No Controversial Games Allowed with UE4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#1 Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

If you make a controversial game with UE4 Epic has the right to make you delete the game.

Let me quote section 11 of the end-user license agreement for Unreal Engine 4.7.2 (possibly applicable for Unreal Engine 4.7 and 4.7.1 as well):

11.Proprietary notices and attribution You agree to retain and reproduce in all copies of Licensed Technology the copyright, trademark and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Epic and third parties as they appear in the Engine Code and the Content.

You agree to place the following notices in the credits for any Product (replacing xxxx with the current year):

"[Product Name] uses the Unreal® engine. Unreal® is a trademark or registered trademark of Epic Games, Inc. in the United States of America and elsewhere."

"Unreal® Engine, Copyright 1998-xxxx, Epic Games, Inc. All rights reserved."

No other license or right in the Epic Trademarks is granted under this agreement. All use of the Epic Trademarks will inure to the sole benefit of Epic. You agree not to engage in any activity that could tarnish, dilute or affect the validity or enforceability of the Epic Trademarks or cause consumer confusion or diminish any goodwill relating to any Epic Trademarks. If you wish to make further use of the Epic Trademarks, please go to https://www.unrealengine.com/branding-guidelines-and-trademark-usage.

Epic may use your trademarks, service marks, trade names, and logos used with any Product, as well as publicly released screen shots and video content from the Product, in connection with Epic's marketing, advertisement, and promotion of the Unreal® Engine in any and all media without restriction.

Note, importantly, the part about diminishing goodwill towards the trademarks; in the legal sense, this refers to the reputation of the trademarks. So, to re-iterate, Epic reserves the right to forbid you from using its trademarks if that could harm its "reputation", but the company also requires you to include its trademarks (that's what the "®" symbol stands for) in your product. This means that, when making a product using the Unreal Engine, you must ensure the product does not harm Epic's "reputation" in order to avoid breaking the agreement, and so you are de facto prevented from creating potentially controversial products using the engine. The problem is that "reputation" can mean a different thing in different places and at different times, and is not subject to genuine principles but to the whims of a given culture and media establishment. In asking the developers to safeguard its "reputation", Epic is in practice requiring them to submit to these whims. Moreover, as the license agreement states elsewhere, Epic will not compensate anyone for any losses incurred in connection to the use of the engine, which means that if a sudden change in the media's attitudes causes a game to become "controversial" when it is on the verge of being released, Epic can shut down the project without reimbursing the developers.

Having lost the project and the money they spent building it, the developers would also have to destroy all copies of the game, according to section 16, paragraph D of the license agreement:

D. Effect of Termination. Upon any termination, the Epic Licenses will automatically terminate, you may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to you by the Epic Licenses, and you must destroy all copies of the Licensed Technology in your possession and cease distributing any Products developed under this Agreement.Within 30 days of termination, unless otherwise agreed by Epic, you must destroy all Products in your inventory.

When the license agreement talks about Products here, it certainly refers to the games under development, but also potentially to any trailers, screenshots etc that have been released (the language is unclear regarding this):

"Product" means any product developed under this Agreement that is made using any Licensed Technology or that combines any Licensed Technology with any other software or content, regardless of how much or little of the Licensed Technology is used.

In the best-case scenario, this paragraph forces the developers to destroy all copies of the game unless Epic says otherwise. In the worst-case scenario, it also forces developers to destroy their trailers, screenshots etc. In any event, it seems excessive to require the removal of all content produced with the engine, and not merely the removal of the engine itself.

I am fairly certain that, when I purchased a copy of UE4 back in November or December (definitely before version 4.6.0), the license was more liberal and did not contain the trademark requirements. These requirements almost certainly appeared because the game Hatred recently used the Unreal Engine logo, which caused articles about it to appear in the Daily Mail, the Guardian and elsewhere, potentially harming Epic's "reputation". It's worth noting that Unreal Engine 4.7.2, the version that contains the new license agreement, apparently has to be installed separately from Unreal Engine 4.6 (and any version prior to that), so at the very least, one can hope that development can proceed for those games that were started before the new requirements came into effect.

