Revit commercial vs educational Family

[Anonymous]

Has anything changed since 2012 post?

I am now about to buy a commercial version and in the past I have created some Revit Families in educational one - can I still use them? Or share them? Or sell them? Or is is against EULA rules?

[Anonymous]

Has anything changed since 2012 post?

I am now about to buy a commercial version and in the past I have created some Revit Families in educational one - can I still use them? Or share them? Or sell them? Or is is against EULA rules?

[ennujozlagam]

Hello, its up you to decide. No restriction at all its your own created families. Thanks

[ennujozlagam]

Hello, its up you to decide. No restriction at all its your own created families. Thanks

[RDAOU]

@Anonymous

The EULA has not changed it is still the same terms... Student/Educators are not entitled to sell designs produced on an educational copy (soft/hard copy); Projects printed out from the educational version itself your sheets will be stamped (since this version is not meant for commercial use but rather as educational non-profit only) 

However; technically speaking if you load those files families into a commercial copy; the electronic stamp will not carry over (it never did)...ie: you may re-use them, print them as you wish; you may even sell them (as long as the output has been generated from a legitimate commercial copy)

Such case would be more like your intellectual rights...As per the EULA there are no statements which obliges the user to waiver intellectual rights of design/idea/concepts realized using the educational version...and it does not prevent user someone from selling his own design/idea itself to a 3rd party as long as that 3rd party reproduce that idea on a commercial license... In your case you are both parties and reproducing on the commercial version the idea you started off with on the Educational version is 100% legitimate

SIMILAR CASE DATED 2010 (on the Edu Stamp from educational to commercial)

[RDAOU]

@Anonymous

The EULA has not changed it is still the same terms... Student/Educators are not entitled to sell designs produced on an educational copy (soft/hard copy); Projects printed out from the educational version itself your sheets will be stamped (since this version is not meant for commercial use but rather as educational non-profit only) 

However; technically speaking if you load those files families into a commercial copy; the electronic stamp will not carry over (it never did)...ie: you may re-use them, print them as you wish; you may even sell them (as long as the output has been generated from a legitimate commercial copy)

Such case would be more like your intellectual rights...As per the EULA there are no statements which obliges the user to waiver intellectual rights of design/idea/concepts realized using the educational version...and it does not prevent user someone from selling his own design/idea itself to a 3rd party as long as that 3rd party reproduce that idea on a commercial license... In your case you are both parties and reproducing on the commercial version the idea you started off with on the Educational version is 100% legitimate

SIMILAR CASE DATED 2010 (on the Edu Stamp from educational to commercial)

[Anonymous]

Revit 2016 educational doesn't print stamps anymore, I believe this started from 2015 for Revit.

It likely came into effect around the same time as AutoCAD, with SP1 back in 2014. 

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Educat...

[Anonymous]

Revit 2016 educational doesn't print stamps anymore, I believe this started from 2015 for Revit.

It likely came into effect around the same time as AutoCAD, with SP1 back in 2014. 

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Educat...

[dgorsman]

Just because there isn't a stamp doesn't reduce the EDU licensing terms.  Its still a matter of ethics: if the EDU license is intended solely for educational purposes then using that content for commercial or resale purposes is not proper REGARDLESS of whether there is any kind of marker or process to be found out.

[dgorsman]

Just because there isn't a stamp doesn't reduce the EDU licensing terms.  Its still a matter of ethics: if the EDU license is intended solely for educational purposes then using that content for commercial or resale purposes is not proper REGARDLESS of whether there is any kind of marker or process to be found out.

[RDAOU]

@dgorsman

Ethics has no relevance on this matter ... It is 100% legitimate to use one's own work and ideas which was produced on an educational copy.

If you consider starting from scratch later on the commercial license more ethical than using one's own work  is your own personal opinion. Neither the EULA prevent or forbid that nor any law which I have heard of. As long as it reproduced and issued from a commercial licensed copy it is 100% legal and 100% ethical.

[RDAOU]

@dgorsman

Ethics has no relevance on this matter ... It is 100% legitimate to use one's own work and ideas which was produced on an educational copy.

If you consider starting from scratch later on the commercial license more ethical than using one's own work  is your own personal opinion. Neither the EULA prevent or forbid that nor any law which I have heard of. As long as it reproduced and issued from a commercial licensed copy it is 100% legal and 100% ethical.

[dgorsman]

Ethics is *always* relevant.  As a more practical example somebody could make use of a student lab, or host of dummy educational IDs, to create a host of content for later use in commercial applications at little-to-no cost.  Currently that cannot be traced (that we know of).  The lack of a watermark/flag/etc. doesn't make it OK to do.

