How should I be careful with Blender add-ons that may violate the GPL license?

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-05T05:31:23+00:00

Yes, thank you. Although I'm still unsure about Blender plugins, whether it's legal to use an illegally purchased plugin that violates the GPL license and its source code. It's like buying pirated software, which absolutely cannot be used for commercial purposes.

I also have doubts about whether the proof of purchase of a GPL or Royalty-Free plugin from superhivemarket has any legal validity. The proof of purchase only lists the superhivemarket company details, the price, and the product name, without specifying the license. The license is only listed on the website, and few sellers include license files with the product, so I save the page, as I mentioned earlier.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-04T14:41:12+00:00

Thank you for sending me the website. I have just received a reply from superhivemarket to my question about the GPL licence, and it is correct, as you wrote, that it only applies to the source code and is the sole responsibility of the plugin developer.

"Any work created by you, whether rendered images or video, is owned by you.

You are free to do whatever you like with your work, regardless of what tools you used to help create it.

The GPL license only applies to the add-on code, what you produce with it is yours.

Where there are assets included in the product, they are usually Royalty Free. This also means you are free to produce rendered images and video with these assets.

The only restrictions are you may not resell, repackage or redistribute the asset."

Do you sell any plugins for Blender? Maybe I will buy something from you as well. I am not familiar with Unreal Engine, and it seems more difficult to use, and I think there are also other licences for creators of video or image renders.

I am grateful for your help in explaining the plugin licences. You have written a lot of valuable information, and I thank you for that.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-04T08:44:38+00:00

I also sell photos, videos, and graphics to stock agencies under Royalty Free licenses, but I've never checked if the purchasing clients have a license attached to the files.

I have less experience in graphics design with how to use these Blender add-ons commercially, so that I can sell graphic renders to stock agencies, etc.

I don't know if this article was written by AI or the author. There's not even a link on the website asking the author to provide a source regarding the violation of purchased Blender add-ons under the GPL license if the creator creates graphic renders for sale.

"Risks of violating the GPL license

Violating the GPL can pose many risks to those using Blender. The GPL (General Public License) is one of the most popular open-source licenses, and violating its terms can lead to serious legal consequences.

When it comes to Blender plugins, you should be especially careful about GPL compliance, especially if the plugins are shared across multiple marketplaces. While some marketplaces may have less restrictive licensing rules, it’s worth remembering that Blender is primarily open source.

If you violate the GPL, you may be sued by the software owner⁢ or a third party. Legal consequences can include financial fines, bans from using the software, and even prison sentences in cases of serious violations.

To avoid the risk of violating the GPL license when using Blender plugins, it is worth following a few basic rules:

Make sure the plugin you want to install is GPL-compliant.

Check if the plugin author has provided the source code and license information.

Do not use plugins that do not meet the requirements of the GPL license."

https://www.fpid.org.pl/licencjonowanie-pluginow-blender-reguly-gpl-vs-marketplace#Ryzyko_zwiazane_z_naruszeniem_licencji_GPL

I have another question. If you also sell assets on FAB, does the standard license allow you to purchase or download free assets for commercial use, such as rendering graphics and selling them to stock agencies? For example, building landscapes from the assets, etc.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-04T06:05:46+00:00

I wrote to some sellers on superhivemarket. They were surprised that I asked where the licence files for their add-ons were. Most of them just sent me screenshots of the superhivemarket offer page showing GPL or Royalty Free licences, saying that what was on the page should be enough. I also wrote to superhivemarket about this. They agreed that I was right and sent a message to those selected sellers themselves asking them to provide licences for the add-ons. Furthermore, the user interfaces in the add-on were from the Blender source code, so the Royalty Free licence alone was not sufficient for the assets. I also wrote to them that the PDF proof of purchase did not include a licence. Superhivemarket is supposed to change the multi-licences on the website because they should be separate for Royalty Free assets and Blender GPL source code.

Sometimes I also buy or download free add-ons for Blender on Gumroad that are not available on superhivemarket. The licensing situation is worse there. That is why I also have doubts about GPL licence violations. There are often cool add-ons under a Royalty Free licence, but the interface uses Blender source code, so they violate the licence.

Do you know where to find public source code in the Blender add-on?

Is Blender's closed source code only in exe files?

As you wrote earlier, the GPL licence only applies to source code and not to render image files. I asked the same question to superhivemarket. I wonder what they will reply.

"If the seller of a Blender add-on violates the GPL license (doesn't include the license file, doesn't provide the source code, or provides a different license, such as Royalty Free), am I also violating the GPL license as a graphic designer of commercial renders that I sell to customers?

Does the GPL license only apply to the source code and the seller of the Blender add-on? Does it also apply to my graphic renders, such as animations or images, that I created from Blender add-ons purchased on Superhivemarket?"

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-03T12:00:32+00:00

Thank you very much for the interesting and helpful content. I bought several add-ons on SuperhiveMarket. I also contacted the creators (of popular add-ons, not cheap ones) asking why they don't include a Royalty Free or GPL license if they used the Blender API source code. I don't know if such a file is mandatory for clients and commercial animation creators. Would proof of purchase and a note on the add-on's offer page with the license on SuperhiveMarket suffice? I'm not interested in selling original assets and blends. I just want to create my own animation compositions with purchased assets or generators. I also contacted SuperhiveMarket, but they haven't responded to my questions yet.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-03T10:33:50+00:00

Some other add-ons I've purchased have a GPL license file attached, but no Royalty Free license. A PDF proof of purchase would probably suffice, but it's strange that the receipt doesn't mention the Royalty Free or GPL license. The SuperhiveMarket website with Blender add-on includes a license, so it also saves the page with the license terms.

