care about your customers? Thanks for slapping us loyal buyers in the face! I really hope it works out for you! 11 years ago

@Kimberly Geswein I'm sorry I don't understand, if it's your work can't you outline your own terms even if just to add to the existing ones? Like "this includes simple license but you can use them to create word art as shown in the examples" or else the conclusion drawn is "why are they showing us this if we can't use it this way?" I talked to Nikki and she said the the font creators set their own prices and the prices were raised for the extended licensing so it's very confusing, you have control over pricing but not terms? I am with you about being upset trust me, but I would think the content creators would be happy because they can charge more for their products. Like I said above, i think the creators should be compensated for their work but some of the new prices they're charging are crazy! 11 years ago

As a buyer, I agree 100% with Kimberly Geswein. Her licensing is perfect and worry free. Simply put, I will not purchase any font on this service for 10x the price I have found in the past. Those that want fonts for personal use will just leave here, go to another download site and use them at no cost. IMO, CM is going to lose a ton of business because of this change; starting with me. 11 years ago

@Hedera Decor "Letters have the same value as any other graphics." If you create word art you put an effort to arranging the letters, you change their size, their color, their spacing, their height (whatever) in a specific way (as that specific art needs it). You can say you create an new piece of art automatically. Not only that: there is a "font business" standard out there. The limitations of creative market on fonts is very uncommon and apart from this standard. There are limitations in the font business sometimes, but mostly impression based, not creativity based. 11 years ago

@ro aar @Hedera Decor Fonts are viewed as tools not graphics, things which enable you to be creative. You can add a graphic to a design but you cannot change what it is, you cannot change it's appearance . With fonts you can, everything is customizable by you depending on what you type, how you kern it, ect. Same as brushes they're a means to creating not the creation itself as graphics are. 11 years ago

@Anja Kaiser I think it's only logical that content creators can create their own terms, CM is not the owner of your designs, you are they are merely a platform of idiots who should start listening to their buyers and sellers instead of making up more inane rules. I think what you need to do is contact said agencies and update them on your terms. I would say it's safe to at least talk to him about it if it's bothering you, what could it hurt you might be able to find out if he's just a nice guy who didn't know or a jerk who took advantage of your other agency. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein That's great but that's just under the umbrella of one project where if you have a store you don't make just 1 project. i feel like this license completely ignores small businesses, not all your clients are big time designers getting paid big bucks for exclusive client projects. They are small photography studios creating postcard templates, little print shops on Etsy and small graphic design business that offer custom and pre made logo work. You are ignoring a large segment of your customers punishing them over the confusing the terms of use you created. I would understand leaving the simple license as is and offering the extended license for people who want to use a resource beyond the core use caveat. But completely eliminating the resale terms of the simple license and urging your content creators to charge 10x as much is just a slap in the face to your customers. I personally don't understand why you can't adopt a general commercial use license and defer to the creators to define what commercial use is and is not allowed they created the resources they should get to decide how they're sold, a lot of sellers have told me they disagree with your TOU as well. So it should be their call or you should at least consider all of your clients before making decisions like this, you're just punishing a large section of your buyers for your mistakes and it's not okay. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein That still doesn't explain why now I have to spend 10x as much for a resource I could get for a much lower price under the simple license which allowed items for resale as long as you did something new with them. I get the need to clarify core use but there was another way to go about. As I said above, use the extended license as an alternative beyond core use. The way to clarify the subject of core use is not to turn around and jack up your prices 10 fold, that does not solve problems it creates more. It turns buyers off especially small business that can't handle the hefty price tag (if I just need one thing for my whole business fine, but i, and most business owners, curate more than one resource) and when said resources is more than some of us make in a month it's not as simple as, "just buy more extended licenses!" It hurts your creators as well, when products are this expensive buyers can't split their money between multiple products and are forced to buy less in turn, this is the complete antithesis of a solution. I don't understand how you could possibly think this helps anyone, it seems to just help you which defeats the point of creating a community in the first place! 11 years ago

@pixel bypixel That's what I'm saying, they could've just added the extended license for outside the confines of core value and been done with it. I am holding off on purchasing anything as well, not until the TOU is clearer and more fair. 11 years ago

I appreciate the return of CM staff to the discussion - it wasn't good feeling as if we were just talking to ourselves. I think that there are a couple of core ideas I wanted to clarify - there's a lot of discussion here about a lot of different issues and it seems to be hard to separate proposals from unhappiness :) 1. It might be worth considering that some types of content, particularly fonts, might need their own license type rather than trying to make one license cover such a wide range of product types. 2. Regardless of how Extended Licenses end up, I think offering sellers the choice of opting out would not be overly confusing to buyers and would avoid sellers leaving if they can't live with whatever you end up with in an EL 3. There is a huge difference between reselling my digital content and selling a print or T-shirt that is just one of my images. I've been licensing my images as stock for over a decade and no agency allows a person licensing my work to resell it. I would immediately leave any agency that tried to. I'm quite happy to sell an extended license that permits people to sell posters with my photos (and nothing else) on them. It used to be common for extended license to come in two flavors - one for some small number of items to sell and one unlimited or a very big number. You don't want to think about the business size, but about the item quantity or print run. If you want to have an EL for a small print run of posters or T shirts and a business wants to buy more, they just buy more ELs to cover the total. Remember that someone printing T shirts to give away (at a corporate sales event, for example) doesn't need an EL at all. I could not support an EL that allowed my work to be resold even as part of another work. I have had agencies take down derivative works (using a DMCA takedown notice) where licensees have tried that. The only one who can sell derivative works that way is me. It doesn't matter how much other stuff is in the image. Again, you'll see that all the existing stock agencies do not allow uploads of this sort and will take down and ban contributors who do it. 4. Publishers sell books, newspapers and magazines, but nowhere else do they have to get an extended license to put images into those publications. It would be unwise of CM to try and require an extended license for a magazine to use an image or illustration just because the magazine is sold. A print, poster, T shirt or mug with a licensed image, with or without a text headline, is solely dependent upon that image for its saleability. Books, magazines, newspapers etc. are not. That's the dividing line that determines whether the extended license is needed. 5. Logos cannot be allowed regardless of which license. I don't know why this is even a discussion. If you want to permit use of work sold here for logos, then there has to be a special license to transfer the copyright of the work to the purchaser and for single sale items - you can't sell that art again (and it can't have been licensed before). I understand why people might like to assemble logos from bits they purchased, but that needs a different business model. 6. Editing extended license prices. I have a small portfolio here and for the moment I've just ignored EL prices because everything seems to be in flux. But you can't expect sellers to edit existing items one by one to update prices. You need some sort of automated options. Thanks for listening 11 years ago