You are correct in that if content is build with a commercial license then its within the EULA if EDU content is used indirectly as a go-by.  But if content is created from content generated an EDU version by importing that is not building it with a commercial license and not within the EULA.

[dgorsman]

Ethics is *always* relevant.  As a more practical example somebody could make use of a student lab, or host of dummy educational IDs, to create a host of content for later use in commercial applications at little-to-no cost.  Currently that cannot be traced (that we know of).  The lack of a watermark/flag/etc. doesn't make it OK to do.

You are correct in that if content is build with a commercial license then its within the EULA if EDU content is used indirectly as a go-by.  But if content is created from content generated an EDU version by importing that is not building it with a commercial license and not within the EULA.

[RDAOU]

@dgorsman

Again your argument is irrelevant ... The act you described falls under fraud and theft of identity. It has nothing to do with ETHICS. Legally speaking one is not entitled to download and use the Educational License unless one is registered as a student/educator.

And the Water Mark which you've been emphasising on has neither legal value nor any relation to ethics and it was removed by Autodesk most probably because it is useless (legally) and for the convenience.of users when the terms apply. 

ETHICS...A student who decided after graduation (or even during) to take his ideas/concepts or what so ever which he designed when he WAS a student further ... He PURCHASES a commercial license (case of this OP) in order to continue to use the product legally. THAT IS ETHICS...What would have been unethical is if he continues to use the educational copy for commercial purposes (irrespective of it's legal implications)

Throwing everything down the drain to start from scratch...That is not defined as an Ethical act that is more like Stupidity

[RDAOU]

@dgorsman

Again your argument is irrelevant ... The act you described falls under fraud and theft of identity. It has nothing to do with ETHICS. Legally speaking one is not entitled to download and use the Educational License unless one is registered as a student/educator.

And the Water Mark which you've been emphasising on has neither legal value nor any relation to ethics and it was removed by Autodesk most probably because it is useless (legally) and for the convenience.of users when the terms apply. 

ETHICS...A student who decided after graduation (or even during) to take his ideas/concepts or what so ever which he designed when he WAS a student further ... He PURCHASES a commercial license (case of this OP) in order to continue to use the product legally. THAT IS ETHICS...What would have been unethical is if he continues to use the educational copy for commercial purposes (irrespective of it's legal implications)

Throwing everything down the drain to start from scratch...That is not defined as an Ethical act that is more like Stupidity

[loboarch]

---

@dgorsman wrote:

Just because there isn't a stamp doesn't reduce the EDU licensing terms.  Its still a matter of ethics: if the EDU license is intended solely for educational purposes then using that content for commercial or resale purposes is not proper REGARDLESS of whether there is any kind of marker or process to be found out.

---

This is correct. I had a case a number of years ago which a person who had used AutoCAD EDU license to create a number of blocks. She wanted to use these blocks as she transitioned to a professional license. This was at the time the EDU stamp would premeate through anything it touched. She was very angry she could not use this work. I checked with managers etc and was told she was out of luck the stamp was not to be removed, the EDU license prevented her for re-using this work in a commercial way.

So even though there is not an EDU stamp in Revit and a family or project COULD be used in a commmercial project without ill effects, I believe it is technically against the educational licensing agreement to reuse/repurpose this work (although I am not a lawyer so i don't know for sure). So it is an ethical decision for a person to respect the licensing agreement or not.

[loboarch]

---

@dgorsman wrote:

Just because there isn't a stamp doesn't reduce the EDU licensing terms.  Its still a matter of ethics: if the EDU license is intended solely for educational purposes then using that content for commercial or resale purposes is not proper REGARDLESS of whether there is any kind of marker or process to be found out.

---

This is correct. I had a case a number of years ago which a person who had used AutoCAD EDU license to create a number of blocks. She wanted to use these blocks as she transitioned to a professional license. This was at the time the EDU stamp would premeate through anything it touched. She was very angry she could not use this work. I checked with managers etc and was told she was out of luck the stamp was not to be removed, the EDU license prevented her for re-using this work in a commercial way.

So even though there is not an EDU stamp in Revit and a family or project COULD be used in a commmercial project without ill effects, I believe it is technically against the educational licensing agreement to reuse/repurpose this work (although I am not a lawyer so i don't know for sure). So it is an ethical decision for a person to respect the licensing agreement or not.

