Categories / News

Licenses Update: Changes and Timeline

Aaron Epstein March 31, 2021 · 7 min read

Since my last post describing the high-level license changes we’ve been working to make, we’ve received a ton of feedback from our new Community Feedback Group (add yourself if you want to be a part of it in the future!) on some of the proposed options we’ve been considering.
We’ve spent the last few weeks putting together a number of different proposed license changes and options, sharing them with a diverse mix of Creative Market members (from shops to customers to Partners, and many subgroups in-between), pouring over dozens of thoughtful, in-depth responses, and aggregating detailed survey results. And through it all, we’ve heard your voices, perspectives, and concerns loud and clear.
So while we know that we can’t please everyone all the time (especially since many community members have opposing viewpoints on licensing), we’ve tried our best to identify the changes that would be in the best interests of the community as a whole. Here are the specific changes we’re working to make:

Small Business Customers

The most important fix we’ve been working on is that we want to move most small business customers from the Extended License tier back down to the Standard License tier. We’re doing this by adding limited selling to the Standard License, so you can sell an end product up to 500 times without needing an Extended License. This should cover most small business use cases. And in the event that you’re making money from more than 500 sales of an end product that you’ve created, your success should allow for you to purchase an Extended License (or an additional Standard License) to properly compensate the shop.
FinalLicenseChart

Font Licensing

Both font shops and customers told us that they greatly preferred a single license setup without the “for sale/not for sale” restrictions we imposed around font usage. As a result, we’ll be removing the Extended License option for all fonts, and upgrading the Standard License with the ability to use a font in an end product for sale. Further, embedding purchased fonts into websites, ebooks, and apps will not be permitted unless these rights are explicitly included by the shop owner.
The same single-license setup and rights will also apply to the Add-Ons category, as we consider fonts and add-ons to be “Installable Items” with special per-seat licensing considerations.

Extended License Opt-Out

For all products except for Installable Items, the Extended License will remain as a crucial tool for shops to earn proper compensation for their work, especially from larger customers. But we also recognize that not all shop owners want their products to be sold under this license. So in the spirit of giving shops more control over their products, we’re working to build an option to allow them to opt out of offering an Extended License for their products.

Defining Terminology More Clearly

We’re taking special care to define several potentially confusing terms in our license copy, to make sure that everyone reads and interprets them the same way. Terms like End Product, End Product For Sale, Personal Use, and Commercial Use, for example, will have clear definitions that are easy to find and understand.
We’re also tweaking several terms and phrases that our users felt had significant potential to be misunderstood or abused, and clarified other points that were lacking. For example, we’re changing the current terms that read “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 design (regardless of how much the item has been modified or how much of the new design it makes up).” to remove the concept around “regardless of how much the item has been modified or how much of the new design it makes up”.
We’re also updating the line from the current terms that says “You may not sublicense, resell, share, transfer, or otherwise redistribute the Item on its own (e.g. as stock, in a tool or template, with source files, and/or not incorporated into an end product) under any circumstances, not even for free.” to remove the phrase “on its own”.

Bulk Price Editor

As we work to roll out our next update to licensing on Creative Market, we recognize how difficult it is for shops with lots of products to respond to these changes with pricing tweaks. It simply takes too long to update a bunch of products one at a time. To help, we’re building a brand new bulk editor that will make it easy for shops to update pricing and other properties on several products all at once. We plan to roll this out ahead of our upcoming license updates, to give shops an opportunity to edit their prices before the new license terms go live.

Core Value and End Products

Core Value is a term that comes from our original SimpleLicense, but despite its best intentions, it has always caused a lot of confusion for both shops and customers. We tried doing away with it in the current license terms, but we’ve heard from the community that this didn’t clear up the confusion either. So we’re bringing back a similar concept, but approaching it in an improved way by saying that all Items purchased on Creative Market must be used in an “End Product,” which we are very specifically defining in order to protect the hard work and creativity of our shops. Everything customers create using Creative Market products must fall under these definitions, and they’re identical for both the Extended and Standard licenses:

  • End Products: End Products must be significantly different than the original Item and require time, effort, and skill to produce. End Products must not be used or sold in a way that is directly competitive with the original Item you purchased. End Products must not redistribute the original Item to any third parties in a manner that allows for the extraction of the original Item.
  • Installable Items (Fonts and Add-Ons): Here, an End Product is simply a unique implementation of the Item. For example, you may purchase a font and use it to make unique word art, or purchase and use a brush to create an illustration, but you must not redistribute the original files in any way.
  • Templates and Themes: Here, an End Product is a unique implementation of the Item, often requiring limited copy and content changes. For example, if you purchase a resume template, you may use the Item for yourself or a client after having input personal information (you may not resell it as stock).
  • We’re also working on an extensive FAQ that will clearly address specific use-cases that we see pop up a lot, so everyone will easily understand what’s ok vs. not ok, without having to contact support for clarification (we’ll include visual examples as well).

    Defamation Clause for Photos

    Photographers want to protect the models in their images from being used in potentially compromising ways. As a result, we’re working closely with our internal legal team to write a defamatory use clause that addresses these concerns, and gives both photographers and models the protection that they deserve.

    Timeline

    We’ve been hard at work on these changes since receiving all of the community feedback over the last couple of weeks, and we plan to roll out the new bulk price editor and finalized terms to shops early in February, and then officially launch the new licenses to the entire community in mid-February.
    And as always, thanks so much for all of your thoughtful feedback and patience as we work to improve our licensing for everyone who depends so much on Creative Market.

    Lettering Worksheets
    Getting started with hand lettering?
    Free lettering worksheets

    Download these worksheets and start practicing with simple instructions and tracing exercises.

    Download now!
    About the Author
    Author
    Aaron Epstein

    Creative Market cofounder. Jack of all trades, master of none. Designer/developer hybrid in a previous life. Powered by Cheerios and avocados.

