Hello GameDev!

I am a student and I have a 3 year student license for Maya. This is a non-commercial license.

Once my current contract (At a very large game company) runs out and when I've finished graduation. I will be starting to work on a game.

My question is:

Can I create the game using my Student Software and once I am ready to release the game, I can swap over to a full licensed version?

Or can't I use Student-Version assets for commercial use even in a full licensed version of Maya?

In short. I haven't finished my education yet and money is incredibly tight. Having monthly subscriptions living on my savings won't work. I would like to create a game within my planned timeline which is 1,5 to 2 years.

I have tried on AutoDesk Forums, read up and down whether it's possible - so far. No clear answer, and I would prefer being on the right side of the law, as it even if a game would sell sucessfully it would not matter in case you get a lawsuit from AutoDesk.

I am not very keen on using free 3D software, as I only have experience using Max and Maya. Especially not as I have 3 years student license with them. The question is, whether I can use them or not, until money starts coming in.

I'll buy Zbrush ($795) and UD4 will be the engine.

Any help, tips advise or experiences are very appreciated :)

(I am in full understanding of the concerns with students going indie on Day 1. I have good of experience as Production Manager, as well as have worked on 2 indie games before - 1 release, as well as a commercial AAA title at a major games company. )

Their subscription models are probably there to be affordable to startups and similar. Having packages targeted at smaller companies or even individuals available as subscriptions means you should be using one for all the art you create.

While I find it extremely unlikely that they would in fact sue you if you buy a license before any releases, it would be a formal breakage of the agreement. I'd also argue that you would be playing in the darker areas of the moral gray zone in this case,

Their subscription models are probably there to be affordable to startups and similar. Having packages targeted at smaller companies or even individuals available as subscriptions means you should be using one for all the art you create.

While I find it extremely unlikely that they would in fact sue you if you buy a license before any releases, it would be a formal breakage of the agreement. I'd also argue that you would be playing in the darker areas of the moral gray zone in this case,

A problem with game making is, there is a risk your game will never see the light of the day, or maybe it won't end up being released without a publisher (In case Greenlight is being removed) Paying for 2 years of subscription, and it ends up without a release a massive amount of money to pay, especially as I already have the student version.

I would stay on the side of what is legal of course, what is in my doubts though is, it has not been very well defined when something is commercial and when a product isn't. Would a game still be commercial, if it has not been released yet? Questions like this, is what I would like to find out, before I jump into the 3D Production of the game.

Ideally I would like to hear Autodesk about this matter, however so far I have no been able to get a clear answer.

Edit: I contacted Autodesk and I got a very quick and accurate reply:

"We advise against it as some assets may be marked as created on a student version and can generate conflict with the commercial version. It may mark your whole commercial project as a student project." ^CAM

So! Taking the risk making assets on a student version is going to conflict the project even in case you have a full version. Good to know. I'm glad I found out before I started. Time to go back to planning my economy! I hope this reply will also be useful to others :)

If you outsource something which is for profit, you should make sure they have commercial licenses. Otherwise, as I understand in case they make something on a student version and Autodesk finds out, your entire project could be marked as a student-project.

have no idea how strict Autodesk is regarding this, however my experience is, always be on the right side of the law so you can fall asleep every night. Whether Autodesk is taking action against this or not, I would still suggest sticking to their license rules.

When I get other artists on board my team, I will make absolutely sure they have full licensed softwares, and legal softwares. I would make sure by contract, in case I would get in a lawsuits, the artist is the one to blame if there has been incorrect use of his or her own software.

If your team members cannot afford it, you can always suggest blender or other free softwares which allow commercial use.

Overall I am very surprised it has been this hard finding information on this: this could be good information to all students so they won't be working on assets which later on could prove to be illegal to use for commercial use.

For now, I am thinking of signing up for an annual subscription for Maya LT. It seems like a good starting choice, it is about $250 a year.

I am not sure if it is common practise to ask. I have always done mostly 2D work, and my 3D work has always been for studying or personal use until now.
Personally, I would ask. To avoid any future legal issues.

The software publishers play games with the law, and try to have "licenses" trump copyrights. It's a sad distortion, but because they typically lawyer up more heavily, they sometimes get judges to buy it. But looking at copyright basics, they have very specific and limited exclusive rights. Among them is the right to reproduce the work into a copy and distribute that copy. So if the copy -- whether "student" or "commercial" -- is an authorized one, that's pretty much the limit. There is no exclusive right to perform the work privately -- just like reading a book or listening to a CD, the copyright owner cannot dictate who can privately "perform" (run, or execute) a computer program. The Copyright Act gives the copyright owner no right at all to dictate what you can do with what you create using their program, any more than an architect can specify who can enter a building you build using the architect's copyrighted blueprints. If the architect created "student" blueprints to build a high school, and you follow the blueprints to build a commercial building instead, that's fine. I suspect that AutoDesk knows that all too well, and therefore it resorts to technical monkey wrenches (either real or threatened) to "advise against it" and inject the specter of technical difficulties or the embarrassment that your professional work might be branded as a student project if you don't heed the advice.

The software publishers play games with the law, and try to have "licenses" trump copyrights.

It is not as bad as all that.

By default copyright applies.

By default you have no right to use the software. It isn't yours. You then legally obtain a copy under laws of the Uniform Commercial Code or similar law outside the US.

You can also obtain rights to the software through other agreements including public licenses like the GPL, Apache License, BSD License, etc. These specify how you can use the software, typically granting permissions beyond copyright.

Then you install the software. For commercial software it often involves an EULA, which is a contract of adhesion. That type of boiler-plate "take it or leave it" contract is generally enforced in the consumer's favor. In the US there are several protections for that. There general (non-binding) guidance currently is that "Where the other party has reason to believe that the party manifesting such assent would not do so if he knew that the writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the agreement."

So far in the US there have been few significant challenges on EULAs, the ones I know of all involved resale before using the product or trying to avoid clicking the "I agree" button.

Most contract interpretation is done under the guide of "reasonable expectations". In this case, the intent is clear and the expectations are easily understood: Academic versions are for academic use only, not for building commercial products.

You can argue the gray area between your product still being an academic exercise rather than a commercial venture if you really want, but it doesn't really help. Your intent is clear, as are the agreements. At the start you are a student and it is a student project. At the end you have a commercial project ready for commercial sale. Somewhere along the path it transitions from being one to being the other, and at that point you need the commercial license.