@Ashley Cee you keep repeating misinformation. "That still doesn't explain why now I have to spend 10x as much for a resource I could get for a much lower price under the simple license which allowed items for resale as long as you did something new with them. " It has been said multiple multiple times now that the Simple License did not allow for items for resale. And it has also been explained that many shop owners have not yet had the TIME to go in and edit our prices, this change came across pretty fast for us too and we're all still adjusting to it and figuring out the licenses and price points, Creative Market in no way is FORCING us into a price point, but we also have to go in and manually reprice every item. 11 years ago

I was disappointed to see the change in the licensing that came out. Under the original licensing if I understood it that you could use the items purchased in things you sell such as shirts and what not. Now with the new licensing you need to purchase that extended licensing and that cost is significantly higher than the previous licensing. For example, a font I was looking at shows the Standard Licensing is $15 but if you want to make a shirt and sell that shirt you have to pay $150.00. I'm a small business ... I don't do mass production and many times I will only use a font a few times on a specific design. 99% of my work comes from word of mouth so I generally won't make enough to "recoup" that cost of the extended licensing. If this is how the licensing will be I will be forced to shop elsewhere for my font/design needs such as directly from designers websites and/or other font sites. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein thanks for clarifying. So you meant is ok multiple products on the same shop always that it is the same design. 11 years ago

@Jo Ann Snover "I could not support an EL that allowed my work to be resold even as part of another work. I have had agencies take down derivative works (using a DMCA takedown notice) where licensees have tried that. The only one who can sell derivative works that way is me. It doesn't matter how much other stuff is in the image. Again, you'll see that all the existing stock agencies do not allow uploads of this sort and will take down and ban contributors who do it." -------> love that, 10000 times again "regardless" must be removed from license xD 11 years ago

I'm new to CreativeMarket and with this new license it means that I cannot sell anything from the items I buy unless I purchase extended license. Please enlighten me, why would we buyers pay for let's say $20 for an item but cannot do anything with it? I'd rather use the free demo font or free graphics. See, the term of use is somewhat similar *shrugs*. This is a pointless move. I surely hope there will be a revision for this matter. A not so friendly terms of use will benefit no one. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein I will be writing more detailed feedback and suggestions via email, but I just wanted to say for all the small business buyers out there, that we sellers understand your situation and we aren't trying to exclude you! As a "mompreneur" I come from your very situation and started my business with you in mind. I wanted to make you resources you can use in your Etsy, Zazzle, etc businesses and it has been my pleasure to watch many of your businesses grow. I have set my extended licenses to the same price as my standard license for this reason, and I feel confident that CM will be able to figure this out and make a better option for small businesses so this will continue to be a place you can count on to find the resources you need! Please don't leave us. 11 years ago

Julie- I hear you saying the simple license didn't allow items to be created for sale, but that's patently false. It did as long as it wasn't making up the core value. It was confusingly worded, but it did allow for created content sales using CM content and CM staff reiterated that view with their CS responses to people when asked. THIS is the crux of my issue (beyond font licensing, which I've solved by removing all of my items from my store and I won't return them until everything is 100% fixed): Creative Market has been dishonest with both customers and content creators by saying that *nothing* changed between the simple and standard license. This is simply untrue, and to keep repeating it is just regurgitating the same lie. The simple license allowed selling created items using CM Content as long as the CM content didn't create the core value. To publicly correct customers on social media (their FB page) and say that the customers are just misunderstanding the simple license is patronizing and false. The customers understood exactly what the simple license stated! It is frustrating to hear over and over that "nothing changed" but clearly something did. If it was never intended to cover items created for sale, that's lovely, but it did say that you could as long as it wasn't of core value. I'm sorry if they didn't "mean" to have it say that, but it did. They can't backtrack over 2 years of sales and say "Oh, yes, we said that in our license but we didn't really mean that!" because that completely erodes customer confidence. Even when font licensing is fixed (truly fixed), I'm not sure if I can relist my items here until I feel I can trust CM to have standards, stick to those standards, and uphold those standards. Right now, it feels like they did zero market research, randomly switched stuff around without the support of content creators, took a private conversation in the designers-only forum and moved it to a public forum (this is such a violation of trust I can't even express it!), and completely ignored content creators who were crying out for some sort of response for multiple days. I'm talking emails and here and in the forum. I still haven't received a response to my email. I'm being told through their actions that I'm not important to them and they don't care enough to respond. And also, that confidentiality and sharing things in a private forum is not actually something they will hold confidential and at any point in time, all of that could be public. 11 years ago

