Asset Store Policy Updates

Representing 3rd party component licensing within your asset

When representing 3rd party components (Such as fonts or open source components) within your package we ask that you follow the new guidelines below to ensure that users understand the licensing for all aspects of your package.

1. Rename all files with the name 'license' with names that refer to the component it corresponds with (such as 'FontLicense.txt'), and be sure to group these licenses within the same folders as the components it corresponds with


  1. You must create a notice file within your package (Ideally in the top folder of the package for visibility) that provides a legal explanation of the use of the components within your package. Using a .txt file is ideal

For example:

Asset is governed by the Asset Store EULA; however, the following components are governed by the licenses indicated below:

  1. [name of component]

[name of license; e.g., “MIT”, “MIT/X11”, “Apache 2.0”]

[license and copyright/accreditation details—determined by relevant license]

  1. [name of component]

[name of license; e.g., “MIT”, “MIT/X11”, “Apache 2.0”]

[license and copyright/accreditation details—determined by relevant license]



  1. You must post a notice within the asset description on the Asset Store that states the fact that your asset uses third-party software. That text should be something like "Asset uses [name of component] under [name of license]; see Third-Party Notices.txt file in package for details".

Misuse of Unity’s trademark and branding will be enforced
Unity Branding Guidelines state that we cannot allow the Unity logo in your package. Unless you directly partnered with Unity and a Unity employee was involved in the creation, marketing, and submission of this asset, we ask that you remove the Unity logo or other branding from your package or marketing imagery. These guidelines include publisher images as well.

New expectations of publisher’s personal website and portfolio
We ask that you update your website to reflect your recent skills and experience within the past 6 months with at least three examples of recent works. Keeping your website up to date is essential to communicate your skills and show your end users and us that you are maintaining your professional appearance.


Was this article helpful?
2 out of 4 found this helpful
Have more questions? Submit a request


  • 4
    Richard Meredith


    I'm pretty confused about what the expectations of the Publisher's personal website and portfolio is all about?

    As someone working in video games, I work on projects that are 1-3 *years* in length. Asking me to have 3 examples of recent works in the last 6 months feels unreasonable. Not to mention the fact that I frequently have periods longer than 6 months when I am unable to post recent works for contractual reasons.

    Moreover, I'm selling one single asset package on the store with a very specific usage case. So unless I happen to be updating my website with skills directly related to that asset, those updates won't be of any use to anyone, surely?

    I appreciate that updated website / portfolio can help people decide whether to buy my asset, but that is between me and them. Quantifying it in this way feels extremely arbitrary.

    Please revise and update this clause, or preferably just remove it entirely.


    Edited by Richard Meredith
  • 0
    Matthias Stützer


    I have to agree with Richard. This might be feasable for publishers who focuse solely on graphical or audio assets as their main business model. What about publishers who work on actual games or tools? Do you expect them to pump out random tools just to satisfy this clause?

    Please revise.

  • -1
    Vlado Žabjačan

    I appreciate that updated website / portfolio can help people decide whether to buy my asset, but that is between me and them. Quantifying it in this way feels extremely arbitrary.

    Please revise and update this clause, or preferably just remove it entirely.

    ...They should remove wtf!?

  • 0
    Jake Dube

    I mostly agree with the other commenters. The website should look decent and should change every year at least, but requiring it to have 3 new works every 6 months seems unreasonable for individual developers. However, it also depends on what is meant by "works," because, well, you get the point. I think this needs a lot more clarification.

    Edited by Jake Dube
  • 2


    I feel that the publisher website requirement is out of place, meaning that Unity has no business in deciding what is or isn't a professional appearance nor what goes or doesn't go in our own personal websites. While it does indeed help to be professional and to give a good impression to customers, that is entirely between our customers and us and we are the only ones who should decide what is professional enough outside of the store.

    In the asset store, you are totally free to decide which kind of products look professional enough and which ones don't, but you do not have the right to decide how I should present my PERSONAL website and portfolio to the customers outside of the store, since I am a publisher using your platform to distribute my assets, not a Unity employee.

    My personal portfolio, how professional it looks and the impression I give to my own customers is my responsibility. My work, support and attention should speak for itself and for my professionalism and once again, I feel it is highly inappropriate from Unity to make any requests that will impact our personal websites and businesses OUTSIDE of this platform.

    Your rights to make demands over our work, its quality and presentation finish outside of the Asset Store platform, and even if we can comply with these requests it is not your place nor your right to make them. We, as asset publishers, are not your employees. We are your providers and pay a revenue share to use your distribution platform, and provide assets for the Unity users. That is the nature of our relationship and it is very important that both parts respect it. This is out of place, and I really expect you to reconsider it.

  • 1
    Jason Peterson

    Yea. I have to strongly object to the website thing. That's ridiculous! For reasons stated above by other posters, and also the fact that not everyone can approach selling on the asset store the same way. I consider myself a hobbiest, but found inspiration for a couple assets I thought people might find useful, and enjoy the small extra income from their sales. I don't have the time or inspiration to regularly make such pointless updates to my website.

    I'd like to say that I can understand keeping a website up to date, as in not looking like some 1999 geocites nightmare. But even then, that should be on the Publisher. If they are fine with possibly losing sales due to more picky customers checking the quality of their website and jumping to conclusions, that's their choice.

    Really, a website shouldn't even be in the conversation at all. Publishers assets should be judged on the assets themselves, and the quality of the way they present them via screenshots, videos, and web demos. If a buyer chooses to personally evaluate the publishers website as some sort of extension of that, while I personally find that to be misguided and dumb, that should be their choice. An extra, or exception. Not part of the rules.


    Wow. A policy so well received, that they had to lock down civil comments to silence people who want to exercise their right to speak up against changes they are against. Our one tool to see this BS change repealed, taken away.

    Anyway. I came back to this to re-read the policy so I can attempt to make one update to my site with a minimum amount of effort, so as not to be slapped by this BS policy. And OMG! It's 3x worse then I originally thought! It's not just posting one pointless update every 6 months, it's posting at least 1 pointless update ever 6 months with 3 pointless examples of work you have been doing in that time!

    Please Unity, repeal and change this stupid policy asap, and let us know with another news letter!

    Unless the website hosts objectionable content, you have no right to police the content of our websites in any way.

    Edited by Jason Peterson
Article is closed for comments.