My wife and I have been architects since 2013, and back in 2018, it was almost impossible to find high-quality free materials. Polyhaven (formerly Texture Haven) and AmbientCG (CC0Textures) mainly focused on more natural assets. We decided to give it a try, and within just two weeks, we reached 100 patrons. So, ShareTextures is funded by the patrons, and as a result of this support, we continue creating.

We have our website because we want to provide some advantages to our patrons. Additionally, it helps us promote our supporters, partners, etc.

Don't you have a feeling that your actions will break down the market and kills the revenue for those who depend on this kind of income? I mean, you people are architects, not some digital beggars. You should ask a minimal price for it, but should not offer it for free, as others have also pointed it out.

We understand your concern, but we believe in the power of sharing and accessibility. We aim to support the community by offering free materials and 3D models. Our creations are simply tools to aid talented artists in creating their main products.There are unlimited options to create a digital asset. (style, design, year, condition, etc.) We can't create all of them.

Yes, how dare they give out their work for free. The audacity of these people!

Architects get paid for making models, so why is it not fathomable for the poster that they should pay for the textures they use? Or, why do some workers deserve to get paid and others not?

Edit: And reading the reply from the architects, you can almost smell the entitlement.

I don't get it. How is this any different from programmers who create open source software that they release for free?

There is no difference. Programmers keep making open source software for free, and people making money on that software keep acting entitled to it.

What don't you get? DO not work for free, because it kills yout income stream. Open Source is the perfect example. Fuck, and these individuals even have a patreon where a few individuals pay for this. I mean, this is bonkers.

I'm confused. Who do you think is not being paid here?

Here's their argument (which I disagree with, but I believe I understand what it is to the extent where I can explain it):

1. Person A starts creating work W and selling it as a profession

2. Person B also starts creating work W and giving it out for free (with some Patreon income, but that is not the point here)

3. Person A can no longer compete with person B, because free is free. Person A is no longer paid

I also want to add; It's not like selling a physical product. Digital products usually need to be edited to fit your design. Person A still paid because they will always have customers who like their style & creations. We are not creating and sharing "Kitbash or Evermotion" level assets. These works require thousands of work hours and it's impossible to live sharing them free.

Nope, you are killing an income stream for others. That's what you have to understand, but I think you know it, just want to ruin the ecosystem. FOSS has the same issues, and now you are making sure another area heads there.

Could you elaborate on why you think it's appropriate to dictate what others sell their work for, or whether they sell it at all?

If that's the case, I guess my confusion comes from how one can assume this position and in the next breath complain about people acting entitled to others' work?

We, who cheer on the people who give out stuff for free, are "entitled" when we think we "deserve" the free stuff?

I don't know, man.

If someone can create or reproduce the same kind of work that Person A produces, then that work effort (not the work product, the work) holds less value. Person A should do something to add more value.

A similar argument can be had for something that can be made cheaper than a more expensive option. If my company makes a widget that takes 100 people to make over the course of a year, and then someone comes along and finds a way to make it at substantially less cost (not labor costs) via technological improvement, then seems like OP would similarly be against this, which doesn't jive with nearly any definition of capitalism.

Much of open source software is given away free, as in beer. Would you rather that be paid for and possibly also closed source?

Yes, much open-source software is free, enabling more people to use and contribute to it. Paid options might offer extra perks. Personally, I appreciate the accessibility and collaborative spirit of open-source software. It fosters innovation and community involvement, which I value. For example, if you check ArtStation's or Unreal Engine's Learning sections, you will see free tutorials from real experts. This exemplifies the power of the internet.

And makes people vulnerable, since they will have only one option to get more income and that is from a company. Because this will be a race to the bottom. You provide something for free, while you are getting paid by some nefarious entities who pay for your work on patreon. Race to the bottom, because there is now way to compete with you. Either offer better work or offer your time and resources for free in exchange for some exposure.

> while you are getting paid by some nefarious entities who pay for your work on patreon.

Spooky Patreon supporters!

> because there is now way to compete with you

How about YOU offer better work?

This is like "old web" versus "platforms".

Me personally, I like the old web. Websites that people make and put stuff on.

Platforms are generally great... until they aren't. Your own website will be great as long as you want.

I think it's so they can provide a quality web experience curated to facilitate their Patreon goals.

Their work is free, but they likely want to ensure folks know "who" is making all these assets and that they have a Patreon so you can help support their efforts.

That seems fair to me considering the generosity at play here.