I'd love to be able to opt-out of Extended License and provide my own instead. I sold my own unlimited license which pretty much gave the customer the ability to use My item How They want as long as they don't sell it as-is, though they can incorporate it in another item for sale without any problems from me. But, I can completely understand your reasoning behind the license changes. I'm just not a fan of them and I want the ability to opt-out and provide my own instead. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein I see I wasn't clear in what I meant. I try it again. Your extended license doesn't allow people to create word art and sell it. Because word art creators DON'T add additional graphics (of course, because their art is only about the words/letters), as it is required in your current license ("PART of a new design"). Why is your license so non-standard in terms of fonts? Word art creators are not welcome at CM if they want to sell their art. Though MOST of the font sellers here show examples with word art on it (they show posters, mugs, shirts with quotes etc., and they DON'T add further graphical elements to these examples). So the sellers "persuade" (I hope this is the right english word) people to think that they can use their fonts that way. But they can't! Your license prohibits it. So why are they showing word art then? I think it is because they never would make this limitation themselves, would they make a license on their own (because it's a font, not a graphic). They don't have this limitation of CM constantly in their minds when they create their examples. They are used from other font selling sites, that fonts can be used as they are, so with that in mind they create their examples. I asked many font sellers if they allow using their fonts without adding other elements to them. Almost everyone said "Yes! Sure.". Some even wondered that this limitation exists here on CM (they didn't new about it as sellers). So if 98% of the sellers are ok with it, why not change the license? It is so tiring to ask all the sellers and wait for their replies. Theyhungryjpeg.com for example differentiates graphics and fonts in their license. They know fonts are not graphics. Their license is really simple. Please get inspired by them. Also other competitors of yours don't make such restrictions on font usage. See also the standard license of myfonts.com which Kimberly Geswein defined correctly as gold standard: http://www.myfonts.com/viewlicense?lid=770 With their license fonts can be used for cards/posters etc. "as they are". With the current CM extended license this is not allowed. You have to add other graphics to your text/quote/word art. This kills creativity. Often fonts are fancy enough themselves and would only look good on a card/poster if used without additional design elements. The extended license allows that graphics are used AS THEY ARE, if they are PART of new design. You don't need to make changes to the graphic, just add some other elements to it, so that they have a different appearance. Then you are allowed to sell it. You need to add something because CM wants you not to sell the exact graphic. This is ok for graphics. But if you create word art you also change the font appearance. You put an effort to arranging the letters, you change their size, their color, their spacing, their height (whatever) in a specific way (as that specific art needs it). You can say you create an new piece of art automatically by just using the font. So you are making changes to the font, you change the appearance. These changes should also be viewed as sufficient to qualify the font usage as a "new design". And so font usage (without additional graphical elements) for products to sell, should be allowed with the extended license. You don't sell the exact product, you create a new one, automatically by using it. As Ashley Cee said correctly: "Fonts are viewed as tools not graphics, things which enable you to be creative. You can add a graphic to a design but you cannot change what it is, you cannot change it's appearance . With fonts you can, everything is customizable by you depending on what you type, how you kern it, ect. " If you really want two licenses for fonts, then please create them like this: - Standard License: personal use. - Extended License: commercial use, ANY. Fonts are installable items so they can be used in multiple projects for any type of product so long as the FONT ITSELF is not distributed for free or resold. "ANY commercial use" is font business standard. Limitations like "it has to be PART of a new wider design" is really non-standard with fonts. @Aaron Epstein Your license, that puts fonts under the umbrella of graphics holds me back from buying fonts at CM. I would always have to think: oh no, wait, you can't use this font like all your other fonts you bought at myfonts and other sites, this one is a creative market font. You can't create nice brush font cards and posters unless you find some additional graphics to add to your poster/card design. :-( I want to use the fonts like I use all my other fonts. Please tell me if CM considers changing their font license to a more typical font license, or should I just better stop putting effort giving buyer feedback on that, because you intend to keep this font license model? Other thoughts on fonts collected: Brittney Murphy "I do understand wanting to have consistent licensing across the site. But I feel like there should be a font-specific license that is more in line with standard font-licensing practices. " Kate England "Having reflected more on the new licenses, and reading people's comments here, I do think that it would make sense to use a special licence for fonts, that follows the established standards used by typeface markets such as MyFonts. It would very confusing for customers if Creative Market had a completely different model. Educating customers about why and what is different would probably be very time consuming, and the time could be better spent developing new Creative Market features. As others have pointed out, it's also very likely that customers would prefer purchasing fonts at other sites and it would be a pity for both artists and Creative Market to lose out on font sales. " Kimberly Geswein "None of the changes address the multiple complexities of font licensing. There are existing font licensing models that work and that customers know and expect. Flipping that upside down on CM and charging customers more or less than what they are charged at the other stores isn't cool. If you want to offer licensing other than the simple license, for fonts it has to reflect the rest of the industry. " becca "I don't think the new licensing is realistic at all when it comes to fonts. There is no reason to purchase a font here anymore when you can get the fonts with better terms for less elsewhere. Before the change most font creators allowed their fonts to be used in a product for sale. I have many conversations saved where I was given express permission to use the font in my work without any extra licensing." "And honestly, I don't think you can put all these different types of items under one umbrella like that. Illustrations and fonts for example are entirely different and really should have different licenses." mark Buzek "it's really hard to imagine that CM did their due diligence on this. There are just way too many obvious problems with this solution. Being a professional designer myself, I've bought many fonts here from some seriously talented type designers that I hate to see penalized by this move. But I assure you, they will be. I have even been considering selling some of my own creations here. But unless this is reconsidered, I'll definitely be buying my fonts elsewhere, where there is more typical font licensing." eve Johnson "Think I'll save my money to pay myself and design my own stuff instead. Except for fonts which I can get at myfonts.com and use for sellable products. Goodbye Creative Market!" 11 years ago

I've not read through all the responses but the blog post above is contradictory. As I stated on your FB page initially... 'Very dismayed at your recent email regarding the new extended licensing fees. It's unfortunate you felt the need to institute such a highly priced program. I, too, will no longer be making purchases with your company as the extended licensing fees are unreasonably high. With so many other sites selling font bundles that include commercial licensing in their $8, $15, $29 and $39 bundle pricing there's no need to patronize a company that charges 10 times the cost of the font to be able make use of it. Not a very wise marketing strategy.' I now understand that the designers themselves are responsible for setting the extended licensing fee amounts and that the 10x fee was an initial default. It's still ridiculously high but that's the designer's choice and they run the very real risk of pricing themselves out of the market. However, in reading the response to my post on FB, which quoted the blog post above, there is still some confusion. Particularly the following "...there is no need for you to buy an extended license for commercial projects unless that commercial project is going to be offered up for sale. " And this: "You do not, since “commercial use" is not the same as “offered for sale”." This makes no sense. The very definition of a 'commercial project' one that is intended for sale: COMMERCIAL: adjective 1.of, relating to, or characteristic of commerce. 2.engaged in commerce. 3.prepared, done, or acting with sole or chief emphasis on salability, profit, or success: a commercial product; 4.able to yield or make a profit: One would not be engaging in creating a commercial project if they did not intend to sell the final outcome. You then go on to state "For things things like most client work, the Standard License usually works just fine." When you create/design a website you are, presumably, getting paid for this service. I would consider the creation of a branding campaign for a client the same situation. In both instances, purchased product is being used and 'sold' in essence in the form of a finished site or logo for which one is compensated. So, how is this different than from this statement made further on in the post: "On the other hand, if you want to use graphics you purchased in a design printed on t-shirts and mugs that you offer for sale, you would need an Extended License" In both instances, a finished product is being offered for sale, whether it be in the form of a logo, a website, a tshirt, a mug etc. Unless you are the ultimate Good Samaritan and offer all of your products and services at no charge, money changes hands in each of these instances. They are all 'for sale'. Please explain. 11 years ago