[RDAOU]

@loboarch

Does your statement above imply that Autodesk owns all intelectual rights to any work carried out on an Educational version of it's products. (Most probably you would answer NO as it would hold both you and Autodesk Liable)

The EULA clearly states that the use of the educational license for commercial and/or profit generating activities is not allowed. However; one using his own work later on a commercial license/subscription does not fit into that category. Since this has caught the attention of an Autodesk Employee...and since you people (in general) represent Autodesk; can you please clarify

1. Where precisely in the End User License Agreement is it stated that it is against the agreement to reuse one's own work (previously created on an Educational License) on a later commercial license (a paragraph/clause would be highly appreciated)
2. How is it a breach of the EULA when a student later reuse/repurpose his own previous work using a commercial license
3. If it is the case; why would Autodesk remove the emmaculate stamp from Autocad (as of 2015 and on)

It does not need a lawyer...it only needs a clear statement from Autodesk OR one of it's employees...

I think 1000s of students and educators would love to hear a reply to the above. (Noting that even Autodesk's legal departement has never answered to such questions)

Thanks

[RDAOU]

@loboarch

Does your statement above imply that Autodesk owns all intelectual rights to any work carried out on an Educational version of it's products. (Most probably you would answer NO as it would hold both you and Autodesk Liable)

The EULA clearly states that the use of the educational license for commercial and/or profit generating activities is not allowed. However; one using his own work later on a commercial license/subscription does not fit into that category. Since this has caught the attention of an Autodesk Employee...and since you people (in general) represent Autodesk; can you please clarify

1. Where precisely in the End User License Agreement is it stated that it is against the agreement to reuse one's own work (previously created on an Educational License) on a later commercial license (a paragraph/clause would be highly appreciated)
2. How is it a breach of the EULA when a student later reuse/repurpose his own previous work using a commercial license
3. If it is the case; why would Autodesk remove the emmaculate stamp from Autocad (as of 2015 and on)

It does not need a lawyer...it only needs a clear statement from Autodesk OR one of it's employees...

I think 1000s of students and educators would love to hear a reply to the above. (Noting that even Autodesk's legal departement has never answered to such questions)

Thanks

[loboarch]

I am not going to debate the legal points of the student EULA. For that I would suggest consulting legal council.

My post was simply relaying a story of a support case I encountered personally and how it was handled by me and my immediate manager at the time. At that time it was made clear to me work done under the student license was prohibited from being reused/repurposed for commercial work. I did not debate the legal merits of it then and don't intend to do so now.

That at is it. Take what you will from the story and beyond that again, I suggest you seek legal council.

[loboarch]

I am not going to debate the legal points of the student EULA. For that I would suggest consulting legal council.

My post was simply relaying a story of a support case I encountered personally and how it was handled by me and my immediate manager at the time. At that time it was made clear to me work done under the student license was prohibited from being reused/repurposed for commercial work. I did not debate the legal merits of it then and don't intend to do so now.

That at is it. Take what you will from the story and beyond that again, I suggest you seek legal council.

[Anonymous]

@dgorsman

Yes, just to be clear, I wasn't implying no stamp reduced the EDU licencing terms. Simply correcting the previous comment by RDAOU. 

[Anonymous]

@dgorsman

Yes, just to be clear, I wasn't implying no stamp reduced the EDU licencing terms. Simply correcting the previous comment by RDAOU. 

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

.

[RDAOU]

---

@loboarch wrote:

So even though there is not an EDU stamp in Revit and a family or project COULD be used in a commmercial project without ill effects, I believe it is technically against the educational licensing agreement to reuse/repurpose this work (although I am not a lawyer so i don't know for sure). So it is an ethical decision for a person to respect the licensing agreement or not.

---

 @loboarch

Excuse me; but the above is not a story relayed; it is a clear statement and a judgement from an Autodesk Employee saying that the reuse of one's own work later on a commercial license is against the EULA and does have ill effect.

Although you state that you are not a lawyer (not an expert on this matter), you cast the judgement and ruling on the matter and you continue to state that it is an issue of ethics to respect the agreement or not to. Implying that reusing one's own work later on a commercial license is unethical!!! If you are not certain what is in the Agreement and you are uncertain about the legitimacy of the act how can you determine if one is or is not respecting the EULA? I don't think one needs to be a lawyer in order to be liable for what one says; in particular when one says it on behalf of his Employer. 

