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
So, there's a couple of impacts of what's going on.
First, the lack of visibility of the Editorial License is really concerning. We're getting no filter to take them out of store pages. The only indication is a single small area that is reported to not be presented in 100% of circumstances on the product page.
Second, that a series will have one, potentially key, entry sold as Editorial when the rest (1 out of 4-5) are sold as Standard.
I will state the following immediate impact for me: I can't buy anything implied to be a series of items to purchase unless I can be sure that 100% of the entries are Standard License. I can't take a chance of having a series crippled by one item - I refuse to buy Editorial License products because I want to be able to have the option of rendering for pay. I will be scaling back my purchases; I just cancelled my upcoming renewal of DAZ+ (as in, after tomorrow I'm no longer DAZ+), and I deleted some stuff out of my wishlist and may clear the rest out soon. The store had a relatively frictionless process with licensing, and I was hoping that store features would be provided to continue that, but having to open a product page and look into the licensing there rather than being allowed to just filter it out or have it flagged on the store pages significantly increases the friction, meaning this store is now possibly demonstratably worse than any of the competition out there.
Just a customer to customer friendly reminder that if you have cancelled your subscription renewal via your Account pages -- remember to also cancel it over at PayPal {if you paid via PayPal} or they will renew it.
Don't worry about that, I wasn't using PayPal to do so. But thanks for the reminder.
You're welcome, I don't use PayPal for subscriptions either.
In practice, the editorial license restriction on a lot of 3D sites is to cover people who are selling ported models from games and similar stuff that I guarantee they don't have the IP holder's permission to sell; it's a CYA and I'm pretty sure they can be told to take them down anyway, but it's basically signaling, "People are just using these for fanart, let's all be cool." I don't know if Daz thinks we're all dying for a specific type of kitchen mixer or something, but unless they're selling recognizable IP stuff this has vast potential to get messy and zero actual benefit, even to hobbyists. The only reason I can even think of for someone to want props 100% accurate to real products is for archvis, which is commercial use.
With editorial and non-commercial licences, you can't even use generic pieces of "inspired" outfits (pants, shoes, etc) as elements of a kitbash for a commercial project.
And this current fiasco cinches it for me - we have HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES released under an editorial license. Come on - is there a silent majority out there hankering for near-exact replicas of brandname appliances? Some reason that it wouldn't be better to take the inspiration but put a unique spin on it?
Daz not properly communicating the license to buyers is indeed a separate matter, but even putting that aside for a moment, I don't like the way this is going. I see no real benefit for customers or artists.
The Cyber Racer is past the return period for me, but I'll be returning the Apartment Props 2. Not that I currently monetize my renders, but I don't need the extra hassle.
Are these the only Editorial items in the store currently? Maybe we should start a list.
Almost everyone seems to focus on the commercial aspect of this license... but there's also other restrictions that apply, many of which make this worthless for noncommercial use as well. I personally don't have a clue which subjects are fine and which aren't based on that wording... nor do I care, I have no intention of paying for anything that restricts any use beyond what I consider common sense, like no redistribution.
As long as the visibility is done properly both on the product page and outside (throwing something cheap in cart without even opening the product page is not uncommon for me, usually to unlock other discounts, which leads to an even bigger issue), Daz can do whatever they want. But it's always good to remember there are more important things than profit at any cost.
There are currently 2 threads that have lists. Here is the one in the Commons
thanks to these warnings I've returned all the products related to the Retro Apartment including the apartment, both prop sets, and both pose sets as well as the Cyber Racer and Cyber Liveries add on which are all the other products are pointless without the restricted stuff and I have no confidence the other products wont change been there before withothers/other things told no wont happen/changed and then did I'm not very trusting anymore. Also wont effect any deals as I'd bought several other products as well in same orders that would've covered any discounts/deals. And like others I never saw those restrictions either
Please forgive me if this has already been asked or mentioned: is there a way to see what type of license applies to a certain assets in DS, I couldn't find it. Neither could I find it in the ReadMe of Retro Apartment Props 2.
If there isn't, would it be a good idea to add that to DS? Perhaps marking these type assets (with an EL) with a small mark in the content manager. It could prevent legal exposure for Daz customers and potentialy Daz if the information can't be found that easily (not sure about that last part but I would check it out if I was the one responsible for these type of issues at Daz). I can't imagine it would cost much.
I would like to add too even though I was covered in the deals/discounts by buying several other products in same orders as the Retro Apartment products and Cyber Racer I think those that only bought those restricted products to trigger discounts deals should not be penalized and should be fully refunded too and not lose and discount deal
We're all trying to get them to add distinction in different areas to make it easier to tell. Now it's just a waiting game to see if they implement any of them. ATM it seems impossible to know except from the product page. I'm not sure what it shows in DS cause I am working on my PC and don't have it installed atm to be able to look at everything.