There is so much feedback here to read, so I apologize if I am repeating things others have already mentioned. I am just going to speak based on how I use my font purchases. I am a small home based business with a website that I sell my product from. I design stencils from my PC and sometimes from my Mac. I only sell static designs that my customers cannot change or manipulate. I do not resell, or redistribute the fonts nor do I offer Alphabet/Font sets as stencils for sale at all. My customers do NOT have access to the fonts files in any way shape or form. For CM to now have the new EL in place is a heart break for me. Because my product is used to create a finished product that could possibly be used for resale forces me to buy the extended license. If I added an extended license to the sale of my stencils I would be out of business that very same day. The success of my business relies on the resale of my product time and time again. Recouping the money spent on these fonts with the new EL prices, could take years and break the bank in the process. In some cases, I may never see a dime of money for having purchased a font intended for creating my stencil designs. I know nothing about designing fonts, but I do know about designing my stencils. Some of the designs come fast and easy and others take me hours or even a few days. Some of my stencil designs use one font only and others have a mixture of several different fonts. I have plenty of designs that sell well and others that don't sell at all. It is the chance I take when I design with only hopes that my newly designed stencil will sell. So for me to invest big dollars in a font that may render no profits is absolutely not a good business purchase. I buy LOTS of fonts because I don't like using the same font over and over again. I use them to design a couple of things and often never return to using the font again. Honestly, there are so many amazing fonts out there it's hard to resist buying them, but it won't be hard to resist them at the extended license price. I am what you would call a font addict, I buy lots of fonts because they are well priced and affordable. There are times when I buy a font because of ONE beautiful letter in the entire bunch. I use it for the ONE thing intended and never use it again. With the new EL now in place, I will not purchase just because I think it is a pretty font. It will now have to be a purchase that I really sit and analyse my decision to buy. Sorry font designers, no more "impulse" buys at the check out lines from me. I see fonts as a "tool". They help create the design I am making they are not the entire design. I make changes and add my personal flair to them as well. It is like the carpenter who buys his hammer. He needs the hammer to build his cabinets but his hammer didn't create the cabinet and his hammer didn't cost him more because he is building a cabinet to sell to a consumer. 11 years ago

I like the separate license for fonts. I don't see any ambiguity in that. Thanks for making an effort to please your customers, though. 11 years ago

@Jeanette Traeg @Deborah Bishop In the font industry there are two acceptable definitions of “Commercial Use”: 1. A design project for a paying client. Eg. a logo, website, ad. 2. A retail product for sale in a marketplace. Eg. a poster, sticker, t-shirt. That ambiguity is why it’s best to steer clear of the term “commercial” altogether. Most font users (who frequent other font sales platforms) are doing work in the 1st category, but it appears that CM customers are often in the 2nd category, so they need a license that caters to their needs. As I suggest in my comment above, CM should offer licenses that acknowledge two levels of this retail product use: a “standard” license for short-run products that don't allow further reproduction of the individual letterforms, and an “extended” license for more extreme uses such as alphabet stamps or t-shirts sold at Target. 11 years ago

@Stephen Coles Stephen, I see no difference in your two stated examples. At their core, both result in the sale of an end product. Whether you are being paid by a specific client or by an individual who purchases your product in a marketplace, you are still selling your work. Money is still changing hands. If an extended license is required when a sale is made and money changes hands, then commercial use for a paying client falls into that category. There can be no 'commercial use' without payment rendered. In which case, the only instance where a standard license could be employed is for personal use only where no money changes hand. So again, unless you are the consummate Good Samaritan where you give away your goods and services for free, the extended licensing must be used. 11 years ago

@Stephen Coles I must correct you also, the "Fontfabric EULA" ist not only their EULA it is the standard EULA of myfonts.com See, many use the same EULA. http://www.myfonts.com/viewlicense?lid=770 http://www.myfonts.com/viewlicense?lid=817 http://www.myfonts.com/viewlicense?lid=1936 http://www.myfonts.com/viewlicense?lid=1351 @Kimberly Geswein I could go on and on with examples of this EULA. I have purchased several hundred fonts from myfonts.com already and I now the licenses pretty well. I also know the licenses from Debi Sementelli and Laura Wothington (I own licenses of their fonts myself). It seems a little strange to me that you pick these uncommon licenses out of the thousands of fonts from myfonts.com. I could show you so much more fonts with the standard myfonts.com license, than I bet you can show me fonts with these rare restrictions. Yes there are fonts with such restrictions, but these are a minority. But I 100% agree with you on that: "or let font sellers write their own." 11 years ago

I create both products that are for sale and do commercial work - and I liked that I could incorporate things into my end products from CreativeMarket like fonts, or brushes, or effects, without worrying about licensing (none would have been the "core value." You went from having it BE Simple and Straightforward, to complicating it. Now I have to think about whether a product is properly licensed for how I'm using it. CreativeMarket just went from being my favorite, simple option to use in all cases, to being another complication in my designer's world. And, I have to confess, that I won't buy as much from CreativeMarket anymore. You went from trying to please some people who want to use items AS "core value" to screwing people who want a single license for both commercial use AND products that are for sale. I can see the value of adding a "Core Value Extended License" AND a reason why those customers should pay more. But please revert the lesser license for those of us who don't need "Core Value" but DO need materials that we can use for ALL of our work, both commercial AND for sale. I don't think we should have to pay more if we're not using it for "Core Value." Why not just explain what "Core Value" is and isn't? CreativeMarket WAS filling a unique niche, providing items of value to designers like me who use assets for both commercial and product-for-sale applications with a single license we didn't have to worry about. That unique value proposition is now gone. And with it, my interest in CreativeMarket. 11 years ago

@ro aar Good point. That is an optional MyFonts EULA that is used by many foundries. Thank you for the correction. Still, I think you’re mistaken about the rarity of exceptions. A majority of the most successful foundries modify that MyFonts boilerplate or bring their own EULA. This includes most of those who are on the current bestseller list, such as Berthold, Correspondence Ink, Dalton Maag, Emtype, exljbris, Font Bureau, Mark Simonson, Paratype, Rene Bieder, Sudtipos, and Trial by Cupcakes. Also, Adobe and all the Monotype libraries (Monotype, Linotype, FontFont, Bitstream, ITC) use an MT EULA which is similar to the MyFonts boilerplate but forbids uses for end products that are individual letterform reproductions. So, there is a lot more variation out there than you assume. Regardless, we agree that CM’s current two-license system will not fit the needs of many buyers and sellers here. I understand why CM wants to make it easy for everyone, but it just doesn’t work for all fonts to have the same Extended LIcense. And worse, the Standard License is now too restrictive. 11 years ago

@Jeanette Traeg Commercial use is being paid or being compensated, true. But it does make sense even without using it for resale. You could for instance use it in an advertising campaign. In this case it's a commercial usage but you are not selling the advertisement, you're selling the product (or service) that you're advertising. Or using it on packaging, again you're not selling the packaging but the product inside the packaging. Or on the cover of an ebook that you're selling. Again this is commercial without being for resale. 11 years ago

I can't agree more with @Kimberly Geswein and @Thomas Meldgaard. SimpleLicense did agree the commercial use for products for sale before about 3 months ago that they decided it doesn't. All this huge issue would be solved if they just leave the StandardLicense as the Simple was, and do Extended for mass production. I have told it several times but they don't even listen or responde. Why? Because of course they want more money and have the urge to obligate buyers pay more. To be honest I am a bit tired of this and all what is said is redundant, I am done. All my items that were EXCLUSIVE for Creative Market have being removed too until this is solved and I really wish it doesn't take a year. I know that I can't do anything. Everything is up to you... but if it's solved in a way that it works for me, I will surely come back to buy and sell.In the meantime I will be elsewhere. Good luck with your decissions guys! 11 years ago

