3D Model Licensing

[l.croxton]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone is any the wiser on "editorial" uses of models.

In short I am interested in buying a sofa model from turbosquid but it has the "editorial" license attached. Now looking at the guidelines I would only be able to use this for essentially "the greater good" and not for if I were to use it in my portfolio as that would be surely classed as self advertisement, in this instance a living room scene.

So my question is, is this a license for the model itself to be used and sold as the model or does it apply if you were to use it in any materials such as portfolio or a commercial piece for someone else. I ask because I doubt the author of the model has the rights to sell this furniture item as its from IKEA and is directly making commercial gains from selling it on this site.

I've tried sending a support ticket to turbosquid however nothing has popped up after I submitted it so I don't know if there is a delay in getting it processed.

Thanks in advance for any answers or clarity on this! :)

[TomG]

Editorial use applies to your use of the model, in images and animations. This happens when something is a recognizable brand (or even has a logo on it), and means that should the company who owns the real physical object and design dislike how you used it (made it look bad, deliberately or accidentally gave the impression that you work for them, or that they endorse you), then they could sue you.

Actually modeling something that can only be put to editorial use, and selling it, must be fine because there are loads of those on TurboSquid :) But even then some companies go further - for example, Lamborghini got all models of their cars taken down off TurboSquid and other sites. So if a company wants to object to the selling (or even giving away) of 3d models themselves, looks like they can.

(oh and usual disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, just sharing what fraction of info on what is likely a deep and complicated topic that I am aware of. Basically, I always avoid anything that is editorial only when purchasing models, just to be safe).

[l.croxton]

Thanks @TomG for that reply :)

Seems like a real grey area of what is allowed when you start to think of the practical application of enforcing it.

[James Vella]

Buyer:

Editorial - Can use for newspaper, magazine article, blog/website for describing ideas, non-commercial use like presentation, personal use.

Royalty Free - Can use commercially for any purpose. Note, there can be additional licence restrictions.

Seller:

Editorial - Anything with a brand/logo/mark etc must be sold/3D modeled as editorial. Only restrictions are some brands still do not allow this (BMW, Lamborghini, etc). It can be difficult to find out which brands have restrictions as you need to check each company individually. You can have your item requested to be taken down with a DMCA notice.

Royalty Free - Can sell commercially for any purpose without legal implications or take down requests unless you have obviously infringed copyright. You can also place additional license terms for the buyer such as they cannot print your model, re-use the concept, use only in particular situations etc.

---

Think of it this way, SMEG feature in a lot of architecture, so does popular book/soap/furniture brands. They usually dont have a problem with this because as Tom mentioned its probably not being used in a defamatory way and actually promotes their business for free. Doesnt mean its entirely legal but it fits nicely in the grey area.

In regards to your situation if its entirely for building a portfolio 99% of the time you wont run into an issue. Again, grey area but in the 12 years I have been in this industry not once have I seen or heard of anyone get in legal trouble over using an IKEA sofa in their render.

edit:
As a side note if you are a freelance artist its also a smart choice to put into your contract that the client is responsible for any and all claims, costs, expenses including attorney's fees for any copyright infringement within the received images (this includes and is not limited to copyright, patents, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications).

[l.croxton]

Thanks James for clearing it up a little further.

I had written a longer reply and then I checked my email to see what has been said and it looks like the editorial is there purely because of in this instance the IKEA sofa is a brand and has its own copywrite. So essentially the author doesn't have claim to the furniture's design etc. However it is up to us the "buyer" to understand if we buy this we are able to actually use this outside of the editorial license agreement, basically do we think its safe and legal to do so based on our own understanding of how it'll be used.  In short, if I buy the model and use it for my own portfolio or even as lets say I were to put it in a commercially used image such as marketing material for a real estate company wanting to sell their apartments and wanted something of a cotemporary design, do I think the inclusion of the sofa would be something IKEA themselves would not like legally.

So really the editorial licensing caveat appears to be a bit more of a liability cover for companies such as turbosquid. Atleast from what I can tell. I'll post the reply below in whole so if anyone else would like to see then its hear and who knows you may have your own take on it!

"Thank you for contacting TurboSquid Support.  Content marked with “Editorial Use Only” restrictions depict a product owned by another company (i.e, Ikea). You may only use this content for news or if you have permission from the company. It is up to you to determine if you need permission to use the product for any other reason.

It is up to you, your business, and your legal counsel to determine whether you have clearance for using the model for non editorial purposes. If you do not require a branded or editorial model, you may wish to filter your search to exclude branded or editorial content."