    View More Posts
    Go to My Shop
    Related Articles
    102 Comments
  • "We’re doing this by adding limited selling to the Standard License, so you can sell an end product up to 500 times without needing an Extended License." Absolutely not. I am not interested in allowing items for sale under the standard license. If the buyer is using my content to put on something they are mass producing (ie, not a one off for a client) then I want my share of the profit. 500 sales of a web template at $100 is $50,000. Either I will have to remove my content, or I will have to raise the standard license 10X to be sure to cover this usage, even though most wouldn't use it. 99% of other stock sites require an EL for sales. 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke Would this not take care of that issue? Templates and Themes: Here, an End Product is a unique implementation of the Item, often requiring limited copy and content changes. For example, if you purchase a resume template, you may use the Item for yourself or a client after having input personal information (you may not resell it as stock). 6 years ago
  • No, that is discussing buying a template here and using it. I'm talking about buying an image, putting it into a template and selling that. 6 years ago
  • Ugh, no, if up to 500 items for sale is part of the standard license, the standard license price for my items needs to go up, meaning it will price out people who want to buy just for personal use or use on one client project. Not sure how this is going to make anyone happy, let alone everyone.. 6 years ago
  • I'm with @Sean Locke on this. I don't think the Standard License should include the ability to sell a product at all. I showcase images for websites/blogs/personal use only and my pricing reflects that. Now everyone has the ability to take my image, create a mug/pillow/poster with it, and sell it up to 500 times. I would definitely need to raise all of my prices or leave Creative Market. 6 years ago
  • I think Sean is talking about an image being used as part of a web template, and not being the seller of the template itself. So in that case, the Template terms don't apply. I now have to decide what to do because I can't keep the pricing I have if buyers can sell 500 items using my images or illustrations. I already gave my feedback to the folks during the review period, so I don't have anything to add. I'm a small seller here, so it probably doesn't matter much that I close my shop, but anyone who licenses images or illustrations elsewhere will have the same objections Sean mentioned and that I have too. I guess I'll leave the shop alone until this all goes into effect, but I can't license my work with the new standard license at a price anyone will want to pay (if all they need is to use the work for something other than products for sale). 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke agreed. I think this part needs to change based on type of item. 6 years ago
  • Also, what is the timeline for these changes? As in, how much time do I have to edit all of my products to either reflect new, higher, prices or to save my items as drafts only? 6 years ago
  • To provide a little context to this decision, the lack of some selling for small businesses under the Standard License was our #1 complaint from shops and buyers when we rolled out the new licenses. This was reinforced in our shop survey, and 500 was the most popular response when we asked users about the number of sales that should be allowed under the Standard License. 6 years ago
  • I have always allowed small business commercial use without an extended license providing that they are making a product where the original can't be extracted so, this works for me and my products! Much better! Love the idea of the updated FAQ as well. Thank you!!!!! 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke no one is allowed to sell your products in such a way that the extraction of the original item is possible, so other sellers can't redistribute your photos in templates because that would require giving the user access to your photos. 6 years ago
  • Oh look, another attempt to make everyone happy...which just is not going to happen. I think CM is just going to have to go with this and let it ride and then see how it affects their bottom line. As it was after the initial change I would no longer be a player here as it was unfair to small businesses. I can see where some of the professionals above comments are feeling discouraged from some of the changes but I think they need to let it ride for a awhile and see how it goes. We cannot keep make changes every months because few designers/buyers feel it does not work for their needs. I have spoken with many designers since the first change and many of them are like "I don't care if you use my artwork on items for sale". Sean if you raise your standard price 10x you might as well shut down, why not just ride it out for a few months and see how your sales are affected. I am not a buyer of you work but it just seems to jump the gun right now would be a bit hasty. 6 years ago
  • @Carrie Stephens thanks for the support! We're really glad it works out for you. 6 years ago
  • @Josh Johnson I understand that photography is a small part of Creative Market, but the new format is going to make it less relevant for many photographers. One of the reasons why I loved Creative Market is because it is so different from a stock photography agency. I could reach a whole new market with my images. Unfortunately including the ability to sell in the Standard License is a game changer for me. It's too bad that you couldn't offer a "Personal", "Standard" and "Extended" license option with the ability to opt out of any option that doesn't apply. 6 years ago
  • "no one is allowed to sell your products in such a way that the extraction of the original item is possible, so other sellers can't redistribute your photos in templates because that would require giving the user access to your photos" Sorry, that doesn't stop them from putting some text on the image or modifying it in other ways, and including it in a template. If creating electronic items for resale is out, you need to specify that in the license. However, it still applies to anything else. I don't want my content on 500 $20 tshirts for $10,000 and I get $7. "Sean if you raise your standard price 10x you might as well shut down, why not just ride it out for a few months and see how your sales are affected. I am not a buyer of you work but it just seems to jump the gun right now would be a bit hasty." Why would I "ride it out" for a few months, giving buyers the means to take advantage of my work? 6 years ago
  • @Jennifer McCallum the closing paragraph discusses a timeline. We're shooting for mid-February and will have a tool up even sooner to help shops change their prices quickly and easily. 6 years ago
  • Thank you @Josh Johnson. So sad, I just updated my shop profile to let people know that I will be closing up as of mid-February. 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke...Why? Up to you Sean...like I said, I don't purchase from you so it won't affect me, but you could stand to lose more in the long run. 6 years ago
  • "However, it still applies to anything else. I don't want my content on 500 $20 tshirts for $10,000 and I get $7." I get that, but you are also assuming that selling 500 shirts at 20$ nets you 10k. That simply is not the case, the shirts themselves are a significant investment, the equipment, the heat presses, the printer ink, the actual TIME spent, marketing etc. It's work. I don't think we are talking about print on demand here, maybe CM could clarify that point, but I don't agree that our items should be usable in POD sites under the standard license. The license changes work for me. 6 years ago
  • Did I understand it right, that the new license allows fonts to be used alone to create nice word art prints without the obligation to add other graphical elements to the design (like it was before)? If I understood that right, I'm gonna throw a party today :-) :-) you really listened to all the feedback :-) With this change you have a common font license now, one like everyone knows from other font selling sites. GREAT! 6 years ago
  • I don't really need to defend the idea. It's the standard across all stock agencies that items for sale require an extended license at some extra cost. 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke If someone uses one of your images on a t-shirt and sells 500 of them for $10,000 you know they aren't getting $10,000 in their pocket. They are paying for the shirts, the printing, the packaging, distribution, and any promotion they do to move the shirts, etc. Your image is only a small part of the expense involved in producing that product, so it's not as if they are making $10,000 for doing nothing and you are making peanuts. I guess it comes down to who your biggest market is, do most of your sales now come from people purchasing just for one time personal use or from mass producers buying extended licenses? I see some of the sellers here seem to be happy making a small profit selling to small businesses, who just want to pay a reasonable price, for limited commercial uses and others who seem to be afraid that someone else will hit it big and they will miss out. Maybe you should just set your standard price at what you would expect to get from all these big mass producers you hope to sell to, and not bother marketing to small businesses or personal use buyers. 6 years ago