Jeanette you're correct. I don't buy products here for my personal use. I buy things at CM to incorporate into my designs. For me it's fonts but I still use those fonts to make graphics that I sell. Under the current standard license that is not possible. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein @Kelley Johnson @Ken Weaver Thank you for coming back to the discussion and listening to the feedback you've been receiving, it was quite disheartening for the last week when we were all discussing it in the forums and there was minimal response from CM to address the concerns that were being brought up. The common thread here I think is that we all want Creative Market to be the kind of market place that has clear and easy to understand terms that work for both buyers and sellers. I agree with most of the points made by @Jo Ann Snover and while I've commented in the past in the forum, here are the main issues in regards to licensing as I see them: 1. Font licensing is inconsistent with the industry standard of other market places. Potentially each category of items may need it's own terms to avoid any confusion and maintain customer expectations and industry standards. 2. By having such open wording and no limits on the Extended License sellers are being forced to price for the potential of mass usage which then excludes small businesses. If the extended license is going to be so open then there needs to be another license for small businesses. 3. There needs to be very clear simple wording and clarification on issues including reselling, redistribution, commercial work vs. selling etc. There need to be real world examples showing buyers what they can and cannot do with the work they are purchasing to avoid any confusion. Following from this CM staff need to be clear and consistent when answering inquiries because that is where a lot of the confusion about Simple License came from. 4. Sellers should be given the ability to opt out of any Extended Licenses they prefer and items should be searchable by license type to avoid buyer confusion. 5. There needs to be a bulk editing system. Honestly, I think a lot of the issues have come from how the roll out was handled. 7 days notice by 1 email for a major change which requires manual updates is not enough time. Most of the things mentioned in this thread and the concerns that buyers expressed at launch were brought up by store owners in the forums before the launch so it was frustrating to then read the post about how we had all "asked for this" and to have buyers frustrations directed at us over something we were equally concerned about. The anger of customers over the 10x mark up could have been avoided completely had there been either a longer roll out with enough time for sellers to make edits or the ability to opt out until the changes were made and consistent. Licensing is a really tough issue and having a "let's see how this goes then make changes down the road" approach is concerning for both sellers and buyers because it creates more confusion through inconsistency and forces people's hands to make rash decisions. For my store, I'm not comfortable selling under the current licenses and based on feedback customers have sent me, they aren't comfortable buying under it. I can't opt out so I'm now having to pull my items and hope that our feedback is heard and things change sooner rather than later. 11 years ago

What @Kimberly Geswein said. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein absolutely! Please do keep me in the loop! 11 years ago

I agree with @Deborah Bishop earlier point. As a small business just starting out, I can't afford spending $250 for 1 element in the whole design just to try, as I can't be sure if I will even sell 1 of that product. So, if I want to use a design on mugs, t-shirts, and mousepads, that would count as a single project and I'd need 1 EL. What if I want to sell the exact same mugs, t-shirts, and mousepads in my Etsy store and my own website? Do I need 1 EL or 2? I am sure many small businesses sell in more than 1 market place. I am afraid in your effort to make it simpler, you've made it more complicated. I am very confused by the terms used in the new licenses. I know the sellers can set their own prices on the EL. However, either in the announcement email or the original blog post you have encouraged sellers to set them 10x. Also, you've set them automatically to 10x. I can imagine some sellers might be hesitant to change the prices right now, as they don't know when/how you will change the terms. Just like the buyers are holding off buying because they are not sure if their purchases will become useless at a moment's notice. 11 years ago

I think you need to clarify "core value." For example, if I create an e-book that contains images & fonts and give it away for free...it can fall under the standard license...but if I sell it then I need to get the extended license for each image? In this case, clearly the image/font isn't related to the core value. What about creating e-courses and using images/fonts in the supporting materials? 11 years ago

@Julie Lalonde I'm an etsy seller, and a small business owner, and yes, I look here for clip art or word art to possibly print out and frame. And sell. There's a lot of people like me, I am guessing, who are not the most artistic, and rely on talented artists like yourself to offer great, low cost graphics we can use on products we can sell. I think as an artist offering your clip art on this site, you run the risk of someone doing just that (sticking your art on an item with nothing else changed) and selling it. What constitutes a new owl design or incorporating it into a new design? Putting the owl on a plaid background? Changing the color of the owl? Putting the owl in a tree? Who judges whether the final art is "changed enough"?? Gee, as a customer, I would find that too vague. Just sayin.' 11 years ago

@Deborah Bishop I sell on Etsy as well, I don't think it's that unusual for an artist to not allow the item to be used "as is". In fact I just randomly went to look at 8 clip art stores on Etsy, and the terms of ALL of them specified that the art could not be used "as is" and must be part of a new design. This is pretty standard, we all have similar terms. 11 years ago

@Thomas Meldgaard "First of all, I don't need someone to tell me how much I need to alter in order for it to be ok to sell. It would be a huge waste of time and the whole idea of another person needs to judge my work is simply bizarre." But that's just it. If you don't make any changes to it it's not YOUR work it's MY work. How could it ever be OK for you to sell MY work? I'm not saying we need to have a really nit picky license but I don't think it's unfair to ask for the art to be used as PART of a new design and not the entirety of the design. 11 years ago

I would just stipulate that it must be used as part of a new design, I understand that it's hard to quantify and I totally 100% agree that "core value" is subjective and wasn't the right way to phrase this. I just want to know that if I find someone reselling my artwork "as is" I have a legal right to have them take it down/stop selling it. I need to know that the license didn't give them that right. I do not expect CM or anyone to police this, I just want to know what rights I've retained to my artwork. 11 years ago

I preferred the original "core value" wording, although I understand the possible confusion, especially if CM's interpretation is different than other stock sellers' use of the concept. For example, my company buys stock images and subscriptions from multiple companies, and in virtually every case we CAN use the images on products for sale, except for the usual suspects of calendars (where the stock is used as the calendar featured images), T-shirts, mugs, etc. I understand and expect that we cannot just buy an image and slap it on something and resell it. However, nearly all of our sources would ALLOW us to use the stock on book covers, DVD covers, etc, WITHOUT an extended license, even though those are products for sale. Because people don't buy those items for the cover, even though the cover is an important marketing tool. People buy those items for the content—the words inside, or the video, etc. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp with real world examples. It's possible to limit licensing by percentage (for example, you can use the artwork on a T-shirt as long as it's not more than 25% of the T-shirt illustration), or by print run (you need an extended license if you sell more than 250,000 or 500,000 copies — those are the standard unit restrictions for standard licenses on most of the websites I use, including Adobe Stock, Big Stock Photo, Dollar Photo Club, Dreamstime, iStock, PhotoSpin, Thinkstock, and VectorStock). With your new model, at minimum you need to expand the multi-use items to include non-illustration artwork, or what might be called pattern and embellishment libraries, or just make a general multi-use category that sellers can opt in to: for example, backgrounds, patterns, textures. There is no reason for those types of items to be sold on a per-use basis. 11 years ago

