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 just went to that site to check out the Harry Potter figure and noticed that they also make it pretty clear that their products based on existing properties are not to be used for commercial use. Here's what it says on an Ultron suit for G8.
"Certain Digital Assets may be labeled with an “Editorial Use Only” restriction. An “Editorial Use Only” restriction means that your use of the Digital Asset is limited to non-commercial purposes, namely, use of the Digital Asset in a Creation which has some cultural, editorial, journalistic, newsworthy, academic or educational value. You may not use an “Editorial Use Only” Digital Asset in a commercial manner, for example, to advertise or promote a product or service, or use the “Editorial Use Only” Digital Asset in any other way in which you could earn a profit."
I don't think they really should be selling this to begin with as they are not the original owner (Disney would be in this case), but their usage policy is correct. I've never been to this site and I noticed it immediately, so I'm not exactly buying the argument that customers will be too confused to know how they can use their products (as long as DAZ makes any decent attempt to post the rules).
As for why that Harry Potter is $300 when everything else there is $20 or less - I have no clue. (edit, never mind, there's a low-res Homelander for $80 too...maybe different vendors setting their own prices?)
Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Those licensing terms you just posted are pretty clear; if that's what Daz is talking about for here I think it should be simple enough to figure out what's ok and what isn't. And of course a means of filtering out Editorial Content from Regular License Content so those who want or don't want can find it and buy or avoid. I'll probably do a little of both, depending on what's offered and what my budget and immediate use for it is.
Yeah, same here. I would probably buy an accurate Red Sonja or Conan the Barbarian set if one were available for fan art, but like you said, $300 is way out of my league too.
I've noticed the term "visual novels".
Is that paid visual novels (like the ones on *cough*Renderotica*cough*), or ones that anyone can create and post to the likes of deviantart - for free (or both)?
Yes, PAs and Daz would still need to come to terms with the IP's rights owners. Those original IP rights owners could:
1. Receive a royalty for every license (of any sort) sold. It could be a fixed sum (say, $10 or $20 per license) or a percentage of revenue (33%? 50%? 85%? Again, it's a negotiated number.) Given Daz's current pricing approach, where almost every product is deeply discounted at some point, IP owners would be smarter to insist on a fixed sum, preventing the product from ever becoming so cheap that it's almost free.
2. Or the IP owner could insist on their money up front. I'd make the initial fee rather steep.
3. The combination of #1 and #2 (an up-front cost and a royalty on top).
4. The IP owners could say "No way, no how", and reject the idea completely.
Daz appears to be trying to transform what currently exists as a grey market that is, so far, too small for major IP owners to take too much trouble to fight legally, into a legitimate business enterprise. We'll see.
IP owners don't really want fan art. They tolerate it. They'll smile and applaud publicly sometimes but, when the office door closes, it's "Fan art? Let'em use crayons and they can hold it on their fridge with a magnet. We're already glutting the market with our own product and stuff made under larger commercial licenses. Why would we want someone generating a digital image that someone could turn into their own poster, or someone making their own 3D-printed figurine? We already have contracts with toy companies for injection-molded and die-cast figures. And somebody has a 400-render graphic novel which merges the "Star Trek" universe with "My Little Pony"? And 90% of the renders are NSFW? We can't be associated with that."
In the end, the owners of the major IPs for movies/TV/streaming series, comic books, and video games (It's usually the same IP appearing in multiple formats/media) are going to prefer to maximize control of their properties and avoid forms of self-competition. Models and other resources used in Daz Studio (or other apps) might never generate enough revenue to be worth their while.
Then they would have to remove videos from Y/tube, content from Patreon (and other sites like it), the 3D printing sites, p0rn sites, art sites... Is it really worth the time and money? You can't just attack one problem, and leave the rest.
Did anyone hear anything in the news about Vogue magazine?
They tried to sue the owners of a Cornish Pub (UK) because the pub is called "The New Star Inn, Vogue".
Vogue assumed that this was the name of the pub. Except Vogue is a village, and that Village has been around longer than the magazine.