The addition of the section on trademarks is not mentioned anywhere in the changelog of the end-user License Agreement, which is surprising, as the section is significant and was certainly not there a few months ago.

The overall problem is not that Epic might develop a totalitarian streak; it's that when parts of the media will see fit to demonize any game being made with UE4, Epic might shut down development of that game. I am concerned that this may be part of a more widespread tendency to limit freedom of thought and freedom of conscience throughout the sphere of game development. In the future, if you are looking for a game engine when developing a potentially controversial game, it would be best to email the engine's developers and find out where they stand before purchasing a license from them. I would not speculate that Epic is deliberately intending to shut down any game, but merely state that Epic now has legal grounds to cater to the media and "problematic" games, so rather than dismissing the engine altogether, it would be best to contact Epic Games and seek clarification on the license agreement.

*

tl;dr: According to the new EULA in Unreal Engine 4.7.2, you are forbidden from making games that could harm the "reputation" of Epic Games. If they do end up harming its "reputation", Epic Games can legally force you to end your game project and destroy your inventory of the "offending" games and possibly all trailers, screenshots etc. The changes probably arose in the wake of the Hatred trailer that featured the Unreal Engine logo. The issue is not that Epic will ever do so, but that according to the new license agreement, it can.

That's right guys... More censorship. Meanwhile game journalists are all drinking the Kool-Aid like the subjugated propagandists that they are.

Although I must admit, Randolph Ramsay's article about GDC censorship has been pretty accurate. It's like the guy's a visionary or something.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
Archangel3371

43998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#2 Archangel3371
Member since 2004 • 43998 Posts

That's not censorship. It's their property so they can make the rules. If a developer has a problem with that then they're by all means free to use a different engine or create their own.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
JangoWuzHere

19032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By JangoWuzHere
Member since 2007 • 19032 Posts

Do you even know what censorship is?

Most stores do not sell AO or pornography based games. They have the right to pick and choose what they sell to the public.

Avatar image for AcidTango
AcidTango

3211

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By AcidTango
Member since 2013 • 3211 Posts

It sucks but it's their property as well. Yeah the engine may be free but you still have that 5% royalty fee and rules for that engine when you sell a game that uses the engine so they still have the rights to rule what's allowed and not allowed when you make a game using their engine and selling it.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#5  Edited By xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

Like others said, it's their property and they can pick who buys it. If you are truly concerned, I will say that in practice, I think very little (if anything) will wind up being prohibited by this - UE has been used for plenty of violent stuff in the past, for example, and will continue to be. Epic is just giving themselves an "out" in case someone wants to make something truly god-awful and slap their logo right up on the boot-up screen.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

Can people please stop misusing the words censorship, ban and free speech?

Giving rules to use your software is not a censorship.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
JustPlainLucas

80441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 226

User Lists: 0

#7 JustPlainLucas
Member since 2002 • 80441 Posts

*groans* If I lend you a paint brush, and I don't want you painting pictures of Hitler killing Jewish babies, then I'm going to damn well have you return my brush. Ugh... people really need to get over their sense of entitlement and learn what censorship is. No, you have NO right to make whatever game you want with a private company's game engine. You are being granted a license to use that software, and if you can't agree to the terms and conditions, you can't use it. So, find another engine. Epic is not keeping you from making your game about Hitler killing Jewish babies. You just can't do it with their engine.

*groans again*

Avatar image for HipHopBeats
HipHopBeats

2850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#8 HipHopBeats
Member since 2011 • 2850 Posts

Hopefully, devs realize there is more than one gaming engine on the planet or they can simply design their own. Problem solved.

Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 loafofgame
Member since 2013 • 1742 Posts

I think the issue lies is in the fact that the EULA was updated (and the speculation about the reasons), not that the rule is actually in there or that companies have the right to enforce those rules. There's a perceived development. This is an example of what some people fear: the slow but gradual limiting of how certain products are to be be used and created, forced on companies by the media. First it's this engine, but more engines might follow. First it's a rather broad rule, but soon it might include 'no racism, no sexism, no scantily clad women'. First it will just pertain to the rules of an engine, but it might end up in the laws of a country.

There's dedication here. Dedication to prove a point and one point only. Why are we all indifferent about what appears to be so blatantly obvious: through negative and biased coverage the media are slowly forcing companies to limit artistic expression.

*shrugs*

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
JangoWuzHere

19032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 JangoWuzHere
Member since 2007 • 19032 Posts

@loafofgame said:

I think the issue lies is in the fact that the EULA was updated (and the speculation about the reasons), not that the rule is actually in there or that companies have the right to enforce those rules. There's a perceived development. This is an example of what some people fear: the slow but gradual limiting of how certain products are to be be used and created, forced on companies by the media. First it's this engine, but more engines might follow. First it's a rather broad rule, but soon it might include 'no racism, no sexism, no scantily clad women'. First it will just pertain to the rules of an engine, but it might end up in the laws of a country.

There's dedication here. Dedication to prove a point and one point only. Why are we all indifferent about what appears to be so blatantly obvious: through negative and biased coverage the media are slowly forcing companies to limit artistic expression.

*shrugs*

Companies aren't "forced" to do anything by the media. People are free to criticize a product openly if they want.

Avatar image for DuaIFace
DuaIFace

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 DuaIFace
Member since 2009 • 581 Posts

Another reason I wish people would just plain stop using anything UE related. I loathe censorship.

Make your own engines.

Makes me curious as to what they consider 'over-the-line' as Mortal Kombat X is UE4.

Avatar image for SambaLele
SambaLele

5552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By SambaLele
Member since 2004 • 5552 Posts

Well, it's their license, they can make those clauses. And it isn't like it's something that devs and Epic can't negotiate in advance of licensing. If it's not possible, there are alternatives to UE4 for the devs. I don't really see much of a problem there.

Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#13 Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts

@loafofgame said:

I think the issue lies is in the fact that the EULA was updated (and the speculation about the reasons), not that the rule is actually in there or that companies have the right to enforce those rules. There's a perceived development. This is an example of what some people fear: the slow but gradual limiting of how certain products are to be be used and created, forced on companies by the media. First it's this engine, but more engines might follow. First it's a rather broad rule, but soon it might include 'no racism, no sexism, no scantily clad women'. First it will just pertain to the rules of an engine, but it might end up in the laws of a country.

There's dedication here. Dedication to prove a point and one point only. Why are we all indifferent about what appears to be so blatantly obvious: through negative and biased coverage the media are slowly forcing companies to limit artistic expression.

*shrugs*

This.... so this!! its sure is a slippery slope.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@loafofgame said:

I think the issue lies is in the fact that the EULA was updated (and the speculation about the reasons), not that the rule is actually in there or that companies have the right to enforce those rules. There's a perceived development. This is an example of what some people fear: the slow but gradual limiting of how certain products are to be be used and created, forced on companies by the media. First it's this engine, but more engines might follow. First it's a rather broad rule, but soon it might include 'no racism, no sexism, no scantily clad women'. First it will just pertain to the rules of an engine, but it might end up in the laws of a country.

There's dedication here. Dedication to prove a point and one point only. Why are we all indifferent about what appears to be so blatantly obvious: through negative and biased coverage the media are slowly forcing companies to limit artistic expression.

*shrugs*

I think that's a valid concern, and it's part of what bothers me about the widespread move from "physical to digital" along many entertainment media. But unlike you, I see it as less of a move to enforce any kind of ideology, and more of an attempt to exercise control. Now, WHY the desire for control is another matter. Maybe a company wants to transition from a product based model to a service based model because a service is easier to cut off if someone deviates from the terms. Or as someone else pointed out, maybe it's just covering their own asses. Like, this will have zero effect on almost everyone, but they're just adding that clause in the off chance that someone DOES make a baby-killing game that puts Epic under media pressure.