Anja. I agree with what you've said, and I've always operated under that premise before. But I am worried about the new definition moving away from that core principle and redefining it as anything for sale. Because while the uses I mentioned are traditionally allowed under a standard commercial license, it would be up to interpretation as to whether they were allowed under the new standard license and I don't like to take risks. 11 years ago

I'm gratefu to the CM community -- CM staff, buyers and sellers -- for having such a thoughtful and useful discussion about these licensing issues. I’m feeling a lot of the same anxiety that @Thomas Meldgaard is feeling. I've bought hundreds of dollars of design resources from CM in order to launch a shop on Zazzle. I understood perfectly the "core value" issue (no slapping the image on a piece of white paper and selling it as my design) and I asked for and received clarification from CM staff regarding the "for resale" issue. Here is the response I received in March of this year (I’ve deleted the staff person’s name). Note this person’s broad definition of “commercial use.” NAME DELETED (Creative Market) Mar 25, 7:19 AM Hi Collen, Thanks for the kind words! Yes, the simple license can be confusing. To answer your question in regards to using a background with font, the background is considered an element of the design and not the core. In regards to one license per project, for example. Let's say you have a background (well call it background a) you use background a on a project, you may use it for commercial use and sell the design as many times as you like. Then you create another project and you want to use background a again, you would need to purchase background a again. One license per project. This is applied to commercial use. I hope that helps but please let me know if you have any other questions. Have a great day! Sincerely, NAME DELETED Creative Market Support As a result of that response, I bought several additional Simple Licenses to cover my bases. Which did not seem odd to me, since every time I bought something I was asked, “You own one License. Do you need more?” I don't feel I misinterpreted anything or had any intention of violating copyright; nevertheless, I am concerned that many of my designs -- through no fault of mine -- may now in retrospect do exactly that. I understand I'm "absolved" to some extent because of the confusion around the Simple License, but I'm equally as confused about the new terms of the Extended License. Any reasonable person would interpret "one project" as ONE (as in a SINGLE) project. I doubt that anyone would interpret it as defined by CM staffer Aaron Epstein a couple of pages back: Aaron Epstein STAFF @Ashley Cee thanks for the feedback. In the example you gave, if you had a store and bought a graphic to sell on multiple products in your store, that would fall under a single project (the project being your store, with multiple products underneath), and you would only need a single Extended License (since the end products are offered for sale). The way the Extended License is now worded — limiting me to one project per graphic or illustration or whatever — doesn’t make financial sense for me at any price…whether it’s 2x or 10x the Standard License price. The Extended License may work for me if I have the right to use the image for more than one design and/or product in my store. But I would never interpret the current wording of the EL to give me that right. Project = my store? I LOVE that interpretation, but it seems like yet another example of one staff person determining what “Project” means instead of clearly spelling out what rights I’m buying. And here we go again. 11 years ago

@Aaron Epstein I have one question for you please. On the past posts you said that all products under the same Etsy shop fall under "1 project".And you also clarified that you can use 1 same design for many products. That is clear for me. But what about mockups? Can I use a mockup in several products of my shop or it must be used only once, per product? 11 years ago

I think that what Aaron actually said @pixel bypixel is that if you had the SAME design on a mug and a poster and an iphone case that would all be one project. Not that the whole store would be one project. Copying below what he wrote: --------- thanks for the feedback. In the example you gave, if you had a store and bought a graphic to sell on multiple products in your store, that would fall under a single project (the project being your store, with multiple products underneath), and you would only need a single Extended License (since the end products are offered for sale). EDIT: sorry, I should have been more clear in my example above. I was expanding on the example Ashley mentioned where you want to sell postcard templates, and also sell the same design on mugs, tshirts, mousepads, etc, then that design would be considered a single project, with multiple products it's incorporated in. -------- 11 years ago

I'm coming late to the discussion, because as I explained to @Ken Weaver - we were away on a family vacation (the first we've ever taken) and I had to take a day away from my family, on said vacation, in order to turn off my shop because of the new guidelines. I've been open in my discussion of the huge issues with font licensing in emails to him. Here are some of the issues that I have: The Standard License for fonts is pretty universal across most font outlets and foundry sites. To make them even more restrictive here just means you lose business, as do I. Sure, they may go off and find my fonts at another outlet, but the moment you make them click away is lost business for everyone. The Extended License on a font does not protect font creators from someone purchasing our font, and uploading it to their own server to be used by an entire company, nor using it on a site that allows for personalization of product that is sold (think Vistaprint, any photo book site, etc.) which most of us require restrictive licensing for. This is just one of the many areas that we've given you about how this license does not work for us. There are other issues that have been outlined by others as well. While I'm grateful that you've allowed us to change the font pricing to be more in line with what we offer elsewhere, the terms of those licenses are so far off of what many of us already offer, this does not actually help font creators in licensing issues. Thus, I will not be able to reopen my shop. And I'll add, just like @KimberlyGeswein said, we did give you all of this information, we pleaded with you to not make this change because it did create such conflict for us with licensing. We gave you places to read up on what standard licensing is across the web, and yet we were ignored for this rollout. Plus sharing our concerns on how these licenses could be misused by making a private forum public just created more mistrust. I know that you feel you have to make up for it, but this isn't a 'make up for it issue'. I simply do not understand why you didn't approach a few of your sellers in each category before embarking on these changes to find out if they were even needed or desired. You're a marketplace. The end legalities rest with the creators, not with you. You've been given lots of great advice (except to making the standard licensing only personal use because that is incredibly restrictive to what is sold elsewhere), you have information and you have contacts. FontSpring has awesome simple licensing terms that would benefit you greatly to read. 11 years ago