  • And from a buyer POV it still limits the number of project uses to ONE - so if I have some lovely water colour flowers or creatures and I make Xmas cards - one project. Then I want to make some Valentines Day cards - a new project - A NEW LICENCE Maybe some party invites - ANOTHER NEW LICENCE!! Or I get the extended which may or may not be affordable. Way to exclude customers, seriously. I get a lot of my stuff via the DesignCuts deals that include extended licences, its what originally sent me here to get some nice stuff separately from the bundle. No more shopping for me here when the exchange rate means I already pay 50% more anyway. Well Played Creative Market - Everybody loses! 6 years ago
  • There's always a lot of complaining, but Creative Market you guys do a great job listening to your members. Good job as always. Makes me appreciate this community even more. : ) Keep up the good work, I think most of these revisions are a good improvement. 6 years ago
  • Thanks so much for the support @Julie Lalonde! And thanks for your help and feedback through all of this, it's been SUPER helpful :) And @ro aar, it sounds like it's time for you to throw a big ol' party :) We talked to many community members about this issue (including people who buy and/or sell fonts), and based on their feedback we determined that this use case will be permitted. 6 years ago
  • "Your image is only a small part of the expense involved in producing that product" Yet, it's the entire _reason_ for producing the product. Look, I've licensed over a million pieces of content in the last ten years. I'm more than happy licensing at a variety of prices to small businesses and persons who use the content under the standard across the industry - using it in designs, personal and commercial uses for themselves or clients. What I'm not interested in is allowing someone to use the content in items for resale without appropriate compensation (let's get off the tshirt production cost tutuorial, ok?). 6 years ago
  • @Julie Lalonde correct! Neither license, Standard or Extended, allows for a product to be installed on a server for on-demand products to be created. 6 years ago
  • If you're referring to clause 8: "You may not make the Item available on a digital asset management system, shared drive, or the like for the purposes of sharing or transferring the Item" that wouldn't preclude an on-demand system. 6 years ago
  • I appreciate you listening to the concerns of font creators to help create a common licensing option for us all. Does the timeline require us waiting another month before the extended licensing requirements will be removed for the fonts? Because it means we still can't reopen our shops... 6 years ago
  • This works for me. Thanks so much for your hard work CM, great job! 6 years ago
  • Hi @Darcy Baldwin. Thank YOU for all of your support, you provided so much feedback, and it was super helpful (especially in the area of fonts and font shop owners). Unfortunately, we've still got some work to do before we can release the updates site wide. Some really important things include making sure we have the new bulk editor available to shop owners well before the site wide release (we want to give shops plenty of time to determine how they would like to price there items & plenty of time to actually go in and do the price editing); updating things on the backend that will allow shop owners to opt in/out of extended licenses; reconfiguring and updating how product pages will work for products types that only have one license (like fonts); creating a much asked for FAQ with visual examples (this was especially important for the buyers we heard from); we have to coordinate with out legal team... I promise, we really are making this priority one across pretty much all teams here at CM, it's just going to require a bit more time. We took the time to really slow down to gather and interpret feedback from the community, we want to make sure that we do a good job of implementing it as well. That being said, we're shooting for mid-Feb. for the site wide release. 6 years ago
  • Thanks for the support @pixel bypixel ! 6 years ago
  • @Kelley Johnson So these licenses are set in stone and there is no further opportunity to make adjustments? I feel a bit blind sided because much of the original discussion was in regards to the extended licensing and CM had a policy of no reselling with the standard license. If that had remained the same (no resales) and we had the ability to opt out of the extended license it would have been fine for my work. So I was very surprised when I read the update today with the dramatic changes to the standard license. I really don't want to leave Creative Market, but I also do not want my work (photography) to be resold in any way, shape, or form. 6 years ago
  • This is great news; I am so relieved to hear that the team has been listening to the font sellers and responded to the community's concerns. It sounds like extended licensing for fonts will be up to sellers to arrange independently, and standard licensing will go into effect mid-Februrary? Looking forward to activating products again. Thanks so much for taking our feedback seriously! 6 years ago
  • If I am understanding this correctly -- if I use a piece of clip art (say a beautiful watercolor flower) on 1 client's wedding invites, I can not ever use that clip art again unless I go purchase another set??? I will need to delete it off my computer so that I don't touch it again? It doesn't seem feasible... 6 years ago
  • You would buy a license per item you create, so if you wanted to use the set of clip art again, you'd just purchase another license. It's not so much a problem if you buy things for a specific project at the time, it's more a problem for those that impulse buy and then figure out what they want to do with it :) 6 years ago
  • Hi @Jennifer McCallum. I'm so so very sorry for any frustration. While not every update that you see here is 100% set in stone so to speak, I will say that we reached out to many community members, and a large portion of both buyers and sellers were interested in seeing some form of selling allowed under the Standard License. This was one of the first major areas of feedback that we got, as not allowing this had the effect of making many small business buyers feel alienated. This decision was made in an effort to help meet the needs of a large portion of our community who sells to, or buys for small businesses. 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke they still do not allow for an item to be used as is on an item for resale though, so someone would not be able to buy your photo and put it on a t-shirt to sell 500 copies, they'd have to use your photo as part of a new design and put THAT on the shirt. And it does say it "must be significantly different than the original Item and require time, effort, and skill to produce." So the photo would be part of a significantly different design, you would still not be allowed to use the photo as is on a sold item. 6 years ago
  • @Jessica McCarty, yes you can expect all of the updates to go live around mid-Feb (which is coming up pretty quickly now). And we're looking forward to seeing all of your great products live on the site again as well :) 6 years ago
  • "a large portion of both buyers and sellers were interested in seeing some form of selling allowed under the Standard License" I wasn't. I voted for option "D". Although if I remember correctly, 3 of the 4 options involved the standard license including resale, so that was a bit unbalanced. 6 years ago
  • Also @Gwen Metzger I think with the flower thing, you could in fact create a wedding suite using the flowers, and sell those invitations to multiple customers, like they'd become your watercolor flower invitations. Those would be considered one project, @Kelley Johnson correct me if I'm wrong, I may be misunderstanding that part. 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke obviously not every selling venue will be good for every creator, but even on the threads it was obvious that the small business owner made up a large percentage of the buyers here, and a majority of the store owners (and buyers) were happy with a small business license being included in the standard license. They can't please everyone but if they can please 3/4s of them then that's really good I think! 6 years ago
  • LOVE how "End Product" is defined. However is not yet clear for me font usage. You wrote: "use it to make unique word art". If I want to sell a card with a beautiful font that simply reads "Hello" in white... will I be allowed or not? 6 years ago
  • @Julie Lalonde, yes, the way you described that to @Gwen Metzger is correct :) Thanks so much for your help! 6 years ago