So yeah, I kind of see the worry. Still, I'm not THAT worried. Simply because people go where the money is. No one is trying to limit artistic expression, they're just trying to make money. And while I won't pretend to claim that they don't have agendas beyond money, these are big businesses. If one company manages to be profitable while maintaining their "no sexism or scantily clad women" stance, then consumer demand dicatates that SOMEONE'S gonna pick up their slack. As long as gamers like seeing scantily clad women in games, then I guarantee that such games will exist. They just might not use certain game engines.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
Gaming-Planet

21064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By Gaming-Planet
Member since 2008 • 21064 Posts

Controversy to what culture? Everyone is offended by something, no one is pleased.

Avatar image for dylandr
dylandr

4940

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#16 dylandr
Member since 2015 • 4940 Posts

@JangoWuzHere: I believe you need a permit to sell games like that (atleast here in the Netherlands you need a permit)

Avatar image for dylandr
dylandr

4940

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#17 dylandr
Member since 2015 • 4940 Posts

@Gaming-Planet: I think what you just said is offensive!

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@MrGeezer said:

@loafofgame said:

I think the issue lies is in the fact that the EULA was updated (and the speculation about the reasons), not that the rule is actually in there or that companies have the right to enforce those rules. There's a perceived development. This is an example of what some people fear: the slow but gradual limiting of how certain products are to be be used and created, forced on companies by the media. First it's this engine, but more engines might follow. First it's a rather broad rule, but soon it might include 'no racism, no sexism, no scantily clad women'. First it will just pertain to the rules of an engine, but it might end up in the laws of a country.

There's dedication here. Dedication to prove a point and one point only. Why are we all indifferent about what appears to be so blatantly obvious: through negative and biased coverage the media are slowly forcing companies to limit artistic expression.

*shrugs*

I think that's a valid concern, and it's part of what bothers me about the widespread move from "physical to digital" along many entertainment media. But unlike you, I see it as less of a move to enforce any kind of ideology, and more of an attempt to exercise control. Now, WHY the desire for control is another matter. Maybe a company wants to transition from a product based model to a service based model because a service is easier to cut off if someone deviates from the terms. Or as someone else pointed out, maybe it's just covering their own asses. Like, this will have zero effect on almost everyone, but they're just adding that clause in the off chance that someone DOES make a baby-killing game that puts Epic under media pressure.

So yeah, I kind of see the worry. Still, I'm not THAT worried. Simply because people go where the money is. No one is trying to limit artistic expression, they're just trying to make money. And while I won't pretend to claim that they don't have agendas beyond money, these are big businesses. If one company manages to be profitable while maintaining their "no sexism or scantily clad women" stance, then consumer demand dicatates that SOMEONE'S gonna pick up their slack. As long as gamers like seeing scantily clad women in games, then I guarantee that such games will exist. They just might not use certain game engines.

This isn't a recent thing. Epic have been licencing out the Unreal engine for over 15 years.

Game development is a business, and just like in any other business doing stuff that can be seen as offensive may result in the closure of some of your business deals. When you use Unreal you are associating with Epic and Epic are associating with you. So if you start making racist games the message it sends is "Epic are ok with racism". Very few companies in the world want to be associated with racism, sexism or homophobia. So it's completely reasonable for a company to cut ties with a company that produces offensive content.

Is it the correct choice to make? maybe, maybe not. But it is certainly a reasonable choice.

Also someone already has picked up their slack, it's called Unity. With Unity you own 100% of your game, no royalties.

Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 loafofgame
Member since 2013 • 1742 Posts

@toast_burner: @Midnightshade29: @MrGeezer: @JangoWuzHere: I should clarify that what I said is not necessarily my view. I was merely trying to speculate where the OP's concern might come from, since there was no clarification on that matter. I think it's an interesting subject, but most replies simply focused on the rights companies have to enforce their rules. I wanted to break open the discussion a bit.