....how is it done for "mature" content? Do the same for restricted licence and create a filter that will read that..
I think it should be a separate library DS. Add another one along with the standard, My Library. Needs to be completely separate from commercial content. I don't want to be doing one of my products and accidently put something in my pack that is for Editorial Use Only. I don't even want it in the same library structure. Make it completely impossible to do such. In the store there should be at least an icon under the thumbnail of the product alongside, PC+, DO, G7,8,9 so its marked in some way. On the product page it can be where it currently is but in some sort of stylized box so it sticks out and tells you "Warning: For Editorial Use Only". Those are a few of my suggestions.
...many here simply don't want to pay for something they cannot use in a commission work or even contest, that's why there needs to be a filter. I've already dumped one item off my wishlist and requested a refund for another because of this. Having a filter to remove these items from the store page would also save CS the time and bother processing refunds.
The ultimate responsibility comes down to the end user and as has been mentioned, sometimes the notification does not show up on the product page.
There are more than the kitchen and the car with that license, then? Which ones are you talking about?
A separate library is an interesting idea. But an additional icon under the thumbnail would be too easy to miss. I don't even notice those generally. When DAZ tried the encrypted content there was a small icon in or near the list of download methods and I almost always failed to notice it. I guess the thumbnail could get a vertical, horizontal, or diagonal "banner" across it that said EDITORIAL with solid background behind it so it stands out. Even the wishlist heart icon is sometimes difficult to see depending on some thumbnails. On the product page I really believe it should be right under the price in big bold letters; at least as big as the price. The promo pics, and price are the only thing guaranteed to be looked at when trying to get out before a deal expires. Maybe the description and supported morphs when buying clothing.
As a member of the "didn't grow up with a smartphone, still don't use one and need spectacles to work with the shop page on my PC" generation I can only agree to this. I haven't and won't bother(ed) with those icons, ever...
Way back when Daz started this thread and customers voiced their concerns, I asked why doesn't Daz provide some examples of all the cool stuff they'll now be able to offer that they couldn't before. Of course, they didn't.
Well, now they finally have -- some random kitchen applicances and a stylized car? That's it? Is it really worth all the hassle and problems for that??? What a bizarre business decision.
The $64,000 question: If it end user cannot use them in commercial projects over concerns of legality, then why are the PAs selling them to begin with?
if you look at their blog, NFT section and Twitter you will see 3D meshes that are definitely trademarked
I feel this is somehow related
and I totally don't want to have anything to do with it
I don't think I am the target anyway as have no disposable cash for speculative crypto ventures
This thread is not about crypto-anything.
do you know then what the purpose of the Editorial Licensing is?
So far nobody has answered
just said what it's not for
I wasn't even committing the crime of speculation
just pointing out the existence of stuff that is of an Editorial nature ie trademark 3D meshes on the DAZ site and Twitter
I have no idea if it's related just feel it's possible not speculating it is
My personal decision: I won't buy these. I am now looking at each product with more scrutiny. No mor adding to cart without checking the product page.
Plus, any PA with such an editorial licencse will get a prominent place on my personal blacklist, and not see a single cent from me in the future
A lot of people have answered what Editorial Licence means. It's just not what some want to hear. Why it's being done is a seperate question.
The decision to put an editorial license on a product may not be that of the PA. According to Jack Tomalin DAZ (and not the PA) decided to put an editorial license on the Retro Apartment 2 props. So, why punish the PA?
Not only that, you cant see what type of license something has until you buy it, and even after that, you cant filter what you have already bought. I am going over every item I have bought one by one.
I'm only guessing here, but I believe one of the cool things they can do now is, rather than making an item just disappear from the store when there's a question of Intellectual Property (IP) ownership, DAZ can re-release the item with an Editorial License. Actually reviewing a product for IP violations must be expensive, requiring consultation with specialist legal experts. I don't know that either of the products with Editorial licenses violate any IP, but just checking that can be more expensive than DAZ may be willing to pay. If something looks "too close for comfort" then re-releasing a product with an Editorial license allows it to stay in the store. If vendors become comfortable with this then we may see more pop-culture models show up in the store. I won't buy them if they have an Editorial license. However, I'm not DAZ's only customer in spite of what my credit card says. I'm certain there are lots of fan-fiction artists who'd love more models.
It would help if, for items with an Editorial License, DAZ would identify the IP holder(s) so customers could contact them and try to arrange for commercial use of the product. Although, I suspect that would be beyond the financial means of many of the people here who use the products for commercial art.
The decision still lies in the PA's hands, it's not like Daz will force them to accept their judgment and submit it as an editorial. They can alter the necessary bits to get a standard license, or simply take it somewhere else.