  • "were happy with a small business license being included in the standard license." Let's call it what it is - "a limited items for resale clause". And, iirc, they were mostly asking for an option to buy a limited EL at a lesser price than a full EL. But yes, of course a buyer will be happy to get something for free that they weren't getting before. 6 years ago
  • Hi @pixel bypixel. Yes, as long as you're not in some way distributing each individual letter, word art like that is just fine. I hope that helps. 6 years ago
  • @Kelley Johnson will there be some type of limit for the extended license, or will that one be unlimited? I still feel that some kind of upper limit needs to be established, but at least having the option to opt out of extended licensing is awesome if we don't agree with unlimited. Edit: Woops nevermind, just read that it does say unlimited in the update. 6 years ago
  • @Kelley Johnson - font licensing doesn't require purchasing for each individual project, correct? As an installable tool, it can be used in perpetuity by the user? 6 years ago
  • Is there anywhere we can read the complete and updated new Standard License language? 6 years ago
  • @Mister Retro we're still refining some of the finer points like the defamation clause with our legal team. We'll roll it out as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience! 6 years ago
  • So if someone bought a pack of fonts this month with the Standard License they will not have resale right (to create word art for posters for example)? It's very confusing what happens for purchases made while the licenses are in limbo or purchases made before being under a different license. It's disconcerting that this went live and took so much time to fix. I can't think of another case when I site I contributed to or bought from had something as serious as licensing up in the air for over a month. If it hadn't been live on the site causing confusion that would be one thing but now you'll have your third iteration of licensing in the last few months adding to customer and seller confusion about which license they purchased under and what rules stick. "We took the time to really slow down to gather and interpret feedback from the community" I'm honestly kind of shocked that this wasn't done before the initial launch of the Extended License which was promised for so long before hand. This is really frustrating from both sides of the buyer/seller fence. 6 years ago
  • [@Amanda K.](user:1048954) we definitely apologize for the confusion. Ideally, we would've gotten this right the first time but we realized that we missed some important points and do really think it deserved the time we've now invested to gather extra feedback about what people didn't like and discuss with them how we should approach solving those problems. That process took time, especially with so many of our users signing off for the holiday season. As far as what terms apply to your purchase, we can never change the terms under which any user purchased an item, because that's simply not fair to anyone involved. Every user who buys something from Creative Market, and every shops who sells something from Creative Market, does so under the terms presented on the site at the time of the sale, and we'll make sure you have a link to those terms on your purchases page. We're so sorry for the inconvenience surrounding these changes. Please know that we're doing everything in our power to make it right. 6 years ago
  • For stock photo sales there's a clear norm across the industry, the same for many, many other sites selling stock photos: products for resale need an extended license. I can't understand why this must be different here on CM. I'll have to see how I will react, most likely raise standard license prices to a reasonable extended license price level, because with these new changes standard licenses are in fact extended licenses. Set the limit to 10 products, that would be acceptable. 500? No. 6 years ago
  • @Sean Locke "But yes, of course a buyer will be happy to get something for free that they weren't getting before." No. The most signed up on this site thinking they were able to sell products with the assets, being a missunderstanding or not. CM took that out with the actual license and people didn't like it. Nobody is getting anything free here. 6 years ago
  • So stoked to move forward with the licensing changes! :) 6 years ago
  • Hi @Darcy Baldwin, yes, that is correct. If you look at the License Table image that's included in this blog post, you'll see asterisk footnote that says, "*Installable items (Fonts and Add-Ons) can be used in an unlimited number of projects and End Products for Sale (one seat per license)" to help clarify this point. 6 years ago
  • @MarkieAnn Packer, I don't know how your previous comment slipped by. Thank you so very much for your support! 6 years ago
  • Makes absolutely NO sense. So now you can make "One Commercial" "End Product" with a standard license and sell up to 500????? So you have 25 flowers which you have to combine with your designs ideas. So if you use only 3 flowers with the rest your designs - that's it - that's all. You've used up your "one commercial" "end product" with a standard license??? That's ridiculous. And the number of 500 sales for your artists is ridiculous. If I made 500 sales, I would not consider myself a small business. You need to up your number of end products and lower the number of sales for a small business. I really do not think you've solved anything other than making your artists angry. I still will not buy from you OR use your free products. I'm only commenting on this because a fellow artist posted it. 6 years ago
  • Hi @Carol Vega. Sorry for any frustration. I'm not 100% sure that I understand what you're saying in your "flowers" example. If you're referring to Creative Market Items that you purchase that are packs with multiple sub-Items in them (for example a pack of 25 different flower graphics), I did want to let you know that we do plan on addressing the issue of item packs like this. The basic idea will be that each sub-Item within those packs will be able to be used on one Project. So it won't be the case that the whole pack can only be used one time, even if you haven't used each item. So, for example, an Item Pack containing 25 flower graphics could potentially be used in 25 Projects if only one flower is used per Project. 6 years ago
  • Great news. I think this alleviates many concerns some small businesses had about being priced out. Well done CM team. 6 years ago
  • Hi, @Josh Johnson You said, "@Julie Lalonde correct! Neither license, Standard or Extended, allows for a product to be installed on a server for on-demand products to be created." I am confused by this. What do you mean by "install" in this instance? In other cases here on CreativeMarket that the word "install" has been used it has been in regards to fonts and add ons. But when @Julie Lalonde said, "I don't agree that our items should be usable in POD sites under the standard license" I thought she meant taking graphics/photos and using them on designs that will be uploaded onto t-shirts, mugs, and things on print on demand sites. I do not think of that use as being "installing" anything. Also, I want to clear up something else in regard to the comment of "I don't agree that our items should be usable in POD sites under the standard license." Why? Are you under the impression that those of us who sell that way sell more than 500 of the designs we create? Maybe some do, but the majority of people, like me, that I know who sell designs on print on demand sites, have often sold less than 500 of the same design over a period of several years. Most of us aren't any different than the small business owner selling a handful of the same design on etsy. I personally don't want to bother buying graphics where I am limited to a certain number where I have to keep track of it how often it is selling so I can then pull it from the POD site. But some don't mind that because they like spreadsheets and such. But some people have the impression that people using Zazzle and such sell a lot, when that is often not the case. 500 products is 500 products, and discriminating against it just because it is for "POD" use is something a lot of people I know who do POD stuff don't understand. 6 years ago
  • It looks to me like this comment was overlooked. "Jessica McCarty This is great news; I am so relieved to hear that the team has been listening to the font sellers and responded to the community's concerns. It sounds like extended licensing for fonts will be up to sellers to arrange independently, and standard licensing will go into effect mid-Februrary? Looking forward to activating products again. Thanks so much for taking our feedback seriously!" I thought that fonts were going to have No extended licensing. Period. Am I wrong? Also, someone made the comment that there perhaps should have been three licenses. Personal Only. Standard. And Extended. To me that makes more sense. 6 years ago
