Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I generally agree that when people ask how to tell if something is a copy, it's a not-very-sneaky way of saying "How do I copy it?" Poop on that.
Having said that, and not being a lawyer like everyone has to say these days because of lawyers... I don't think it makes sense that DAZ is even allowed to have dominion over a "mesh" or "topology." There's no such thing as a work that is not derivative in some way. Everyone check that all their reference images are Creative Commons license? It seems to me that it's pretty similar to pharmaceutical companies "patenting" natural substances by sticking an extra molecule on the end.
Granted, it's not likely someone would create an original human mesh that was practically G9, but one could manually retopologize the G9 figure, have a completely independent mesh, put a lot of honest work into it, and DAZ still thinks it's derivative? At what point does it become independent?
I'm glad Blender's default cube is not proprietary.
The only reason to retopologise would be because the person doing it wanted the shape or soem aspect of the mesh, all of which are daz' work - so why wouldn't they claim, and have a right to claim, ownership. Makea new human mesh, shaped independently, and it is yours, use another's shape or mesh to save time or to gie a desired result and it is not just yours and you cannot expect to treat it as if it is.
Totally agree, but my point is, in principle, it's not always that clear cut. That's why the cube example. Blender made the cube for me, and if I make a model of a 6-sided die, I saved time by using Blender's default cube. Can they then copyright claim me because I saved time? I know I'm giving a ridiculous example, but somewhere in between one has to ask--why is one ok and not the other?
Anyway, I know that's being obtuse, but I wonder how it can be clear-cut ok to say "this is mine," that's all.
Putting all that aside, in spirit, I agree. We can purchase an asset from a PA, we can pay what they charge, and we can use it in a game if we pay the interactive license--all fine. But, if we want to sell anything and "save time" by not using the DAZ mesh as a reference image to make our own--which benefits nobody--the only way to do it is become a PA ourselves, right? Personally, I'd be fine paying a (reasonable) royalty to DAZ and/or the PA if I could make characters and sell them outside the DAZ store. Do correct me if I'm mistaken on that, but my understanding is this is only possible within the DAZ store & becoming a PA (a headache in itself) and it's gate-keeping, as well as preventing neat products.
Example being, let's say I want to make a game-ready rigged character to sell to game developers that can have animations retargeted to it. Maybe my talent is rigging and not modeling, but products that have quality in both are needed by game devs. DAZ Studio is not the software to do this, but I can't sell that asset based on the DAZ mesh even if I were willing to cut DAZ in, unless I'm a PA and sell only through the DAZ store. I just think that's silly because both DAZ and the creators would benefit.
I will confess... I can't resist replying. I once had to make a website for a university; I made sure that every image, every font, every bit of code was properly licensed and given proper attribution. I became peeved that one of my graphics that I did the research for, created the graphics for, and use in the website was used by someone else. It might be just me but there is a difference between asking me for something and making a "five-finger discount". I have enough friends who are artists who will tell you that both the idea and the creation are both part of the value of an asset. If the Blender cube is valueless, then why not make your own. You can use the Blender cube because Blender grants you the right to use the cube which is entirely something that they have complete right to do. You don't even get to decide if it benefits Blender; Blender is the only one who can decide that. You can make modifications/morphs of characters but they must reference the Daz product i.e. you can't make a counterfeit. This is the rule pretty much everywhere from selling commercial products to grading student projects.
Not only did nobody involved in Blender invent the cube as a shape, but nobody even sculpted the cube you get to use; it's just basic math. A 3D cube is called a "primitive" for a reason, and primitives have inherent variability. You can change the dimensions or number of divisions per axis without requiring somebody else's labor. By contrast, a Daz figure (or similar) is a unique human shape that was built from nothing by others, with a custom topology, UV map and rigging. Whatever modifications you make to a Daz figure, you are building off a considerable amount of someone else's labor.
I could see asking that 10 years ago because EULAs and written law are so concise, clear, and succinct, but there are now sufficient CC0 Blender based realistic 3D models to use instead, so consider those.
I'm sure that Blender, like other 3D tools, has terms in the license allowing use of things like primitives (and also covering what can or cannot be done with other bundled content, if any)
Nothing in the licensing terms blocks the use of conversion tools or importers to get the content into other applications, or use it with other figures. It's just that the user has to use the tools, or do the manual work, for themselves - they can't buy it pre-done.
...which is the point. Why can't someone do work like that and resell it? The point of this thread seemed to be asking that, and I totally understand why we can't just do it for free, but why can't we do it if we are willing to pay DAZ and any PA in question a royalty, for example? I don't even think that would need to be outside the DAZ Store if they would put sections for say Blender, Maya & 3D Studio Max. But all the assets are DAZ Studio assets, aren't they? DAZ Studio doesn't have the capability to do the work being suggested, and they already go so far as to create bridges to these other programs (that are a mess, but that's another story), so why not have something like "Merchant License" just like they have for games via the Interactive License? The result would be they'd cast a wider net, and more developers would have access to assets they could actually use in a game. I don't see any practical reason why someone can't purchase this work just because it's done on a DAZ character, other than that DAZ refuses to provide a stream for it. There could even be a PTA category - Published Technical Artist, for example.
I mean, I doubt anyone on the forums has direct say over this, so don't mean to make it such a rant :-P, but I don't think this is just self-serving. The current guard-the-treasure structure seems short-sighted. As was pointed out by others, assets already get sold illegally, and people that abide by the licenses are "rewarded" by having to do way more work or spend way more money to create their products. We've got examples too. Take Steam, which made purchasing games without physical disks a good experience, and now it's a money-printing machine. John Carmack made the Quake II engine open source, and decades later there are still huge impacts and industry "fuel" that would not have otherwise existed. I think DAZ would benefit too if they encouraged these good experiences in their area, instead of clawing for a competitive edge.
Sell a merchant license to one person and then not to others, or sell directly to the others - it's a tricky trade off, but given the extreme difficulty of enforcing such an agreement I think it is unsurrpising that it doesn't exist.
I once had an article I wrote on my website that somebody copied and pasted on their website, complete with my copyright notice which had my stage name in it. I kind of liked that. I wasn't in it for the money though.
Since it was my job to create original images that would be vetted by the researchers and would be used in multiple types of media; i was less than thrilled. In a university setting, plagarism is viewed as being not very nice.