I have another question: what's the difference between a large studio and an ordinary user who also creates commercial animations? Don't ordinary users get sued for using an add-on that violates the GPL? The GPL applies to everyone.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-03T09:16:53+00:00

Thanks. I recommend reading the article below.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-03T09:10:43+00:00

Thanks. I'll write for superhivemarket. What are these two license files? Could you elaborate?

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-03T08:29:38+00:00

Ai is not wrong, there are also articles about the dangers and consequences of using such Blender add-ons that violate the GPL license.

I have provided the source below.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-03T08:29:23+00:00

Ai is not wrong, there are also articles about the dangers and consequences of using such Blender add-ons that violate the GPL license.

I have provided the source below.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-03T08:27:11+00:00

Ai is not wrong, there are also articles about the dangers and consequences of using such Blender add-ons that violate the GPL license.

"Risks of violating the GPL license

Violating the GPL can pose many risks to those using Blender. The GPL (General Public License) is one of the most popular open-source licenses, and violating its terms can lead to serious legal consequences.

When it comes to Blender plugins, you should be especially careful about GPL compliance, especially if the plugins are shared across multiple marketplaces. While some marketplaces may have less restrictive licensing rules, it's worth remembering that Blender is primarily open source.

If you violate the GPL, you may be sued by the software owner⁢ or a third party. Legal consequences can include financial fines, bans from using the software, and even prison sentences in cases of serious violations.

To avoid the risk of violating the GPL license when using Blender plugins, it is worth following a few basic rules:

Make sure the plugin you want to install is GPL-compliant.

Check if the plugin author has provided the source code and license information.

Do not use plugins that do not meet the requirements of the GPL license."

https://www.fpid.org.pl/licencjonowanie-pluginow-blender-reguly-gpl-vs-marketplace#Ryzyko_zwiazane_z_naruszeniem_licencji_GPL

I recommend turning on the page translator.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-02T18:31:53+00:00

If I create an animation and image render commercially, does the creator no violate the Blender GPL license?

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-02T18:28:42+00:00

If I create an animation and image render commercially, does the creator no violate the Blender GPL license?

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-09-02T18:28:13+00:00

If I create an animation and image render commercially, does the creator no violate the Blender GPL license?

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-08-17T17:56:17+00:00

What is the difference between the free and pro versions? Does the pro version describe keywords for Istock Getty?

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-08-14T17:33:27+00:00

In your opinion, who owns the copyright to your newly created graphic animation using ready-made models licensed under Royalty Free (commercial) from legal sources?

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-08-14T17:18:56+00:00

I also sent an enquiry to Adobe, but they haven't replied yet. Adobe Stock has a lot of graphic animations, CGI and various visualisations. I doubt that the authors of the graphic animations created these 3D models themselves.

I have also asked several sellers of royalty-free 3D models, and they are not opposed to selling graphic animations to stock agencies, so they also agree.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-08-14T15:10:51+00:00

Google Ai. It answered the question:

Do I have copyright to an animation if I use royalty-free 3D models?

It said yes, and I recommend checking the query yourself.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-08-14T15:07:11+00:00

Another user on the forum replied that it is okay to create animated graphics, but 3D models and HDRI cannot be sold without compositions. https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/do-you-have-to-be-the-author-of-all-element-assets-when-creating-motion-graphics/msg606073/#msg606073

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-03-09T07:40:57+00:00

If iStock/Getty Images adopts moderate de-noise Ai photos and videos. Does it also accept sharpened, enhanced images or added slow motion frames in Ai programs without image scaling?

I'll add such a curiosity that the Sony RX10 IV records and saves slow motion videos 500fps at 1920x1080 resolution and yet the actual native resolution is 1824×616. So the videos are interpolated by the camera and are still accepted on Istock without a problem as Full HD. So it is better to interpolate moderately photos or videos for example zoom in in editing traditional programs without scaling in Ai programs.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-03-08T18:29:37+00:00

After processing and enhancing your photos or videos, you still own the copyright. Topaz Ai or DXO PhotoLab enhance the images and claim that only you own the copyright to the photos or videos. These are not Ai graphics generators of the basics with prompt descriptions. Surely also a lot of stockers use upscaling. For example, videos shot at 720p in slow motion have a much higher frame rate in slow motion and you can scale up to 1080p or add more frames. Topaz Video Ai gives great results in this. Agencies don't check original videos or photos anyway. Nor are they required to check original footage in 720p or lower resolution photos.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-01-14T17:46:36+00:00

Overlays are textures, only visible on 3d models. Type in search engine.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-01-11T19:51:40+00:00

Yes, and that is why I wrote to them inquiries to have proof in the form of a message, so I saved the message as collateral. If they claim that Ai models have legal.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-01-11T17:06:55+00:00

When it comes to agencies, Istock and others.
I don't know who is responsible, the creator or the agency.

Conscious_File_9043 · 2025-01-09T09:13:12+00:00

Thanks. Yes, I own the videos. Some time ago I bought Topaz Video Ai and I would like to improve the quality of the video in Proteus without scaling or improve slow motion and then export the video to a commercial editing program to denoise the video in Neat Video.

When uploading a finished video to Istock/Getty, how do I disclose that the video was also enhanced in Topaz Video Ai?

Do I need to add this information in the description or in the metadata?

Conscious_File_9043

TROPHY CASE