  • @Gigglish I do understand the Zazzle market, I have a Bronze proseller account, so I'm nothing big there but I've done enough to understand it. But it really is different than selling your own products. Selling your own products requires you to market it and create it or hire someone to do it for you, there are costs involved. Zazzle just requires you to upload an image and then that's it. It's very hard to track how often a certain design has been sold. I have given special permission before for people to use my items on Zazzle, but those people emailed me asking me. I don't agree with a blank license that would allow for POD items under a standard license because YOU are not selling the item, Zazzle is. Or Society 6. Or Redbubble. Etc etc. 6 years ago
  • By installable too, some sites allow you to move the graphic items around, change backgrounds, change text and fonts... that may be what was said. I know on Zazzle you can lock the items so that people can't do that, but you can also leave them unlocked and then people COULD be moving the items around and customizing it. 6 years ago
  • Dirk Said: "For stock photo sales there's a clear norm across the industry, the same for many, many other sites selling stock photos: products for resale need an extended license. I can't understand why this must be different here on CM." This also applies to Sean's comments that are similar in nature. ------------------------------ First of all, all the other stock photo sites I use give the ability to make "products for sale", like DVD packaging artwork, made with assets from the site. As long as the asset/s are not the reason for buying the product. So no T-Shirts, mugs etc. But all photo sites I am aware of, have that ability with the standard license to use the assets in something that is for sale. The license CM is now going to be putting forth in February is 100% better then they have now. The other stock site/s I use also has removed their limit of how many items can be made from the assets I buy (one project limit doesn't even appear to apply anymore either). So the 500 limit that CM put forth is actually limiting compared to the other place I shop at but should please the sellers and in my opinion as a buyer, is fair. So I don't understand all the complaining about products for resale from a sellers point of view. Maybe you missed something that is important, that different sites have different understandings of what "items for resale" means? On most other stock photo sites it means mugs, T-shirts, calendars etc. where the asset/s make up the majority of the design or where it is the reason for buying it. But CM's definition is any item/project that is for sale. It doesn't matter what the item/project is or how much the asset/s is used (one brush stroke included), if you charge 1 penny (nickel for us in Canada ;-) ) it is an item for resale. That is very different language. With the above paragraph in mind and using the current license wording (changes don't take effect until later in Feb) that would mean the DVD packaging could not be made with CM assets of any kind (photos/brushes/artwork etc.) unless you purchased the extended license for each asset that was used in the design (most of mine are upwards of 5-12 assets per DVD package at least). Which is not financially feasible when only say 150 copies are sold for very little money a piece. Meanwhile over at the "other site/s" one could use, anyone could use their assets to make the DVD packaging. Who gets the money? The other site/s. Meanwhile you and CM looses out. So I give two thumbs up to CM for fixing this major glitch with the standard license. I am much more happy with it. I could make up a complaint about some things myself but to me, it is actually feasible now from a buyers perspective, when before it made CM impossible to use for almost everything I would do. And I would be happy with it, whether I was a seller or buyer. :-) 6 years ago
  • @Josh Johnson @Kelley Johnson @Aaron Epstein thanks so much for listening to us in the support group! These changes work great for me and I really appreciate all the hard work you have out in over the holidays. You guys are great! 6 years ago
  • I would also like clarity on the POD site usage, will this be allowed under either license? I'm assuming you will be defining "one project", for example, one project is a wedding stationery suite which includes the "save the date", "invitation", "thank you" etc, or is "one project" just one of those mentioned items? Thanks CM for all your efforts so far in trying to make everyone happy! 6 years ago
  • PHYSICAL vs DIGITAL selling. I would like more clarity on the 500 copies limit. What is 1 copy? 1. If someone sells (PHYSICAL) printed wedding invitation for a wedding with 250 guests, does that mean only 2 sales=2 events are allowed with the standard license? 2. If someone sells DIGITAL customized wedding invitation file (not a template!) for someone’s DIY wedding, does that mean 500 such sales are allowed under the standard license? And one more thing. Josh Johnson wrote: “no one is allowed to sell your products in such a way that the extraction of the original item is possible”. I would say, the extraction of the original item is always possible. If someone uses my RASTER image (png or jpg) for his new DIGITAL end product for sale (for example invitation), it remains to be the same raster image that can easily be cut using Photoshop. 6 years ago
  • Okay, this is also unacceptable to me. A print run of 500 will include almost everyone that would normally buy an extended license. As Sean pointed out above, a buyer will potentially be making thousands of dollars with the the artist adding all the value getting peanuts. I agree with the poster above that suggested a print run of 10. I believe the main problem is that creativemarket don't want to come up with a nuanced licensing model thinking that it is simpler to try and catch all with one model and it just isn't. It only causes more confusion. Sorry, but fonts have to be licensed differently to illustrations for example. When you sell a t-shirt with a complete illustration or photo it is different to selling a t-shirt with a word written in a font. Can we please get a decent period of time to change our product pricing? I need to know when the deadline is for the change. I will be pricing up all my products to close to EL price with an apology and explanation to buyers that I can't let sell an extended license for the price of a standard RF license. 6 years ago
  • "First of all, all the other stock photo sites I use give the ability to make "products for sale", like DVD packaging artwork, made with assets from the site." That is a promotional use and should be fine, even here. That's like saying you can't use an image in a newspaper, because the newspaper is for sale. Again, it's poor wording on the part of CM, but the answer to this is to use industry standard legal terms, and not to just throw in a free 500 usage Extended License to accommodate that. See how Shutterstock terms it? "A standard license includes ... Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, billboards, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate;" Again, we're not breaking new ground here. 6 years ago
  • I fear this is a step back towards the Simple License instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to install a more focused licensing system. If i remember correctly there was a suggestion in the feedback group questionnaire (option 4 i believe) of a 3 tier system which I thought was perfect. It went a little something like this; Personal Use (no sales) Small Business License (500 sales) Pro Business License (everything else) This surely offers the flexibility to make everyone happy and even opens up markets to the very high-end customers. I imagine the default position would be the Small Business License which would be priced much the same as now, but could also mean lower prices for personal use, which I think would make buyers and sellers happy. 6 years ago
  • As a seller I agree, 3 level system would be perfect. As mentioned by Christopher King. 6 years ago
  • Just my 2 cents from the crafting side of this world. I can understand most of the complaints here but so much time is spent on telling people who are trying to do the right thing and purchase your products to use in our finished items what they can and can't do and it appears no time is spent on the hundreds and thousands of times your products are used illegally in crafting groups, etsy, facebook is very disheartening. I have to agree not everyone is going to be 100% happy with anything but (I know you will both sides want to shoot me) But if you want to set your own terms 100% why are you in a market place that sets the overall tone? Why not have and maintain your own products/website? I do my best to abide by everyone's wishes but this has been a huge turn off for me with Creative Market as well as some sellers here. If you only want to sell to big businesses that are going to turn you a huge return then that should be your market. I always thought this company was about letting even the beginners get their feet wet. But at this point it's hard to even purchase from here because I have no idea which seller likes the terms and which ones don't. I can tell you as some one who dabbles and is just starting up paying $20 for a small pack of graphics and being able to use it once for a birthday invitation isn't cost effective for me to even purchase from you at all. So just my thoughts on the situation. Again I will always do my best to adhere to what ever guidelines I purchase under but there are tons of new and upcoming crafters/artists looking for resources and some aren't honest enough to do what you ask must less buy when its outrageous. 6 years ago