First off, I apologize for the length of this comment, but I have a lot of things that I'd like Creative Market Staff to address. Also, I can only speak from a buyer perspective, so please excuse any misunderstandings I have about the sellers on here as I'm only going off what they have said in their comments. I never saw any mention of the licensing changes prior to their implementation on December 10th, but since then, I've been following three discussions closely: This one first, which honestly, I'm surprised that a private seller discussion thread was made public for everyone to see. https://creativemarket.com/discussions/19042-New-licenses-are-here!-Post-all-your-questions-here-please-%29 The upside to this though was that it was easy to see that some sellers were originally excited for the changes, then more questions about clarification and potential complications came about, especially dealing with fonts. As the pages go on, I read about more sellers being upset with the license terms, confusion of what the terms allow/prohibit and the fact that it seems Creative Market didn't seem to consider much of the feedback sellers had given them. I truly feel sorry for the sellers as the original announcement post from Creative Market gave the impression that all of these changes were specifically asked for by the sellers themselves. Secondly, I've been following the announcement blog post and all of those comments. https://creativemarket.com/blog/power-up-your-purchases-with-our-new-standard-and-extended-licenses Wow, truly a huge can of worms was opened! I admit, my first knee jerk reaction was pretty similar to (and perhaps a bit more colorful than) the first few posts that basically said, "see you later Creative Market, you just ruined any chance of me buying anything from you again". That is part of the reason I held off commenting until now because I didn't want my comment to be just an emotional reaction with nothing to contribute. There were many questions, suggestions and (finally from Creative Market Staff) answers throughout that comment section. After that original post, Creative Market tried to answer some general questions on why the change was happening and clarify some of the "confusing parts" in this post here. Personally, I don't think it helped Creative Market's case much and I still have a number of concerns as well as questions. 1: All of my purchases were made under the Simple License. You used to be able to find that License here: https://creativemarket.com/licenses/simple but that link now re-directs to the new Licensing page for some reason. I had to hunt down an archived copy of the page: https://web.archive.org/web/20151205002327/https://creativemarket.com/licenses/simple I wanted this actual page because I've seen MANY times the discussion of how this license never intended resources to be used in designs created for sale that didn't involve a specific client contracted project. That is NOT how I understood the license, that's not how many, MANY people understood the license and that's not how the license was further explained by various staff members over time. Plus, my understanding of the word "commercial" isn't restricted to JUST client contracted work, commercial is any work that is sold. "The SimpleLicense gives you the right to use any item purchased on Creative Market in a personal or commercial project for yourself or a client, but the item cannot be resold or redistributed on its own, or used in a PRODUCT OFFERED FOR SALE where the item contributes the core value of the PRODUCT BEING SOLD." (emphasis added) If there was no sale of products allowed, why are the words "product offered for sale" included? If the products you make with the resources were not allowed to be sold in a non-client contract way, why would the words "PRODUCT OFFERED FOR SALE" and "PRODUCT BEING SOLD" included? Plus, even when doing contracted client work, you're still selling your work to the client. I don't understand this difference in what "commercial" means to you being different than what "commercial" is defined as (which it was define for you in a previous comment). The Creative Market Seller is selling me commercial use resources which I then use to create an item/design/product to be sold to my client/in a store to be bought by an end buyer, who will use it personally and the item with those resources will NOT be sold again. I feel like I'm quibbling over the word "is" here when it comes to "commercial", "product", "for sale" and (not me personally) "core value". I mean, didn't much of this come about, not because of client vs. product for sale but because there was confusion over "core value?! Then, in the various discussion comments from Creative Market Staff, we have been told that our previous purchases will stay under the Simple License (as I expected) but there really was no definitive clarification for what that entitles us, the buyer, to do with those resources. Can I continue to use those items on products for sale that are not linked to a client contract? Staff have been vague, and the answer has been something to the effect of, "if you've talked to the seller and they're okay with how you're using their products, you're fine" which runs contrary to the entire idea of CM License superseding individual sellers' licensing terms. I think we ALL need a definitive answer from Creative Market on what the Simple License ACTUALLY permits because if we find out that under that license we can no longer use the resources we bought, many of us will have wasted quite a lot of money! 2: As for the new Standard and Extended Licenses, my honest reaction is, "are you KIDDING me?!" First off, The Standard License is NOT the same as the Simple License was, it's the same as what the staff are now saying the Simple License SHOULD HAVE BEEN interpreted to say. Secondly, Creative Market is at least clearly separating client work and other commercial projects. While I think this is odd, because to me commercial is anything you get paid for creating, I'll roll with it for now and I'm just going to focus on the issues I see with the Extended License because that's the license I will need to be buying under this new system. At the beginning of all this, Extended License product prices were by default set to 10x the Standard License prices. Oh the outrage this caused, and the fact that the License FAQ still states, "Shop owners set their own prices for Extended Licenses, THOUGH WE RECOMMEND 10x THE PRICE of the same item under a Standard License." still appalls me. It doesn't take into account the difference between large corporations and small businesses that need to buy Extended Licenses due to fact that we use resources to make new products for non-client projects/items. Then, Staff stated that Sellers had control over these prices but they bottomed out at 2x the price of the Standard License. There seemed to still be issues with not having full control over the price, specifically when it came to fonts so this was again changed so that the Extended License and the Standard License can be priced the same. I'm not sure WHY it took so much effort on the communities part to get that change but as a buyer I'm certainly appreciative of those Sellers who have priced both Licenses the same or more logically with small businesses in mind. I certainly understand why some sellers haven't changed the default prices or have raised their Extended License prices as high as possible so that we WON'T buy their products until this is figured out. The increase in price for the Extended License seems to have driven away sales, temporarily or perhaps permanently for some buyers. But seriously Creative Market, when your Sellers actively discourage sales, you have a SERIOUS problem. On top of that, as I've said above, you're actively encouraging Sellers to price their Extended Licenses at 10x the Standard License so don't try and move the blame solely to the Sellers. 3: There's NOW the matter of what "project" means for the new licenses. Really, here we go again, it's not "core value" but "project" that has a fluid definition! According to Merriam-Webster: project noun proj·ect ˈprä-ˌjekt, -jikt also ˈprō- 1: a specific plan or design : scheme 2: idea 3: a planned undertaking as: a definitely formulated piece of research, or a large usually government-supported undertaking, or a task or problem engaged in usually by a group of students to supplement and apply classroom studies 4: a usually public housing development consisting of houses or apartments built and arranged according to a single plan I don't think we're talking about housing so focusing on the first three meanings I'm pretty sure most people would assume that the restriction of: "Number of projects - 1 (except installable items which allow unlimited projects)" means that I can create only one design with a resource per License purchased. Seriously, you encourage Sellers to charge 10x more for the Extended License and still only allow one design to be made with it (I'm not even going into how that applies to graphics sets with more than one illustration etc)! But to top it off, @Aaron Epstein first says, "'How many times can I use a purchased item? Purchased items may be used in a single project (which may contain multiple end products under a single project umbrella). For example, a purchased graphic may be used in multiple variations of a poster under one advertising project. But this graphic may not be used in two different logos for two different client projects.'" here: https://creativemarket.com/blog/an-update-on-licenses?page=3#comment-11946 and then proceeds to say, "if you had a store and bought a graphic to sell on multiple products in your store, that would fall under a single project (the project being your store, with multiple products underneath), and you would only need a single Extended License (since the end products are offered for sale)." then with an Edit tried to backtrack/"clarify" with, "I was expanding on the example Ashley mentioned where you want to sell postcard templates, and also sell the same design on mugs, tshirts, mousepads, etc, then that design would be considered a single project, with multiple products it's incorporated in." here: https://creativemarket.com/blog/an-update-on-licenses?page=3#comment-11950 What is a project then? One design, one product, one shop?! If I'm going to pay more, potentially up to and over 10x more for an Extended License, I would expect to be able to use non-installable resources more than once on one design and/or product! 4: The last thing I want to mention is your monthly bundles. I've bought a few in the past and loved the fact that even if I only loved a handful of things, it was a decent deal. There have been many times were I found fun new Sellers through buying a monthly bundle. As of right now, they are useless to me (as well as many others) because they are only available with a Standard License, and I don't do client contract work so I need an Extended License. There's no option to buy the bundle with an Extended License, so that forces me into buying products individually with an Extended License. The biggest thing that means is that I, and many others, will be going to other sites that offer similar bundles but the license for that bundle deal covers using those resources in products for sale, without the hefty price tag you've added. Creative Market Staff, you all need to get on the same page and clarify what is allowed in the Simple License and what "project" means. You're making even more of a mess by being unclear, editing comments to add convoluted "clarification", and jumping from one change to another. You also seem to need to rethink your licensing for fonts especially and also consider at the very least, creating two Extended Licenses. One for Small Business and one for Large Corporations where the line between them is defined by number of end units sold. I'd also urge you to consider changing your Extended License to include the use of resources an unlimited number of times, ESPECIALLY if you continue to recommend your sellers set their Extended Licenses at 10x the Standard License price. Overall, I haven't bought anything from Creative Market since the change in licenses. I don't plan to until the changes are finalized and I'm sure many other buyers feel the same, not only because of the prices but also because I don't want what the licenses allow to keep shifting unexpectedly. I hope you do fix the mess you created because I loved shopping here but if you can't/won't/don't I'm going to have to take my business elsewhere, just like many others will. 11 years ago