With all respect to you goodself; but you even advise us to seek legal council? on what exactly? misleading statements or hypothetical analysis? How can a user be assured that Autodesk's reply through it's employees on this forum is a credible source of information when they state something and then declare that they are not eligible and fit to issue such statements the first place because it doesn't fall within the field of his/her expertise! Where is the business Ethics in that? and what kind of support is this?

The question is easy "can a student later develop, re-purpose and reuse his own previous work created/realized on an EDU version (Not the Software itself) using a commercial license?" and the Answer is easy and straight forward YES or NO (not I think and my manager thinks). No one is questioning Autodesk's rights for the software and its contents created by Autodesk but what is in question is the ownership and intelectual rights for what the USER creates.

In the event you are unable to answer such a question as a representative of Autodesk; kindly forward it to Autodesk's legal department and post us the reply when they answer you (many of your colleagues do that - ie: forward the query to the appropriate expert) It is a fairly easy case and there are presidences, so I believe they shouldn't find it hard to reply

PS: a NO is also an acceptable answer as long as it comes from an Autodesk reliable source which one may use later when one seeks legal council... or another Vernor case after which Autodesk will have to re-think again its licensing policy.

Thanks

[RDAOU]

---

@loboarch wrote:

So even though there is not an EDU stamp in Revit and a family or project COULD be used in a commmercial project without ill effects, I believe it is technically against the educational licensing agreement to reuse/repurpose this work (although I am not a lawyer so i don't know for sure). So it is an ethical decision for a person to respect the licensing agreement or not.

---

 @loboarch

Excuse me; but the above is not a story relayed; it is a clear statement and a judgement from an Autodesk Employee saying that the reuse of one's own work later on a commercial license is against the EULA and does have ill effect.

Although you state that you are not a lawyer (not an expert on this matter), you cast the judgement and ruling on the matter and you continue to state that it is an issue of ethics to respect the agreement or not to. Implying that reusing one's own work later on a commercial license is unethical!!! If you are not certain what is in the Agreement and you are uncertain about the legitimacy of the act how can you determine if one is or is not respecting the EULA? I don't think one needs to be a lawyer in order to be liable for what one says; in particular when one says it on behalf of his Employer. 

With all respect to you goodself; but you even advise us to seek legal council? on what exactly? misleading statements or hypothetical analysis? How can a user be assured that Autodesk's reply through it's employees on this forum is a credible source of information when they state something and then declare that they are not eligible and fit to issue such statements the first place because it doesn't fall within the field of his/her expertise! Where is the business Ethics in that? and what kind of support is this?

The question is easy "can a student later develop, re-purpose and reuse his own previous work created/realized on an EDU version (Not the Software itself) using a commercial license?" and the Answer is easy and straight forward YES or NO (not I think and my manager thinks). No one is questioning Autodesk's rights for the software and its contents created by Autodesk but what is in question is the ownership and intelectual rights for what the USER creates.

In the event you are unable to answer such a question as a representative of Autodesk; kindly forward it to Autodesk's legal department and post us the reply when they answer you (many of your colleagues do that - ie: forward the query to the appropriate expert) It is a fairly easy case and there are presidences, so I believe they shouldn't find it hard to reply

PS: a NO is also an acceptable answer as long as it comes from an Autodesk reliable source which one may use later when one seeks legal council... or another Vernor case after which Autodesk will have to re-think again its licensing policy.

Thanks

[RDAOU]

@Anonymous

Sorry you got caught in the middle of the line of fire (figure of speech)

Reference which was made to the stamp was more addressing the convenience since it still applies for the older versions still in use on the market (ie: AutoCAD 2014 SP1 and earlier or Revit 2014 and earlier) Autocad users has no issue with that since the file can be loaded on a 2015 version to remove the stamp then saved again as an earlier version. But those using Revit 2014 or earlier cannot do that.)

The stamp was more related to the Perpetual License Era. It is of no significant value or legal relevance after implementation of Subscriptions

The topic is more related to the legitimacy of the right of owning one's own's work under the EULA

[RDAOU]

@Anonymous

Sorry you got caught in the middle of the line of fire (figure of speech)

Reference which was made to the stamp was more addressing the convenience since it still applies for the older versions still in use on the market (ie: AutoCAD 2014 SP1 and earlier or Revit 2014 and earlier) Autocad users has no issue with that since the file can be loaded on a 2015 version to remove the stamp then saved again as an earlier version. But those using Revit 2014 or earlier cannot do that.)

The stamp was more related to the Perpetual License Era. It is of no significant value or legal relevance after implementation of Subscriptions

The topic is more related to the legitimacy of the right of owning one's own's work under the EULA