  • I am not a buyer or a seller here, but am someone who is trying to learn how to use photoshop and wordpress. On occasion I have downloaded some of the free things so that I have items to play with and help me learn. Feel like I should get that out of the way so that you can understand that I'm not really on either side, just a neutral observer with a question and, I am genuinely curious so please, please, please be nice. I've been following these changes the last few weeks and read all these comments and the discussion in the forum, and there are a lot of artist who say things along the lines of "I don't want someone to be able to slap my art on a mug and sell it unless I get a cut of the profit" I can see that side of things. But, I'm also confused because (in my very non-artist thought process), isn't the image/clip art you are selling like any other object in the end? I'm not really great at analogies, but similar to Photoshop, hours... years actually of code and design have gone into it, yet the end user is charged the same regardless of if they are just buying it to use to pretty up the the photos of their children (that would be me. lol!), or if they posses serious art skills like the shop owners here who many use it to create art for profit.... but Photoshop does not claim they want a 'slice of your pie' because you used their item to create an item.... I really think that this lack of understanding between the producers and the end users is what is adding fuel to the fire. In the forum I saw that one of the commenters called the artwork the word "assets", and as a non-artist myself, I will be bluntly honest that the word asset perfectly describes how I've perceived the majority of items here. I've always just figured that if the seller thought their asset could be just slapped and sold on *insert-product-name-here* that they would already be doing that. Some one else mentioned Zazzle, which is a kind of example for that. If your asset could simply be slapped onto a product there and make money, why aren't you doing that? Then if someone else uses your asset in the same way you'd have a better legal standing wouldn't you? Anyhow, sorry this is so long, but I really would like to understand the artist side of this. :) 6 years ago
  • @Amanda Elkins Actually it does seem the CM spends quite a bit of time and tries to help out any storeowner who reports fraud or stolen images. And while that is an unfortunate reality I don't think we should pander to those people. To your point - I want to sell to everyone, including people who don't want to resell anything. But the new licenses would force me to raise costs and lump those people in with small businesses. I do sell to larger businesses on other sites, but I can tailor my items/pricing for them. And the reason why I don't just sell from my own site is the fact that CM is going to generate far more traffic than my little site. I'm happy with the profit percentage with CM and I am thankful for all of the advertising that they do. It has been a win/win situation. As far as not knowing which seller likes the terms - I'm not sure I follow you? If a seller lists an item on CM, they must be happy with the license. So buy whatever you like. Once the licenses are set in stone (and I hope it's not 100% yet!!! Please CM?) they will lay out all the details on what each license means. 6 years ago
  • @Jennifer McCallum Right now it doesn't appear that all designers and or buyers are happy with several of the changes being made. I can only assume that once these terms are written in stone the ones not liking them will either not list products or raise their prices so high their sales will change. Maybe for the good/maybe for the bad. It will be interesting to see what takes place and where shoppers will turn to say the least. So many sites now selling without as many restrictions. Especially when its really hard to keep track of. For both the artists and the designers. 6 years ago
  • @Jessica Armstead Adobe offers Photoshop Elements for non professionals and charges a premium monthly subscription for the suite for pros making a living with it. Many sellers here do also sell products on POD sites like Zazzle. That income wouldn't in itself cover the production costs of creating the product. To see a return artists or photographers have to explore as many ways as possible to see some sort of return on their time. 6 years ago
  • "If you only want to sell to big businesses that are going to turn you a huge return then that should be your market. I always thought this company was about letting even the beginners get their feet wet." You can get your feet wet, at the price offered by the creator. As a content creator, I take the risk of my time and money to shoot, edit and upload images. The compensation I need for your use of that image takes that risk into account, and rises (relatively) commensurately with the prospective profit you can make from it. "I can tell you as some one who dabbles and is just starting up paying $20 for a small pack of graphics and being able to use it once for a birthday invitation isn't cost effective for me to even purchase from you at all." It doesn't sound like making the birthday invitation is worth the time at all, then. You don't go into the stationary store and say "I'm only making 5 invitations, so I'd like this $20 pack of paper for $1". "Photoshop does not claim they want a 'slice of your pie' because you used their item to create an item." They do, actually, sort of, these days. They are moving everyone to a subscription based model. The difference is, nobody looks at a two page spread advertisement in Cosmo and is influenced to buy the product because Photoshop was used in the process of creating the ad. The influence of the ad comes completely from the visual, with the addition of the copy. This is why designers go out and license images. If they weren't inherently valuable to the project, we'd just have blank pages with text ads on them. Art is a bit unique in that respect. 6 years ago
  • As a new shop owner that didn't sell anything yet, the best I can do is to read other people messages and learn from their perspectives. It seems, to me, that there will be some implications for a part of artists, no matter what the exact final wording of licenses will be. I agree with what @Jennifer McCallum and @Sean Locke said. Having three kind of licenses feels a practical solution to me. It would allow a nuance that some products need. Two licenses, while more than enough for most creatives, may sounds to others too much like black or white. Three steps introduces a shade in between. * A single license, for those that wish to create a single project. As a customer, let's say I've a blog and I'm looking for a nice picture to put as header. I'm positive that photographers selling pictures on CM would agree on selling their works under this license. No end products being sold (actually only one, if that's the single project being created), no huge amounts of money involved. Simple customer needs, a simple price calculation for the shop selling it. * A standard license, for small business looking to sell end products, but not a huge amount. Let's say the 500 that the staff is talking about. This amount is enough for customers to reuse assets bought within this license in enough projects to meet a return on investment. If selling products on Etsy, five hundred is honestly more than enough! If designing wedding cards, websites or digital artworks, this amount of final pieces allow the customer enough flexibility for a fair amount of money. * An extended license, for those thinking big. I imagine it as the wild card. A license that allows the customer to do everything with the purchased product—except of course reselling it as it is—without worrying about royalties, impressions, or front end sold products quantity. Compare it with other image stock sites, where there is a very long legal description on where and how and how many times a picture must or can be used. Of course, shop owners selling under this license can set their price very high: the entrepreneurial risk (not selling enough) and the business benefits (no royalties nor afterthoughts for the designer) would be totally on the customer side. I suppose POD would fall into this category just to stay on the safe side, but I don't have enough experience with print on demand services to be confident about my thoughts. For those feeling that something is wrong with photographers request: I would like to remind that if a different approach exists for licensing fonts and addons, a different approach for photographs shouldn't be considered as hypocrisy. While three licences would add more confusion than the former simple license, or standard + extended, consider what the competitors offer: a myriad of different prices, plans, legal agreements. CM could become the one site offering a painless solution for both customers and creative designers selling here. 6 years ago
  • "While three licences would add more confusion than the former simple license, or standard + extended, ..." I don't think that would add any confusion at all. Three clear-cut licenses are way easier to understand than just one with a load of exceptions and the need to lay it out. Everything what was written about the former "simple" license is a clear evidence for that. I still don't understand why keeping it (supposedly) simple seems to be such a strong argument to CM. 6 years ago
  • This is extremely disappointing. Allowing 500 items for resale under a regular license undermines the licensing standard the entire rest of the industry adheres to. I've been a big fan of CM since the launch and a vocal advocate for the company. But this change in policy really makes me question if CM is still on the right path. 6 years ago
  • Is the extended license an "add on" price? Would you need to buy the standard license, and the extended, together to make use of the extended? Asking because I see that some people mention that small businesses could purchase the standard and, later on, the extended if they exceed the 500. 6 years ago
  • Thanks for the support @Mac Heritage, it’s great to hear that these updates are going to work better for you. @Alaina Jensen thank YOU for all of the help you provided with your feedback :) Hi @Hedera Decor . For Physical goods, it will really depend on how it is people choose to sell their products. If a person sells their invites one at a time they would only be able to sell 500 invites. However, if they sell a pack of invitations and 500 invitations come in one pack, they could sell the pack 500 times (because the “pack of invites” is what they consider their product). For Digital goods, each sale of the good counts as one unit sold. Hi @Christos Georghiou . We definitely apologize for any frustration that we know we caused. However, it is definitely a high priority for us to get these changes out to shop owners well ahead of the full site release. We are also working hard on creating a new bulk editor so that changing prices will be much more smooth and quick for shop owners this time around. Thanks so much for joining the discussion and being open and honest with your questions @Jessica Armstead ! 6 years ago
  • Hello again @Jessica Armstead. As of right now, we don't have a way to offer an "add on" option for the extended license. So yes, if you buy a Standard License and then you end up selling more than 500 units of an End Product, you will need to either buy another Standard License to cover further sales or purchase an Extended License if you feel like you may again be selling more than 500 units. 6 years ago
  • @Kelley Johnson. Usually a buyer orders quantity for his event. A seller prints XX copies of the same design and ships it. Does this pack of single design containing XX cards matches one event = one sale = one copy? Let’s say, someone ordered “100 invitation pack” for one event for 3 USD each, a seller got 300 USD. If he sells the maximum 500 packs (popular item, success story etc.) he will get…. 150 000? Spending 5-10 usd? 6 years ago
  • Or you could call "one overseas container of cards" your "product" and sell 500 of them to Walmart and others. No matter how this may sound, it's the logical consequence. Basically, you can sell as much as you want, all you have to do is split your invoice into "lots" meeting your needs (and to find buyers who're able to order as much as possible at a time). 6 years ago
  • "Usually a buyer orders quantity for his event. A seller prints XX copies of the same design and ships it. Does this pack of single design containing XX cards matches one event = one sale = one copy?" If you're doing custom work for a client creating invitations, that shouldn't fall under items for resale. Items for resale is (in this example) preprinted material that you can sell to anyone. "Or you could call "one overseas container of cards" your "product" and sell 500 of them to Walmart and others. No matter how this may sound, it's the logical consequence. " Lol, yep. 6 years ago
  • @Kelley Johnson Thank you for responding! It seems that, in the long run, it is will be easier and cheaper to just go ahead and purchase the extended license. Definitely something good for me to keep in mind as I consider being a buyer or seller! 6 years ago
  • I agree with many of the objections being expressed--particularly the overly-generous 500 sales threshold. The proposed licensing approach is still too simplified for the one-stop-shop that CM has become offering so many different types of products. The licensing world is changing dramatically because of the availability of online licensing. If CM isn't careful, there is going to be a huge snarled legal mess in their not-too-distant future if the licensing terms aren't carefully written for each segment of products offered AND for each business segment being courted (e.g., personal, small business, and large business). Photography needs to have a different license than fonts and creative tools such as PS actions. Personal blogs need a different license than an etsy wedding stationery designer… and a larger publisher needs a different license than either of those two. No matter how you slice it, CM has grown enough to be playing in a broader and more complex business market. Yes, I love that my images get used by bloggers and small businesses. I LOVE it. But it isn't going to be long before CM gets discovered by a large publisher of greeting cards (e.g., Pictura) or a book publisher (e.g., Harper Collins). And with the proposed licensing model, things are going to get ugly fast. Here's a scenario that continues to come to my mind... the stationery and gift market uses licensed images extensively on products sold on various products like greeting cards, home decor, fancy storage boxes, etc. (think of the offerings you see at a Joann or Michael's craft store). In my experience, a larger greeting card company will use an image with a pre-royalty fee (say $100) paid to the artist (me) betting that a card will sell over 500 units. If it does sell over 500 units, than royalties are paid above and beyond the initial $100. But sometimes the card doesn't sell as well as anticipated and the 500 unit mark is never met (I've had it happen with licensing contracts on card designs created from my photographs). However, the artist that provided the image that makes the card valuable has already received compensation regardless AND credit is given to the artist on the back of the card. BUT under the proposed licensing model, a large greeting card publisher can come on CM and buy a full-res TIFF file of a photo or illustration for $10, download it, use it on a greeting card or gift box (whatever) in a derivative design that falls within the guidelines of CM's definitions, put it in their sales catalog of available items, then sell up 500 units to various retailers before ever having to cough up any additional money to the creator of the content that makes their product marketable. Those companies are no longer having to take a huge gamble. Ten bucks is nothing to them. They would have a party once they discovered the treasure trove that exists here at CM. PLEASE don't be so quick to find a crowdsourced solution for this complex licensing issue. Clearly, it doesn't work (just look at the firestorm of feedback to see it doesn't). Look to industry standards and trends first. I would hate to see CM disappear from the marketplace because of hasty decisions that were too short-sighted. And let's be real here... that's exactly what CM is facing right now. LISTEN to those creators and customers that have been in the trenches and give their voices more value than the whole crowd. I know we live in a world where everything seems to be decided by committee, but CM will crash and burn in a blaze of glory if it continues to chase a crowdsourced solution. 6 years ago
  • The new license changes work for me! Thanks CM!! 6 years ago
  • While I like the fact CM has finally addressed the (long overdue to appeal to commercial buyers) need for both a Standard and Extended License option, this proposed change sets the resale limit far too high (with the SL) at 500 items. Across the microstock industry as others have noted, it is unusual to include resale items in a Standard License, resale of items generally requires the more expensive EL, or a variation thereof, to be purchased. CM needs to either lower the resale limit from 500 to a "token" amount, say 10 items, and/or create a MIDDLE tier license, which seems to be glaringly missing here, yet standard across the industry. I have spent many years buying and using both RF and RM media in my day job, (fonts/vectors/illustration/artwork/photos), have an inside perspective on the practical and legal implications of RF licensing, and I understand with so many different types of design assets in this marketplace they're trying to appease everyone. However, by applying the same licensing terms for fonts/brushes/actions as to illustration/vectors/photos has created a licensing quagmire for both sellers and buyers. I agree with @Sean Locke and many others, it is out of step with industry norms, and detrimental to the contributor. A MIDDLE TIER license, with a higher price point than SL, and less expensive (but with more restrictions than EL) is what's needed imho, to balance and protect the needs of both contributors and buyers, (and their legal depts.) Previous SL was too restrictive for fonts and actions/brushes, etc, but appropriate for artwork/photos, hence need for a middle tier license. I'm small potatoes here, but really enjoy the pricing and freedom CM offers, however this SL change concerns me, and I've gone a full 180° since reading this, from wanting to create content exclusively for CM, to considering removing my content altogether. I certainly hope CM reconsiders this move. 6 years ago
