RESTRICTIONS ON VOLUMETRIC ASSETS

[D.A. Bentley (SuddenPlanet)]

Saw that this was added to the Terragen License Agreement:

RESTRICTIONS ON VOLUMETRIC ASSETS. You agree not to copy, transfer, assign, rent, resell or distribute Volumetric Assets to any third party, except where necessary as a reasonably minor part of deliverables to your clients for Licensed Volumetric Derivatives. Without exception you agree not to distribute Volumetric Assets as a stand-alone product or part of a product bundle to any third party. Without exception you agree to bind all recipients of Volumetric Assets to restrictions that are as strong as or stronger than those in this section of this Agreement, including relevant definitions or broader versions thereof.

I'm not sure if this just applies to volumetric assets that ship with Terragen, or assets the user creates.  For example, if I use Terragen to export a vdb cloud, can I not sell that vdb file?


I can sell renders, heightmaps, textures and such created in Terragen so not sure why I wouldn't be able to sell a vdb.  I'm guessing this is just to cover future assets that perhaps are going to be included with Terragen?

Clarification please...

-Derek

[Matt]

Hi Derek,

The complete definition of "Volumetric Assets" includes assets that the user creates.

Clouds are driving a major portion of our sales. But I'm increasingly seeing clouds that were exported from Terragen and rendered in other apps without the need for Terragen licenses, and if this trend continues it will cut deep into sales of Terragen. We need that income to keep making Terragen better.

Here's a less-legalese version of the terms related to volumetric assets.

Restrictions:

• You agree not to share VDBs derived from Terragen clouds, apart from a few exceptions in the agreement.
  
• This restriction also applies to other volumetric formats which are converted from clouds or cloud renders, such as other voxel formats, deep images, and more.
  
• This restriction also applies "turntable" renders of clouds derived from Terragen clouds (anything that's 180 degrees or more of rotation). Why? Because AI or other technology is going to be (probably already is) sophisticated enough to extract high-res volumetric data from this information.
  

Things you CAN do:

• I encourage you to create clouds in Terragen, and share and sell Terragen projects and clip files. The important thing here is that if someone besides yourself (outside of your organization/production where applicable) wants to work with clouds generated in Terragen, they should be using Terragen or at least buying a license, regardless of what renderer they use afterwards.
  
• I encourage you to create VDBs from these clouds to use them with other software for any reason (e.g. render, previs, compositing etc.), provided that they stay only with you or within your organization/production (except in limited circumstances stated in the agreement) and your organization/production keeps them confidential.
  

This non-legalese version is not a substitute for the proper license agreement. I have to point this out because all the wording is there for a reason.

I hope you will appreciate why I need to take these steps. I don't have any plans to restrict other kinds of assets. Clouds are a bit different because they're the kind of thing that can be instantiated from a relatively small number of VDBs and re-used over and over again, so they are particularly vulnerable.

I want to add more presets and cloud types to Terragen, but I need these protections in place first.

If you'd like to generate some VDBs to sell, let's discuss it offline. I am very open to working out a custom license agreement.

[N-drju]

In other words, if you sell a ready product featuring volumetric assets (a picture to hang on the wall or a part of the movie), you can sell said ready product freely. You can't dismantle it and sell volumetric assets as stand-alone parts though.

[pokoy]

Matt, I think this is an overly restricting way of handling this. I respect you decision but given the current state of cloud creation in TG I think TG's good reputation is due to other specific features - an outstanding landscape and planet-scale renderer with one of the best atmospheric models. 

I think I've seen one person selling assets of clouds generated in TG but there also people selling panoramic HDRs from TG - is this something you would restrict, too?

In 1-2 years, most 3d apps will be able to generate and manipulate volumetric data, and I bet some of them will even include some sort of fluid simulation to help with the billowy look and a more realistic approach. There's already the very affordable EmberGen for smoke/fire sims which can be used for clouds to some degree, and it does it in seconds since it runs on the GPU, and it's *designed* specifically to export and re-use the VDB data. Houdini can do a lot already, although it's quite pricey. Maya/Max will have Bifrost at some point with probably a similar feature set.

I would say that an overly restrictive asset licensing model will keep people away and make them look for alternatives instead. I totally respect your decision but it definitely could have the opposite effect on potential users.

