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 far, I can only think of four situations where the editorial license would be viable.
1. Non-MMO games where the publisher has given the public almost-free rein to mod them however they will (e.g. what Bethesda did with the Elder Scrolls and Fallout). Though, if I remember correctly, it was Daz who objected to this sort of thing in the past.
2. Name-Image-Likeness rights for D-List celebrities, "social media influencers" (Has our civilization deteriorated to the point that this is an occupation?), and folks appearing in videos that begin by notifying the audience about the Custodian of Records. That is, the most desperate for money and those willing to buy into the "no such thing as bad publicity" fallacy.
3. Original IPs with no real future where the rights holder seeks some sort of salvage value. For example, with the decline of newspapers, I'm not sure what value Creators Syndicate places on protecting Andy Capp or The Wizard of Id.
4. The PA believes that the editorial license offers themselves some sort of protection/cover in the end user's production of infringing, defamatory, derogatory, or obscene images.
My imagination might be too narrow. If you can think of other situations where this sort of license is viable, I'd like to read it.
I don't even put commercial render or video restrictions on my FREEBIES...I'm sure not going to pay for anything with restrictions ;). I agree with most that it needs to be separate from other products so that there's NO chance of people buying them by mistake.
Laurie
I think part of the friction here is that 3D assets occupy a weird place in terms of intellectual property and how we think of them. If I buy a song on iTunes, that doesn't give me the right to use it in a movie, for example. A 3D model is a piece of intellectual property, but we don't tend to think of them as such; we treat them more like art supplies, like paint.
@Gordig That's because they're assets to be used in other projects.They're literally digital art supplies. Not all IPs are the same, nor do they serve the same purpose. I don't even do commercial stuff (I may or I may not at some point, I don't know), yet I will not support anything non commercial (or even worse, that can't be used in "unlawful" manner) - it's literally the equivalent of paints or a guitar that can only be used in non commercial gigs. Oh, and you can only play happy songs or paint with certain brushes made of crocdile nasal hairs. And you must wear decent clothing that cover about 96.7% of your body while using these items. And absolutely no monkeys. Monkeys are bad. I'd like to see the reactions then, if manufacturers tried to impose such restrictions on real world items they sold.
It is not literally the equivalent, because none of the requirements you listed are in any way enforceable, because paint and guitars are not IP (the guitars themselves; the design of guitars has its own weird history where IP protection is concerned). When you're buying paint or a guitar, you're buying a physical object; when you buy a 3D asset, you're buying a license to use it. You're just proving my point: 3D assets are both art supplies AND intellectual property, but we don't think of them that way.
I'm glad to see the update to the 3D Printing license, but how does one actually purchase one for any of the Daz characters? I realize that the various vendors would need to create them for their content as well, but without license to print the base character I've yet to figure out how I'd ever use a license if an artist sold something with it. Am I missing how you actually buy the license for the character?
(Note - I fully intend to use Zbrush to sculp hair and clothes, I'm seriously just looking for base meshes that I can easily pose)
You'd need to buy the interactive license for the essentials. Like, for example, this one: https://www.daz3d.com/genesis-8-starter-essentials
The interactive License is well defined within the EULA as being part of section 3, and explicitly states that the interactive license cannot be used for 3D Printing in commercial contexts. The 3D Print license referenced in section 5 appears to be something different.
Ah, you are correct. The interactive license is for embedding meshes into games. I would think that DAZ will make a 3d Print license available for the essentials once the new license is implemented. Your best bet, however, is to send them a ticket because you raised a good question. If a PA provides a 3D Print license for a character, I'd imagine the end user wouldn't be able to print it without first having a license for the essentials, but I might be wrong.
It is the end user that needs to create the 3D printable files for printing purposes.
Indeed, I've been trying to unravel this one for a while, which Is why I'd want to start with the BASE and work my way up from there. Other questions exist around using Poses on a base mesh... technically, that "pose" file isn't present anywhere in my final product, because it's a process applied to the geometry, which means that there''s little reason why I shouldn't be able to use one, but of course somebody might complain (although proving it would be hellishly hard). Morphs are the same way, they're not actually the geometry but rather a process run on the geometry (a set of instructions to Daz etc.).
