Legal status of Geo-Grafted goodies?
Skiriki
Posts: 4,975
So, um -- before the previous forum closed and got archived, there was talk about what will be the legal status of geo-grafted bits, since they do borrow from Genesis in order to glue in place.
So... has that talk with the legal dept gotten anywhere? I have a horrible hankering of doing something nice and geo-grafted and freebie, but uncertainty is kind of giving me a problem on that front.
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
You know there's one type of response that the topic heading just screams for, don't you?
I will see if this is still being looked into.
*sniggle* :lol:
Please, if you could be so nice. (I was thinking about a cute short faun tail that can wag, nothing more, truthfully.)
Yoooohoooo! :) Any word on this one? :)
I believe the word is...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Or maybe 'soon'?
The only word I've received so far is that ALL geo-grafted items need to be cleared through the company FIRST. Whether free or sale.
So, idea ... um, pack it up and send it over and we'll all wait and see what happens.
Which for most freebies looks to be more of a hassle than it's worth...
Sorry, the whole idea that using a built in function of the program/mesh needs approval, on a case by case basis, before it can actually be used is a bit of a head scratcher.
There are ways around the whole "but it's our IP"...
Lock the function in 'normal' mode and sell a 'developer' license that unlocks it and allows a limited amount of vertices to be altered without prior approval (something like no more that 1/2 of 1%), over that amount, then approval is needed. Then sell that license for somewhere between $15 and $30 (cheaper is better, in this case...as most freebie makers aren't going to want to drop a big wad of cash on this).
Or a simple change in the EULA stating that items that use the built geo-grafting features to ADD something to the base mesh are allowed (items that replace some would require approval). Most items that I can think of, like horns, tail or something like that, would only affect a few vertices.
Or just about anything...other than 'send it to us and we'll see...'
So, if someone want create a Geo-Grated bits, and redistribuite, must be first approved from DAZ?
In this case, if someone create a Geo-Grafted character, and want sell in a store that isn't DAZ Store, must be first have approvation from DAZ, and after can sell it?
At the moment, yes.
Also for free items?
Yes.
And just for curiosity, where a content creator must ask for approval, at who must send our files for approvation?
[email protected] as I recall.
pa @ daz3d.com (Remove Spaces)
This has always been a head scratcher to me too...
I understand the convention of approval for using "part" of the Genesis mesh for the Geo-Grafting endeavors of both commercial, and freebies for distribution.
What I don't understand is any kind of stranglehold on content creators that is stifling potential releases, and furthering the use of, and popularity of Geo-Grafting.
It is not necessary to use any "part" of Genesis for Geo-Grafting. The only caveat is the newly created mesh (from scratch; from one single vertex even) must be coincident located to be used for the grafting (easily done).
I have a simple sci-fi freebie in mind that I want to eventually create, but if I am going to have to go through some B.S. song-n-dance to release, or suffer some sort of cease and desist (like WERTS; and yes, I am well aware of the true violation. I side with DAZ on that one), and have my work pulled because DAZ did not authorize it.
I can create my work from scratch, from a single plane, or hell, from a single vertex, and create from scratch that first plane.
Skiriki:
You can create yours just the same, and would not be in violation of using any DAZ mesh. If you don't know how to bring your mesh within coincident location, I would be happy to teach you. I say go forth, and create your vision.
I think that I have an idea about that, but I'm not one to spit on tutorials, so please, if you want to PM me some education or post to the forums (since more people see it, merrier!), it would be awesome.
Thank you very much
You would still need a ring of vertices to be exactly matched to a ring of Genesis (or whatever) vertices, otherwise you wouldn't have enclosed one or more polygons to hide with the GeoGraft and it wouldn't make sense to use the technique.
Richard, are you saying that Geo-Grafting requires a full quad loop of Genesis polys surrounding the area where the new grafted mesh lines up with Genesis at coincident (vertex) location?
If this is indeed fact for the Geo-Grafting technology to work, then I understand where the issue lies, and one could not utilize it without using part of Genesis, even when creating the new mesh for grafting by scratch.
My understanding from the limited documentation, and forum discussions, was that it was a one to one graft (Genesis; Defining hole with Polygon Group Editor, and new mesh to replace "hole" area at coincident vertex alignment).
It seemed people were just going the easy route (allowed by DAZ for this one technology, but needing approval) by selecting polygons directly from Genesis to build the new mesh from, thus insuring coincident location alignment (without having to do the work by hand).
Geo-Grafting is on my to do list, but I have other pressing projects requiring my time. I hope when I get around to a Geo-Graft project this will all be sorted with some official documentation, and clarity of it all.