  • @Cindy Garber Iverson Naaaailed it! Couldn't agree more. By over-simplifying the licensing, CM has left itself wide open for possible licensing exploitation. In my experience, there is a high probability of this occurring under the previous, and proposed structure, and when there's a legal issue it often will not become apparent until several years later. After reading more of the thread, I was unaware of the questionnaire, and that there was a third, Middle Tier option already proposed. Hello CM, this is a no-brainer. Please add the Middle Tier option to bring this marketplace much more in-line with industry norms, and it will also better address the interests of both buyers and sellers from beginner/hobbyist, to pro/high-volume commercial user/buyer. 6 years ago
  • "I was unaware of the questionnaire, and that there was a third, Middle Tier option already proposed" There was. The question had four options. I can't remember the first. The second included 500 resale items in the standard, the third had $500 of resale items in the standard, and the fourth had added a 500 item EL between the standard and the unlimited. 6 years ago
  • @Kelley Johnson I'm afraid I also feel this newest version missed the mark. I definitely think that the licenses should be in three-tiers (Personal, Small Business, and Extended (for 500 items and up). As a shop owner, I'm wondering how to now my price my items as to not price anyone out, but also receive fair compensation for my work when it's going to be used as items for sale. A few people have mentioned, and I think this might make more people happy, is to have shop sellers define their own terms of use. It's how it works on Etsy, and I think they're doing quite well. Slightly less convenient, but just as each shop owner can define their own prices, I think the same could work when applied to terms of use. 6 years ago
  • Nobody wants a mess of 20,000 different terms of use. Buyers don't have the time to sit down and read terms from people who aren't lawyers. 6 years ago
  • Yes, yes, yes - please add a third / middle tier for licensing to small business for up to 500 units per project. I strongly agree with @Sean Locke and many others who have chimed in on this topic. I would like to accommodate as many kinds of users as possible with my designs and, as we know, there are many different kinds of users with different kinds of needs - hobbyists, graphic designers, small businesses, medium sized business and then there is Walmart. If I am forced to up my standard license prices to reflect these new terms I fear alienating a large swath of my customer base who is quite happy with the standard license terms as they are. This could drastically effect my sales and, as a knock on effect, also the profits of CM. Naturally, I can imagine that there was a lot of positive response to the idea of including limited resale permissions to the standard license - especially from non-shop owners. Why not? You get much more (potential) value for your purchase. But for shop-owners this is a huge liability. If it is technically possible to create second field for the current extended license (as demonstrated in Dec), it must be technically possible to create a third field for a middle tier extended license price. It can't be too difficult to create a new set of terms for this third tier while keeping the current standard license as is - given the basics are already written into the upcoming new standard license. Let's not forget that these new terms set a new benchmark for digital creators that compromises our business and the perceived value of our work - not just here and now but in the future. Is this what any of us creators really want? Are these the principals that the Creative Market brand was founded on? 6 years ago
  • Oh - and another thing... Another MAJOR consideration given this new standard licensing relates to BUNDLES. What happens when you sell a collection of 150 digital patterns with this new Standard License? Does it make it possible for the customer to produce 500 units from EACH pattern when they deem it a single project? That adds up to **75000 TOTAL UNITS** from one bundle of 150 patterns sold under a standard license. If this is the case it is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I can imagine many bundle sellers, like myself, being seriously compromised by this new allowance in the standard license. Through my shop on Etsy I offer several extended licenses for my customers who wish to use my designs in their products. When I say they can produce up to 500 total units in my ECL, it means they can mix and match the way they use the patterns - on several different projects (i.e. 100 mugs using a triangle pattern, 300 canvas bags using a bee pattern, 100 sets of planner stickers using a chevron pattern etc) but the total units cannot exceed 500. This needs to be given some serious thought and clarification - by the legal team when it comes to this new Standard License with resale privileges. 6 years ago
  • Thank you for the continued feedback everyone! 6 years ago
  • Oh and thank you for the support @Julie Hansen 6 years ago
  • @Kelley Johnson Yet another couple of questions with examples, if you don't mind: 1. If I buy a mock-up in here, I obviously wouldn't be allowed to resell it *as a mock-up* for several reasons. But if I'd add e.g. a motivational quote and flatten it, I could sell postcards/greeting cards with that "new design", right? (Or would there be further requirements for the "new design", e.g. that the writing isn't simply done by using an existing font, but something more "creative" like hand lettering?) Given, the end product is considered a "new design", then I could sell up to 500 single cards or 500 packs of cards with whatever amount of them I call my "end product" - referring to what you previously wrote. Does this apply to digital products as well? Say, if I defined "a bundle of 10 digital greeting card designs" my "product", could I sell 500 of those, too? 2. What about the popular mockup-CREATORS (like this one: https://creativemarket.com/StationSeven/488726-34-Off%21-Mockup-Creator-Toolkit) then? Could I use the isolated items in order to create new *mock-ups* for resale, given, that I flatten the new images and either keep the original smart objects (only) or add new ones? a) ... because this would be considered a "new design" and a mock-up isn't the same thing as a "bunch of isolated items", thus doesn't compete against the original product? b) Or would this NOT work, because of "... or otherwise redistribute the Item (e.g. as stock, ...)"? c) How do you define "stock"? Does this depend on where (= through which agencies/sites) you sell the items? I mean, pretty much everything digital being "material" rather than a product which cannot be modified or included into something new could be considered "stock" and nowadays people seem to sell such even through eBay. d) If I defined "a bundle of *insert number* mock-ups" my (digital) "product", could I then use one particular item included in the mock-up creator for *all* of them or just once? I'm aware of the fact that you aren't yet done defining terminology, but I'm just trying to figure out which kinds of items I'll still be able/willing to offer under the new terms as they stand now. (Or if I should rather "change sides" and *buy* stuff instead from now on.) Thanks in advance! 6 years ago
  • Great news for fonts and installable items! Thank you very much! 6 years ago
  • I will explain below why it's a really bad idea to let customers create an End Product for sale, up to 500 sales with the Standard License: 1. For a lot of clients 500 products for resale is enough and they will never need the extended license. 2. If a buyer has resale rights up to 500 products, we, the contributors would have to make the price for the standard license 200-500% bigger, which would exclude once again the small buyers that don't want extended license, and that don't want to resell products. You will basically have two extended licenses like this, one that almost nobody would need, and the other one (the standard license but which offers products for resale) which would have to be more expensive than standard license is now, and like this you have no cheap standard option for the normal buyer. There should be something in between, so we can keep prices cheap for normal use (Standard license), higher for up to 500 products for resale, and higher for Extended license. 6 years ago