What I'm trying to say is, if Vogue can sue a small pub in a Cornish village (they didn't - the guy who owns the pub got a letter of apology), why didn't Vogue sue Madonna?
If you're going to take it down, take it all down.
Then again, it's free advertising (although, maybe not the p0rn stuff). I know there are games out that I would never have checked out, or played if fan art (and by that, I mean the tame stuff) didn't exist.
I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daycare-center-murals/
Disney will go after you if they feel like it. They don't need free advertising.
Those were reported to them. But how many more day care centers out there have (or had) Disney murals?
As a kid, I went to the funfair (every year) where they had rides caked in Disney characters.
They can't sue everyone.
Then again, no one says about Disney stealing artwork or ideas from other people.
But that's big corps for you. S**t on the little guys.
While it's better to be consistent, individuals and businesses (large and small) do pick and choose which fights are worth fighting. Inconsequential IP rights violations don't require a significant response. If the violations are worth significant money or do significant damage to the IP, then those cases justify some effort, ranging from the angry letter with implied threat up to years of expensive litigation that can bankrupt one of the parties in the dispute. You focus your efforts on the most serious problems, as with almost all human endeavors.
I remember Disney going after a 3d artist that had done a cartoon clown fish. They were saying he was copying Nemo
...some of us have already done so because of the poor product naming in the library/runtime. For older content it was to better organise products o that the material/shaders were with th base product than in some other folder. like Poses (which was a pain to deal with).
Also given how the database for Smart Content tends to break now and then, much better at the outset to create a library/runtime structure of you own that by nature is more intuitive on its own. as long as meshes go into "Data" in the Daz Library (or "Geometry" in the older Poser runtime) and Texture files into the Textures folder you are fine.
Yeah, it's a lot of work at the outset but once there it doesn't break down and need to be fixed and even easier to locate what you need.
....I remember a number of years ago Lockheed/Martin ordered a "DCMA takedown" to a vendor who created a very accurate model of a Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber operated in WWII, because of the use of the aircraft's "mark" B-24.
The store it was offered at responded that use of the name was covered under conditions ot Nominative Fair Use However had the product removed to avoid any legal entanglements.
Martin Marietta had purchased Convair space systems from General Dynamics. Martin later was purchased by Lockheed to form Lockheed/Martin. Convair was an amalgam of Consolidated Vultee aircraft after the two firms merged in 1943. In the acquisition of Convair space systems Lockheed/Martin also acquired the General; Dynamics (formerly Consolidated) Fort Worth plant where the B-24 was built which included all intellectual, property, and legal rights to the products built there, including the B-24.
The aircraft type itself had been retired and decommissioned by the Army Air Force after WWII, though some were operated by other nation's' air forces afterwards. Even though Lockheed owns the plans though the purchase above, another B-24 will never be produced (only one aircraft in the world is in flightworthy condition).
...so it makes me wonder, will this character who I recently purchased (even though he has a different name) end up with a restricted licence?:
He has an "uncanny" resemblance to a certain well known and popular Marvel Comics character and currently can be used for commercial purposes.
Next thing you know, they'll sue Mother Nature for breaking their trademarks/copyrights...
If you think Disney is bad, they ain't got nothing on Nintendo. They actually *hate* their fans, if all the DMCAs and other shenanigans they've been getting up to is any indication. So whatever you do, absolutely under no circumstances make art involving Italian plumbers with very bad accents and 'shroom addictions who keep running about looking for some silly Princess only to find she's in another tower. ;-)
I think many lost the point here.
The main problem isn't the editorial license itself but the fact the products that have that kind of license could mistakenly end among the "normal" ones in our libraries.
They have so many limitations that's almost impossible not to break some rule when using it, it's not just the "non-commercial usage"... This makes absolutely unacceptable to "risk" purchasing that stuff for those who makes a living out of DAZ Studio.
What we really need is a clear, strong separation between the two kind of licenses, preferably a totally different store.
Once we are sure of which license a product got, you can bring whatever you want in that separate store, I will avoid it like the worst plague ever, like all those not interested in that kind of products.