But even trying to unspool whether or not I could use poses or morphs hasn't' mattered because the base mesh would clearly need a license. Not only that, but It would be easy enough to manually pose the base as well as purchase enough morphs from Daz direct for most purposes, if I plan to model my own clothing and hair, which is not hard (in that there's plenty of 3D Printable licensed hair out there)
Understood, I'm referring only to the legal license to be allowed to do so and then sell it. Prepping Genesis for 3D Printing is the easy part, not getting sued for doing so and selling the output is what matters.
Gotcha, sorry misunderstood.
I’m still trying to figure out what types of products would fall under the Editorial banner. As it is, we can easily kitbash products to create most licensed human characters & their costumes. We could create our own fake logos for name products like a Coke can if we wanted to do a mock-up of an ad. Will we get Mickey Mouse for G8? There would be no way to use that without getting sued (unless we’re Southpark that somehow got away with making Mickey Mouse into a drug addicted sex addict lol!)
When I think of Editorial, I think of high fashion ads in Vogue or the department of a newspaper or magazine that deals with conten/journalism vs the sales/advertising department. I’m not even sure what it means in this context. If someone creates just a post on Instagram, can it be made into a meme? Images are stolen all the time on top of everything else. What kind of proprietary content would be considered Editorial & why would anyone use these items with all the non-Editorial kitbashable items in the store? Also it says it can’t be altered? Who is just going to do a straight render of someone else’s product without adding their own artistic touch even to just show friends & family? The whole thing makes no sense to me.
I take the "Can't be altered" bit to mean no kitbashing allowed but it might also mean straight-out-of-the-box renders only so if, for instance, there's a licensed official Spiderman suit in your Daz content there might be Serious Legal Issues if you were to color it purple and put it on an orc.
Something else that might have been overlooked: Daz has been partnering with corporate entities for their NFT endeavor. While it might not be what they're intending, the editorial license would allow those partners to sell branded content in the Daz store without losing control for commercial purposes.
I think they said anything under this new Editorial license doesn't allow NFT making, so wouldn't that be a problem there?
Apparently anyone who wants to make NFTs has to purchase the interactive licenses needed to created their - "unique image link" image/render
I struggle to understand the EULA at times.
I'm getting tired of all of this "cloak and dagger" with Daz.
Although I'm getting a suspicious feeling that this "hobby" is going to get a little more expensive...
Why buy a trademarked item? It makes no sense. Oh well, I will wait and see. I just hope they mark things clearly so I don't purchase anything that's got restrictions. I have never returned anything I bought here but if it is restricted to my eyes only! I don't want to buy it. As other have stated, I don't even want it for free.
The daycare center was probably commercial, but this grieving father? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/spider-man-tombstone-marvel-disney-kent-ollie-jones-superhero-a8988336.html
Up to now for 3D printing licences you had to contact Daz directly to discuss it (via a support ticket).
Wow. That's sad.
Where are you seeing that?
That's how Disney is now
I think if Walt was still around he'd said sure thing do it
Do they read their own comics? Watch their own movies? There is nothing "innocent and magical" (a.k.a. Disney-ish)about Spiderman. He is well acquainted with the cold, hard facts of life.
...that is what one of the main differences between the Marvel and DC universes as Marvel heroes actually had real life matters to reckon with and even the storied would deal with real world issues. Part of why I preferred their comics over the latter.
Wow. Okay can't find the post right now, but apologies ... didn't know - because it's probably not so in this country - that one can sell fanart under an editorial license and get away with that. My reading lessons have at times come across interesting cases wherein the copyright/trademark holder bides their time, then goes for the gold, claiming ALL profits, plus court costs, etc etc which to little ol' me translates into the down to earth language of it being a no-no to sell fanart.
There are some qualified people speaking on this page which may or not be of interest: https://postergrind.com/this-is-how-to-sell-fan-art-legally-illegally/
I would expect that on any "editorial use only" product pages there be something like a big red flag, or a white flag with a big red no-no circle on it.
And also, a note signifying that the PA has indeed received permission from the legal copyright/trademark holder to sell what they are would be a significantly good idea IMHO. Buying stuff that disappears from the store - and finding out that [as happened with one Merchant Resource product I purchased here already] one can only use said product PRIVATELY only, would not go over big with me as the purpose of making renders is so that other people may see them too.
No, there would be no need for them to sell another license as per this comment in the first post: