Subscription model for access to Creator Asset Libraries
As a creator I would like the ability to create one or more libraries of assets that can be subscribed to by other users.
Users who subscribe (and the creator) would be able to access the library in create mode and be able to freely use the assets as desired. Subscribers would be able to access any new assets the creator adds to the library.
Ideally the subscription would be a low monthly amount (in my mind 1-5 USD/month).
I think part of the problem of buying/selling assets is that once a user has been given access to an asset they can pretty much do whatever they want with it. If I sell an asset for $1 USD, the purchaser is able to share that around as much as they want.
While this is still possible for users to copy assets with a subscription model, what subscribers are actually paying for is the convenience of access to the pack in create mode and receiving the new assets automatically.
While I think that creators should be able to remove assets from the libraries, subscribers should receive an indication that the asset is being removed and not lose access to the asset until their next subscription renewal date.
With enough subscriptions a creator would be able to comfortably support themselves by creating a few assets a month without breaking their backs trying to create dozens, if not hundreds, of assets a month that are in the wind as soon as they are sold.
The biggest challenge to the implementation of this model is preventing users from selling subscriptions to assets they did not create. There would need to be avenues for users to shut down bad actors who are selling assets as their own. I'm sure there are technical ways to prevent this from occurring as well but I know if someone is persistent enough they'll figure out a way to bypass the system.
Overall I see this as walking hand in hand with commissioned work. I am likely to charge less for a commissioned asset if I know I can add it a library for subscriber use. Conversely, it gives me leverage to negotiate for my time and effort if a client wants to commission an asset that is not for public use.
+monthly income for creators
+affordable price point for subscribers
+higher accessibility to high quality assets
+curated asset libraries
+decreases creator time investment
+prevents rapid market over-saturation
+encourages creators to make higher quality assets
+diversifies monetization options
+easier to establish blanket guidelines for fair use
-Assets in subscriptions can still be distributed outside of the subscription
-Initial creator income would be low until they build a large subscriber count.
-Would need to overcome the challenge of preventing other users selling assets they didn't create
-Creates overhead of managing fair use complaints
Aliena Elias commented
I think a good fix is to allow creators to lock the assets they want to sell. so it's grouped, locked, and can't be re-sold or distributed (say you put the item in a world and add a collaborator that didn't buy the item, that collaborator would not get the item if they made their own copy of the world.)
because I'd spend $5 for one item OTB before I spend $5 for a month of access, some people just dislike subs THAT much
BUT I think both options should be possible, but I feel that locking items is a must. I'd be upset if someone took my items (months of my time) and re-sold them and made more money just because they had a better platform/internet presents