Maybe the next version of Studio could have a dedicated Editorial Content folder so that anything we buy or get free under this licence gets automatically installed there instead of with regular content. And yes, definitely make it a separate, clearly marked part of the store.
I don't think we're missing this point. I just think different Daz users will have differing perspectives on the issue. And the owners of the original IPs will have a different perspective. And Daz and the PAs will have a different perspective.
Yes, one of the problems with restricted-use licenses is that there is no technological prior restraint--Nothing about a restrictive EULA prevents the end user from, intentionally or inadvertently, violating that EULA. Nothing except whatever willpower they have to honor the EULA. The Daz Studio user probably installs the editorial-licensed products to the same file locations as standard-licensed content. The finished renders are in the same image formats regardless of the licenses of the models and resources used, and those renders will be reproduced, uploaded, and downloaded in the same ways.
From the Daz users' perspective, maybe some degree of product segregation in terms of marketing (a special section of the Daz store or a completely different URL and internet address) might help them avoid some products. From the perspective of original IP rights owners, this doesn't matter. Daz/Tafi and the PAs are still benefitting financially from their intellectual property, and the web address used for marketing purposes isn't important.
...I have agreed with many calls earlier in this thread to having a segregated section of the store for non-commercila products (like currently exists for NFTs) to avoid a serious issue that could happen by mistake. I certainly wouldn't want to accidentally purchase, download and use something in an illustration that would get the IP holder's legal department to send me threatening letters.
I have been well aware of the Editorial Use licences for years as I occasionally shop one of the pro stores (they sometimes actually have decent sales). One model I was interested in a number of years ago was a very accurate model of a 9' concert grand piano by a well known maker which has such a licence. In order to use it in a book illustration of graphic novel I would have to approach that company (which is located in another country) on my own without a lawyer (as I can't afford one) in an attempt to negotiate permission to use the model in such works.
Basically not going to happen
Oh and a shout out to Protozoon for the lovely accurate model of one he released here (which also has fully rigged keys that the more expensive and restricted one I mentioned about above didn't). It doesn't need to have Steinway, Bösendorfer, or Kawai on it to work for my needs.
Hello. Sorry for making the current topic go sideways a bit but what is the difference between "Non-Commercial" and "Editorial" licenses? I know the current thread is talking about being able to sell renders but, as I am a Stupid. I am wondering the reason of simply not calling it a non-commercial license. I understand non-commercial. It's right in the text. Don’t use commercially. But what is the benefit of an Editorial?
1) Am I restricted from kit bashing with it or making changes to it such as custom morphs?
2) Does editorial license remove the ability for it to be used on any Genesis model and for any Genesis clothing to be used on it such as Leon and Teena?
3) Is it possible for one editorial license terms to differ from another?
And you said Editorial Licenses will be optional but honestly I see everyone ticking that option to the point of it might as well being the default.
4) Are there going to be restrictions or requirements on the sellers side that prevents this?
5) If a bundle has a single editorial item in it, will the entire bundle be restricted under editorial, the bundle have the standard license, or need to be bought separately?
If this editorial license goes through, because of how common I see it becoming, there must be an easy way to tell what items are restricted or not without logging into the DAZ site. Personal example with a different program: I do have a grab bag of commercial mixed with non-commercial bought on its own store that don't display which is witch license to the point where I just use everything on it for personal projects.
As far as I can tell, editorial just means non-commecial. So you can't use it in anything that makes you money.
No books, no video/animations, no contests, no galleries where people can give you donations or tips, no sites that require people to pay to see the content
That doesn't affect me then (I don't ask for payments/donations - Although I'd like to). I just do this for my own sanity.
Although it is going to affect A LOT of the Daz Artists that I follow on DeviantArt.
What I want to know is, who's going to police it, and how?
Lots of good questions raised in this thread, lots of requests for clarification. But it's been over a week with zero response from Daz_Travis or any other Daz employee. That does not inspire confidence that things will work out OK. Communication is key.
Only for content released with the editorial license - standard items will continue as they are, and I would imagine that will include a high proportion of new releases.