@Julie Lalonde yes is what I understand sorry If didn't explain clear. Can someone indicate me if mockups must be used only for one single project. Example: a business card mockup must be used only for just one design under my same shop? So... if I have 100 business cards, should I pay 100 times that license?.... LOL 11 years ago

@Julie Lalonde if that's the case that would be great, other way it wouldn't have sense. I would like to know how @Aaron Epstein or @Ken Weaver catalog these because actually mockups are under graphics category. Also we must differentiate between ad-on textures, installed on a program and digital papers; some people call them textures too. 11 years ago

This is a hypothetical question really but could someone clarify how the licenses work with the bundle offers. Would you be expected to buy all the Extended licenses all at once? 11 years ago

@Stephanie Chavers The license you mention is about to change in near future as well. Not that drastic though, just more precise. 11 years ago

I think separating things by "installable" is what is causing the issue here. If we are insisting on keeping the "one purchase per project" thing (which I'm not all that fond of) then you have to leave allowances for things like textures and product mockups too. I think a website mockup is more of a finished product in that you're buying the design of it. If I buy a cardstock texture, the only difference between having it as a JPG texture and having it as a layer style is simply the format. It would do exactly the same thing as a layer style. I could easily turn it into a layer style, so why does it matter that one of them is installable and the other isn't? I've been using the same cardstock textures for years, it would really not be useful for me to buy it for ONE project. 11 years ago

Hi All, I'm going to chime in, because I'm a customer and not a seller, perhaps this will give folks an Idea of what customers think when they see 'Standard License' and 'extended License' First, i'd like to say this is the first time ever, I've not purchased the "$39 Package" offered by CM. I agree that first of all, imho, the Artist, the individual store is ultimately responsible for their products and the use of the products. Most of the People I have dealt with, honestly, are More than Workable, Wonderful People. In everything I've ever purchased I've only asked for a refund ONE time in all these years. =================== Having said that, I would also like to point out these are Normal Growing Pains. The decision which artist need to make on their own is: Are you going to take your business to the commercial level, or are you going to continue to work on an individual level with your customers? Sellers offering things such as this: https://creativemarket.com/SparkleStock/98429-70-OFF-500-Action-Bundle Where the Commercial License is listed as: $9999.00 does nothing but hurt every seller on CM. (sorry not targeting anyone, just using it as a prime and probably extreme case scenario) Customers will see that and leave. I would. I wouldn't deal with it, don't have the time, don't want to make the time. Nothing, NOTHING is worse to a customer than dealing with licensing issues and the place that makes licensing easiest, is the place that is going to get the most sales. What Shop owners need to define is what type of sales they want. imho, I would have rather seen Different shops opened under a commercial subnet; rather than seen this added to all shops. Consider mom's throwing a birthday party and having something made for the kids using artwork, Does she really need a commercial license? Under this she does. How about a teacher making stuff for her class room, no, she's not reselling it, but she's sending it to "xxYY.zazzle" for printing, so again, commercial license. Any club or organization, now needs a commercial license. Consider perhaps a 'reproduction minimum' before a person needs to buy a commercial license, say 10,000"+ needs commercial or even 1,000+ but under that, is it worth not only your time to track it, but also the loss in revenue and good will. Is Creative Market targeting "Big Business" or "Individuals" imho, if you want to target big business, then a different market front, re-branding is much more appropriate that attempting to service both from this one. One More thought.... try not to differ too much from what you're doing, or you're going to end up in a cut-throat market having lost all that wonderful community spirit which CM is so famous for. CM is in a critical stage right now, and choices made now can make or break it. imho. Happy Holidays Everyone :D 11 years ago

@Stephanie Chavers I was merely attempting some food for thought, and readily admitted the extreme case scenario. Thank you :) 11 years ago

I decided to remove my products completely because they went from: "or used in a product offered for sale where the item contributes to the core value of the product being sold." to this: "regardless of how much the item has been modified or how much of the new design it makes up." For either the Standard or Extended, buyers have actually the right to do whatever they want with my products, even if is a minimal change and that doesn't work for me :( 11 years ago

FYI @Aaron Epstein Just purchased a font...somewhere else, at 30% less than an EL license for the same font her at CM. Explanation of the font license on their site: "A desktop license is the most common license and covers most commercial font usage. You can create graphical designs (logos, signs etc) and products (mugs, t-shirts, hats etc.) for yourself, or your client(s). Products may also be sold for profit as long as the letters are not the main selling point of your product (like a house number or stamp set). This license is limited by “users”. Embedding fonts is not allowed with this license with a few exceptions (such as a PDF reports). All licenses are perpetual, which means you pay once and use it forever." Now this license works for me!!! 11 years ago