| "Merchant resource" is just this thing Renderosity merchants tag certain items as with the idea that savvy Renderosity users will realize that they're in the free-and-clear to use it whichever which way without having to worry about testing the terms of the Renderosity license. I don't know that a court would consider it highly relevant whether it is one or not, when ultimately what might matter is the license under which the Manhattan texture package was sold (if it was indeed sold to Minnu, and if she used it according to her understanding of the licensing terms).
We keep coming back to the idea that what should matter legally is not what the license says, but what the Renderosity merchants believe it to mean. That's not how contract issues are hashed out in court, however. If Minnu were to rest her case on being legally allowed to do as she did based on a legal, licensed purchase, the court would definitely be focusing on whether it's a derivative work, whether original materials can be extracted, and perhaps on whether it's being used for rendering.
Personally, if I had bought it and used it that way because I thought the license allowed for it, and then the seller came at me claiming that no, that's no the case, well ... avoiding going to court is, all around, a good idea. I'd probably try for an amicable settlement -- an additional license, say, with royalties attached, to last a period of time at the end of which the skin would be retired from sale and hopefully I'd have a Gen 5 ready by then to take its place.
But that's me. I wouldn't even have gotten into the situation in the first place, of course, as I would mail the seller and ask them to clarify what they intend when they say "renders" (like, would rendering low-res models in real time be allowed) and "derivative works". I'd just prefer to clear up any vagueness so that a purchase doesn't come back to bite me on the ass. |