From what I see, none really... it's still non-commercial and from how I've seen it described/presented elsewhere it might actually be worse, because unless I'm misinterpreting the wording (and I'm probably not), some editorial licenses seem to imply you are limited in how you display or create the final rendered image even if you comply with the non-commercial aspects.
One good example of that and why it's far worse is this line from the announcement post...
"Products may not be used in any unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)"
Clearly there are very obvious illegal uses, like certain forms of pornography or using images to make death threats... that's pretty evident... but "derogatory"... that's a huge red flag that should stop anyone right in their tracks because the word is so nebulous and open to interpretation.
Because define "derogatory" in the context of "unlawful"... Perhaps if one were living in a certain geographic area where someone important disliked being portrayed in a comical manner and someone living there decided to create a render using a well known yellow bear who wears a stylish red vest to portray that individual... that could be considered unlawful there... but not where I am writing from... so that begs the question "what the hell do you consider derogatory and thus unlawful"... and is that for everyone everywhere because within the confines of a set of particular earthly coordinates "unflattering" images are defined as "derogatory" and therefore unlawful?...
Do we now all have to keep a compendium of who is easily insulted by cartoon characters portrayals or is that only for people living in the confines of geographic areas with such restrictions?
Will that be clearly defined?
Super clearly defined?
Is that also extended to "unlawful because a corporation is offended by your image of their character in a scene they feel isn't in sync with their corporate image"?
If that's so now you have to familiarize yourself with the usage rights, definitions, terms and conditions described by the parent company holding the intellectual rights for that product.
Is that information all easily accessible from the intellectual rights holder and clearly defined in a simple to digest format?
Is "derogatory" perhaps a beloved cartoon character being portrayed as a drunken slob?... is derogatory a cartoon mouse wearing inappropriate a tiny bikini?... is derogatory a licensed article of clothing being worn by a bloodthirsty historical figure? Is derogatory a superhero smoking a joint?
Is your average person going to concern themselves with this or even consider any of that?
Do you want to pay for content that basically only you might be able to view in the privacy of your own home and if you accidentally misuse it might open you up to legal penalties or in the very least having to delete something you worked hard on?
And for what?... So someone can make a few bucks selling you something that is extremely limited in the scope of its usage.
If someone is okay with all that, that's great and I applaud whatever brings them joy... but it's a potential land mine to someone who doesn't understand or isn't fully cautious.
Please note: I've chosen my words very carefully and none of this should be in violation of the TOS.
Very true. Once, many years ago I wanted to do some "officially approved" art in a certain sci-fi fandom when it was announced they were welcoming fan projects instead of C&Ding/suing them out of existance. They required it be kept PG rated, which was not a problem for me but I did have a couple questions so I asked for clarification of the rules. Few days later I hear back and it turned out that hand-holding, asking for a date, etc. scenes that would have been an important part of my story only applied to boy-girl couples (that also preferably should not be main characters so as not to distract from the action) because quote: "There are no LGBT people in the (insert series name here) universe" and if I wanted to have any gay/bi characters they'd better be very minor ones with relationships either closeted or barely hinted at, again so as not to "distract" or "offend". Needless to say I was totally flabbergasted, then honked right off. Said to hell with that project and completely soured on the idea of anything to do with "officially approved" fan works after that. This wasn't the 80s we're talking, where 'phobic attitudes were almost the norm and much of fandom activity was even more underground. This was around 2004ish, if I recall. Funny darn thing, that Big Sci-Fi Franchise? Had absolutely no issue whatsoever with it's hero snogging his own sister on screen. So yeah, there will need to be much caution when playing in somebody else's IP sandbox -- even with a license.
Well, that's one of the points of confusion.
It doesn't, really. What it most often (and indeed literally) means is that the work has be used in relation to a newsworthy topic, and many editorial licences out there on the web do not have any kind of "non-commercial" clause (a lot of news is commercialised), so using the same name here is liable to cause trip people up.
Editorial and non-commercial licenses are not necessarily the same thing, so using the terms interchangeably are adding to the confusion.
...so it would sound like even DA could be out.