@JangoWuzHere said:

Companies aren't "forced" to do anything by the media. People are free to criticize a product openly if they want.

I think the fear is that companies might be indirectly forced by the possible threat of negative media coverage.

@MrGeezer said:

I think that's a valid concern, and it's part of what bothers me about the widespread move from "physical to digital" along many entertainment media. But unlike you, I see it as less of a move to enforce any kind of ideology, and more of an attempt to exercise control. Now, WHY the desire for control is another matter. Maybe a company wants to transition from a product based model to a service based model because a service is easier to cut off if someone deviates from the terms. Or as someone else pointed out, maybe it's just covering their own asses. Like, this will have zero effect on almost everyone, but they're just adding that clause in the off chance that someone DOES make a baby-killing game that puts Epic under media pressure.

I think the problem is that some people are concerned that media are becoming more 'politically correct' and will exert their pressure sooner, not merely in the case of baby-killing, but also in the case of female representation, for example. Personally I'm not really worried, though.

@MrGeezer said:

So yeah, I kind of see the worry. Still, I'm not THAT worried. Simply because people go where the money is. No one is trying to limit artistic expression, they're just trying to make money. And while I won't pretend to claim that they don't have agendas beyond money, these are big businesses. If one company manages to be profitable while maintaining their "no sexism or scantily clad women" stance, then consumer demand dicatates that SOMEONE'S gonna pick up their slack. As long as gamers like seeing scantily clad women in games, then I guarantee that such games will exist. They just might not use certain game engines.

I agree. Looking at music videos, movies, etc. to me there seems to be no indication that the realm of videogames is going to be artistically silenced by the media. And I also agree that audience demand is a considerable force. But well, 'political correctness' is a hot topic right now and there's a strong focus on anything that might be considered as being affected by 'political correctness'. I have personally yet to see a convincing instance of 'political correctness' affecting the actual content of videogames and even if there are examples of it I'm hesitant to accept they constitute a trend. But I can't deny that some mainstream media coverage has been selective and that there have been instances of questionable conduct, so I can sympathize with some of the concerns, even though I'm not affected by it personally.

@toast_burner said:

This isn't a recent thing. Epic have been licencing out the Unreal engine for over 15 years.

I think the point was that Unreal updated its EULA recently. Before that it arguable did not contain the aspects mentioned by the OP. That's the reason why it makes some people suspicious, I think. As for the rest of your comment, I can agree with that.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@loafofgame said:

@toast_burner said:

This isn't a recent thing. Epic have been licencing out the Unreal engine for over 15 years.

I think the point was that Unreal updated its EULA recently. Before that it arguable did not contain the aspects mentioned by the OP. That's the reason why it makes some people suspicious, I think. As for the rest of your comment, I can agree with that.

I was addressing his claim that they are moving from physical to digital. Which makes no sense as video games are by definition digital, not physical.

Unreal has been Epics main source of income since the first version of Unreal. Which I assume is what he really meant.

Avatar image for loafofgame
loafofgame

1742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 loafofgame
Member since 2013 • 1742 Posts
@toast_burner said:

I was addressing his claim that they are moving from physical to digital. Which makes no sense as video games are by definition digital, not physical.

Unreal has been Epics main source of income since the first version of Unreal. Which I assume is what he really meant.

My mistake. When I looked at the reply on my phone, I thought you replied to me. Disregard what I said.

Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts

Considering controversy can be about alot of things and in some cases occur after the game is released, I suppose developers should avoid the engine entirely so not to risk their project cancled or copies withdrawn from stores due to pending lawsuit if controversy happens about any aspect of their game?

Avatar image for ribstaylor1
Ribstaylor1

2186

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#23 Ribstaylor1
Member since 2014 • 2186 Posts

Ya that would actually keep me from making a game on their platform. That term is far to broad to be willing to put a whole development cycle and it's financials on the line.

Avatar image for pyro1245
pyro1245

9384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#24 pyro1245
Member since 2003 • 9384 Posts

fine! i'll make my own engine with the stipulation that only controversial games can be made. so suck it.

Avatar image for zenity
Zenity

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By Zenity
Member since 2015 • 36 Posts

Please check the update on Reddit. Tim Sweeney commented to clear up any possible confusion:

We see the UE4 software's role in the industry being what a paintbrushes are to artists. So section 1 provides a license to UE4 for "any lawful purpose". You are free to use the engine for anything that's legal, no matter how offensive we might find it.

However, we see the UE4 trademark differently. That's our brand and reputation there! So, section 11 restricts the use of them, and also mandates certain notices as required by copyright and trademark law. This does not restrict your use of UE4, just the manner in which the trademark is displayed.

Teams who want to use the UE4 logo outside of the required notice -- for example in a splash screen or marketing -- need to ask our permission. We generally grant it for anything that's in line with our brand and reputation, but sometimes say no.

A good example is Hated, a controversial game being developed with UE4. It's built by a very talented team, and we absolutely support their right to freely express their creative vision with our tools. However, we don't agree with their depiction of the subject matter, so, no trademark license.

Any other UE4 EULA questions? Myself and many others at Epic put an enormous amount of effort into the UE4 license agreement, in hopes of being as free and accommodating as practicable.

This is exactly how I understood the license to begin with, and I expected that Epic would be very forthcoming in clearing up any potential doubts.

It's good to be critical and cautious, but let's also not forget the importance of clearing things up with the involved parties before we inadvertently spread FUD.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#26 xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

@zenity said:

Please check the update on Reddit. Tim Sweeney commented to clear up any possible confusion:

We see the UE4 software's role in the industry being what a paintbrushes are to artists. So section 1 provides a license to UE4 for "any lawful purpose". You are free to use the engine for anything that's legal, no matter how offensive we might find it.

However, we see the UE4 trademark differently. That's our brand and reputation there! So, section 11 restricts the use of them, and also mandates certain notices as required by copyright and trademark law. This does not restrict your use of UE4, just the manner in which the trademark is displayed.

Teams who want to use the UE4 logo outside of the required notice -- for example in a splash screen or marketing -- need to ask our permission. We generally grant it for anything that's in line with our brand and reputation, but sometimes say no.

A good example is Hated, a controversial game being developed with UE4. It's built by a very talented team, and we absolutely support their right to freely express their creative vision with our tools. However, we don't agree with their depiction of the subject matter, so, no trademark license.

Any other UE4 EULA questions? Myself and many others at Epic put an enormous amount of effort into the UE4 license agreement, in hopes of being as free and accommodating as practicable.

This is exactly how I understood the license to begin with, and I expected that Epic would be very forthcoming in clearing up any potential doubts.

It's good to be critical and cautious, but let's also not forget the importance of clearing things up with the involved parties before we inadvertently spread FUD.

Thanks for sharing. People are so quick to assume the worst

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#27 Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

If it's just the trademark then it's much ado about nothing. Even if it weren't, it's a free engine now. Beggars can't be choosers and the nature of the free market dictates that you can just go elsewhere if you don't like the terms.

-Byshop

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

69097

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

#28 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 69097 Posts

@Midnightshade29 said:

@loafofgame said:

I think the issue lies is in the fact that the EULA was updated (and the speculation about the reasons), not that the rule is actually in there or that companies have the right to enforce those rules. There's a perceived development. This is an example of what some people fear: the slow but gradual limiting of how certain products are to be be used and created, forced on companies by the media. First it's this engine, but more engines might follow. First it's a rather broad rule, but soon it might include 'no racism, no sexism, no scantily clad women'. First it will just pertain to the rules of an engine, but it might end up in the laws of a country.

There's dedication here. Dedication to prove a point and one point only. Why are we all indifferent about what appears to be so blatantly obvious: through negative and biased coverage the media are slowly forcing companies to limit artistic expression.

*shrugs*

This.... so this!! its sure is a slippery slope.

It textbook perfect of slippery slope. :P