[N-drju]

Hmm... Are you sure Houdini and Maya don't have simmilar restrictions in place?

[pokoy]

Hmm... Are you sure Houdini and Maya don't have simmilar restrictions in place?

Definitely... unless you are using the educational license, there are no restrictions in place in regards to the content you produce. You've paid for the license so...

I'd say that VDB creation could be a good selling point for TG if the tools allowed for a bit more creative freedom... generate clouds based on imported meshes, better control over shapes and density/noises based on height within the cloud, presets for billowy or feathered properties etc. If the VDB exporter worked on all platforms AND we had a way to import, manipulate and render them, that would certainly improve TG's position.

Or finish the VDB exporter, add support for import and render, and make this an additional reasonably priced plugin so it generates income and mitigates the potential loss.

Or introduce a new additional licensing model for content creators planning to sell VDBs created in TG.

Also, I'm fairly sure the turntable restriction is bad for the user base. If I were an environment artist looking for a job and wanted to include 10 turntable vids of clouds in my reel I would have to keep them 180° only in order to not violate the EULA? I don't know how others feel but this is just wrong.

[WAS]

The gray area I see here is that most organizations contract the work out to someone who can do it. At which point they usually do not, or are even willing to learn some proprietary software, let alone install it, for the final product for their creation. It's like when I applied for a visual effects company recently, I am explicitly suppose to have the commercial licenses, and software, to do my job, and deliver the appropriate final products... They aren't going to buy a Terragen license just to hang it on a wall because they contracted a dude for some clouds and space fly-bys shots.

Additionally, this infringes on a large portion of not only Terragen's initial Commercial goal, but most any products goals in exporting with few exceptions like Speedtree, which is no friend to content creators, but hobbyists and conglomerates.

Creating limitations based on popularity of use I'd say isn't going to help your sales, you may stall the hurt though...

And aside from beautiful final renders by people that have been here for a long while learning, Terragen isn't really worth it's price on it's current roadmap. Imagine if I was a company that invested in this software to see bugfixes throughout it's maintenance period with no real substantial traction towards users needs? And adding further limitations to content creators outside hollywood is a bad move.

The TG target audience gets more and more niche...

[cyphyr]

Firstly I am really looking forward to using Terragens VDB support. There is a massive free cloud data set released by DISNEY from the MOMA film that will be lots of fun to use, check it out here.
http://www.cgchannel.com/2018/07/download-disneys-data-set-for-motunui-island-from-moana/
There are already a lot of VDB assets available on line that will be fun to experiment with.

Ultimately no software can stand on its one as a single solution to ones rendering needs. Being able to easily send assets back and forth between programs is essential to all studio pipelines. Terragens "Render Elements" is a vital part of this process which allows final output to be compped and tweaked in third party programs (NUKE, AFTERFX, HOUDINI, PHOTOSHOP etc). The same is true of our ability to export and import terrains, essential for positioning and shadow catching.
There are some kinds of shot that can only be done by having matched renders across multiple applications. Think of a shot of a reflective space ship emerging from a billowing volumetric cloud casting shadows across a landscape.

I don't think the new Licensing Agreement is overly restrictive. Matt is explicitly allowing VDB's to be shared by artists and studios working on the same project. I would expect larger studios would want to build up libraries of volumetric clouds that they can reach out for at any time and have ready made cloud assets that work across all their software with little or no compatibility wrangling. I know both DNEG and MPC would send juniors off in their first weeks to make tree libraries (SpeedTree) or convert rock assets (MegaScan) just to build up the in-house asset library.

Unrelated suggestions:
Restrict the export of VDB's to the professional version only whilst having import available across all versions.
Create a custom VDB version (VDBt) that can only be read by applicable versions of Terragen.
Sell a separate VDB (VDBt) reader plugin for Houdini, Maya, Max etc

[WAS]

Meanwhile Houdini doesn't even have export limitations on the OPEN vdb format, even in indie. Many don't.

Good heads up to get an explanation I should keep my skies completely bare and use another software.

Taking your troubles out on consumers is a bad move. Your only winning favor with friends.