It 'sounds' like 'including portion of mesh' is being extended to include coincident vertices. I could be wrong however. The other thing is that geo-grafting includes altering the base mesh by removing or at least hiding polygons (from what I understand) in most cases, which could also cause issues. I gather in the end that the approval process is to insure one doesn't go beyond what DAZ would sanction rather then provide some draconian oversight. I'm guessing also though that DAZ wouldn't want to encourge anyone bypassing the aproval process as it could lead to messy and expensive followup on their part once the practice started spreading. I do feel for you though on having to go through an involved process just to give something to the community for free, complicated by the fact that free items are probably low on the approval team's priority list. It definitely puts a damper on doing that, and unfortunately the whole community misses out sometimes.
DaremoK3: It's a ring of vertices that's needed, enclosing one or more polygons. If it's more than one polygon then the inner vertices won't be needed, so it may not define full polys. I wasn't sure, but you post seemed to be saying only a single vertex matching was needed. I don't think it's that DAZ wants to limit GeoGrafting, but that they need to be careful not to open a hole in the EULA that could potentially be exploited by those making what would clearly be infringing content.
? not sure what you're referring to as I'm not aware of any tutorials on the legal status of Geo-grafted goodies ... but if you're after some basic Geo-grafting information: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/2174/P30/#97956
Patience:
Skiriki was asking that of myself, and I sent her a link detailing how coincident vertices work. That is what she was asking about.
Richard and I are describing the exact same thing, only he is using simplistic layman's terms. The "ring of vertices" is the coincident vertices located at 0, 0, 0 (X/Y/Z) 3D space on both Genesis, and the mesh to be grafted onto Genesis.
I consulted the tutorial I have from around a year ago by Hiro Protagonist (which is linked to by Ebahr in the thread that you linked to), and I was correct in what I thought I had remembered.
As far as it seems, the only caveat for Geo-Grafting to work is the coincident vertex loop. Hence, my concern of the legalities that apply.
As stated (and in Hiro's tut), in order to assure the coincident vertices, one should use part of Genesis' mesh where the graft will be to model from. This is allowed by DAZ, but requires approval for distribution (as it should be; DAZ owns the mesh, and dictates the derivative mesh allowance).
However, if one, like myself, creates the entire graft mesh from scratch, without the use of "borrowing" from Genesis, and then does the work to align the vertex loops, then there should be no mandate by DAZ for said creator to await approval.
I understand DAZ's need to protect their IP against piracy, and I agree and respect that. But, there needs to be a complete understanding by both DAZ, and the general forum public that thinks all grafted meshes are direct derivatives of Genesis itself.
Now, if it comes down to a distribution issue, then I understand where approval is definitely needed. I, for one, have no plans of distributing the Genesis mesh. My plans are to distribute my graft models that will load in at correct world space, and the end user will have to do the "easy" part of selecting the Genesis polys to hide, and graft the part.
If you align vertices you are using Genesis. For now the only official position is that permission is needed in advance, and that's what people need to work with I'm afraid.
But that makes no sense whatsoever and the official position is poo.
I should rephrase, thats a very CYA statement to make, but doesn't hold water :)
I agree with larsmidnatt's first assessment.
Oh well, C'est la vie...
thanks and okay -- missed post ... looong page ...
I was thinking along similar lines but one would have to also provide an easy 'very down to earth tutorial' for "how to" with such products.
As I don't have anything near ready to distribute I'm not overly worried about this ... and asking Daz3d for permission isn't a problem in itself. Mind you some of the answers I have received over the years left a lot to the imagination so yes, some clear cut guidelines as to what they may be tolerant of/for would be nice.
thanks and okay -- missed post ... looong page ...
I was thinking along similar lines but one would have to also provide an easy 'very down to earth tutorial' for "how to" with such products.
As I don't have anything near ready to distribute I'm not overly worried about this ... and asking Daz3d for permission isn't a problem in itself. Mind you some of the answers I have received over the years left a lot to the imagination so yes, some clear cut guidelines as to what they may be tolerant of/for would be nice.
The big question I have...turn around time...they'll get back to you...soon, right?
The big question I have...turn around time...they'll get back to you...soon, right?
Probably. I've read posts by PAs having waited so long for whether or not a product would pass and enter their stores that they took 'em elsewhere. While 'now and then' somebody starts a store with a free item ... it then goes $, then maybe free, then who knows. And I for one have no desire to have a store. However, on the bright side, think the longest I've ever waited for a response was about 5 weeks ... and that was because of a misunderstanding as to who the request was from ... I don't ask ... feel better that way. Would have been answered much faster had they known it was I.
I would like to know if people releasing free geo-grafts would need to release them through Daz3d, or is anywhere okay?
I'm hedging a belief that if they must needs approve geo-grafts, they might wish to also have distribution control ... as in knowing all who has a copy.