---

If I create a cloud set off my so-called "commercial license" (can no longer be called such if the main aspect of the program is not commercial, inherently), for the VFX firm I work for, they should now own it, and should be able to use it in any work they're contracted for. They should not need to just re-render the clouds in TG on their license just because you want extra $$$. So far there is no transparency on Terragen being restricted computer software, or its assets, especially with a "commercial" license.

---

I'm also curious if this will even make any difference. I've tried to warn you before that TG is all over torrent and warez sites, especially in Asia. I've seen key gens, vdb generators, etc. Obtaining TG without a license, and doing anything you want with it is pretty easy. I'm sure a lot of these obscure phone games from China with these amazing skydomes are just happening by them on a stock website...

[Matt]

If I create a cloud set off my so-called "commercial license" (can no longer be called such if the main aspect of the program is not commercial, inherently), for the VFX firm I work for, they should now own it, and should be able to use it in any work they're contracted for. They should not need to just re-render the clouds in TG on their license just because you want extra $$$.

Yes, and the new license agreement doesn't change that, but I might need to adjust the wording to make it more clear on that subject.

[gao_jian11]

I think the more powerful the software is, the more people will like it. I just bought tg out of my hobby, there is no commercial use, because I like its function. I am not a professional, but I think that restricting the use of software functions is not good for software development. For example, if tg can export vdb, Planetside can sell vdb library by itself. If TG is recognized by the industry, I think it will greatly increase TG sales. People use TG's vdb, and then they also want to control the shape and effect of vdb. Buying a library is definitely a very passive act, and people will want to make their own cloud and have complete control. Hope terragen becomes stronger and stronger.

[Dune]

Maybe indeed make a special version with VDB export/import, but (much) more expensive, to compensate? Mostly users who would use the feature are the richer businesses I presume.

[Matt]

We are not stopping anyone from exporting VDBs if they have a Professional license. You still can export VDBs and you will be able to import them when import is implemented.

But there are restrictions on who you can give them to. You can't sell VDBs on an open marketplace, for example. The main purpose of this is to avoid widespread distribution of Terragen-generated VDBs (and similar formats) in the market.

You CAN give them to your clients as long as the VDBs are not the major part of what you are delivering to them and the client is subject to the same conditions after receiving them. If your client keeps the VDBs etc. in-house then that is fine. But if your client wants sell packs of VDBs, for example, that is a problem.

I realize that the new terms - as they are right now - make some things more difficult than they used to be. I am trying to avoid that. I want to find the right terms so that most people won't be affected by them. I will make some changes if I can find a better way to do this. I still want Terragen users to be able to export VDBs for a wide range of purposes.

[N-drju]

I can see a good point in what Matt is saying.

Imagine a company buys your picture to put it as a website's background. Few weeks later, you realize that they actually sell printouts of said picture to whomever asks...

[WAS]

I can see a good point in what Matt is saying.

Imagine a company buys your picture to put it as a website's background. Few weeks later, you realize that they actually sell printouts of said picture to whomever asks...

But in this case the user has purchased a "commercial" license, which inherently implies selling assets for revenue.

VDB marketplace is big, already, and TG pulling out isn't going to help TG. When a AAA movie or game uses amazing clouds first thing I do is analyze is from where (TG clouds have giveaways just like Houdini's always looks like smoke some). Where others remain and strengthen their software base because of interest TG is scared of loss revenue? Oi.

And from what you explained, because I am contracted, and not an employee or part of the company, or any part of internal decisions it seems I cannot give them VDB clouds to use in their projects. I couldn't know what they will and will-not use them for. I also cannot extend user agreements (specifically with me) to them that they have not legally agreed too. Contracting too; is technically selling work to a third paty inherently as well.

Speaking of that cause Oshyan just tossed a key at me, I never even actually agreed to any agreements or were shown them before receiving a license. I don't even have a PlanetSide account to review things.

---

Also the vague terminology around not a "Major part" of your scene is just asking to trap people. What constitutes a major part of a scene? It's currently at your discretion. Cloudscapes are a major part of any landscape scene really, and you know many people are just creating skyscapes and exporting them because terragens terrain generation has fallen behind and isn't a major part of much production pipelines anymore, if it ever was (don't see many terragen landscapes in movies, mostly skies).

You'd probably get better results (in sales and usage) allowing sales, but requiring a license shipped with VDBs governing third party usage, and also creating a incentive to go back to TG for fresh new VDBs.