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
Huh, I don't really like this at all. What use this editorial licence could have except to avoid intellectual property rights violations? Is it even legal to sell copyrighted material with editorial licence? If it's not copyrighted, then what's the point of this new licence anyway...
If they still somehow manage to pull this off, I really hope those products are marked properly in Daz studio and in market place, so I know to stay away from those, since I don't want to get any letters from Disney or Marvel or somewhere else, that demands thousands of dollars because I used their IP without rights.
I also don't do commercial work any more but I'd still like to have the option, which this new license won't give me. For fan art, I always go in search of freebies from my fellow fans and religiously keep that stuff in a separate, clearly marked runtime/content folder to avoid mix-ups. If I pay for it, I expect it to allow any use that does not require special licensing like for games. And like many here, I kitbash and make my stuff do extra duty. This would not be very feasible with anything using Editorial license. So if you're gonna do it, Daz, please keep it clearly marked so as to distinguish it from regular products. The store is confusing enough already.
Haha, I wouldn't worry about DAZ selling you something that belongs to Marvel or Disney. If anything, this type of new license might allow Disney, Marvel, or other companies to sell 3D products *here* that we could then use for non-commercial use.
I don't know what DAZ has planned any more than any of you do, but can we all just try to see the potential positives here before once again assuming the worst?
(edit: I know Disney owns Marvel)
I think that all this story, is born because a lot of people use DAZ product for create NFT Arts. But honestly, if we can't do that, put a license that allows the creation of NFT, similar to the one for video game creators, and that's it. Without all this fuss.
that abbreviation cannot be mentioned
So an editorial license saounds like you'd do celebrity / political models and sell them to us to make editorial comments on but then we couldn't monetize our editorials except via 2D renders or via animations on youtube and such but not in interactive content or NFTs?
It never made sense that licensing and pricing is such that 3D games (but not 2D games mind you) / interactive app makers are treated like we are rich speculators with certain great success, but graphic novelists, animation makers, and poster art makers are treated like paupers with no chance of success.
I'm not following the logic here - this is a new license that will allow additional content to be offered, that could not be offered under the existing license. It isn't, as far as I know, changing the licenses for released content (beyond whatever they are doing for printing) or for most new content.
You couldn't monetise them at all, including (confusingly) through being paid for editorial imagery. Editorial license seems to be a term used for non-commercial licenses, with the exact breadth varying.
You guys need to simplify this to something like "if this thing is in your render, you cannot make any money with it".
I would agree, as I cannot find anything that clearly defines "Editorial Use" in law, but when it is used in licence agreements it normally instead means "requires Fair Use justification", such as for news reporting or education, but does not rule out commercial use.
Also, to be honest, I think the name "Interactive licence" is also extremely misleading, as interactivity is not actually inherently related to the actual terms of the licence. Something like a visual novel can be interactive without breaching the licence (all pre-rendered), but a tech-demo might well be non-interactive but require the licence (real-time rendering on a third party's system).
I sympathise completely on this one. There was actually a freebie I grabbed once (on another site) that had one of those sort of busybody-horsehockey restrictions applied that wasn't mentioned on the page at all, and was only mentioned in the enclosed readme, but that pinpoint-specifically took away the very narrow-niche reason I'd downloaded the item in the first place. Yeah, I decided I was never going to look at anything from that maker again. 0o
...this, along with the high prices, at a certain Pro content store pretty much dissuaded me from purchasing from them even If I could afford to. Why would I drop say 125$ on a model of a grand piano or vehicle where I'd have to write to and pay the IP owner even more money just so I could use it say for a graphic novel, book illustration, or book cover. Given that prizes for contests have monetary value (the winners are paid in some way be it content, GCs or whatever), such products will also have to be restricted from that use as well.
Yes I've argued that I'd like to see aircraft that actually follow the basic laws of aerodynamics and physics, but it doesn't have to be an exact copy of a Boeing 747 or F-15, it just has to look like it is capable of flight without needing some from of exotic propulsion or pseudo science to explain it (the things that turn me off me the most are wings without airfoils, aircraft with insufficient wings, a shape that that would result in excessive drag, or loaded with more weaponry than a battleship). I find it interesting that Vanishing Point can sell fairly accurate aircraft models (well save for their Vickers VC-10) under their actual names and not run afoul of IP issues.
I've been fine with the "knockoffs " like the Spy Car (basically an Aston Martin DB6) , Teuf Teuf (a Citroen 2CV) ,1968 AM Muscle Car (Chevy Nova SS) and 1969 AM GT Sports Car (Ford/Shelby Cobra Mustang). They still look enough like their real world counterparts to suffice. We don't need absolutely faithful to the "nut and bolt" reproductions that we can't use anywhere else without ponying up a lot more money in fees or royalties.
...and how will these items even be priced as the creator also needs the IP right to model them.
Yeah, Not holding my breath on this, but I know I'll have to agree to it just so I can sign into the store or the forums.
That's what is missing from this announcement -- nothing from Daz explaining why this move is good for us.
They must have some idea of products they would like to include in the Store but cannot at the moment, why not list some examples so we can judge if the trade off is worth the benefits?
I also think the term "Editorial License" is misleading. In any usage I've heard, that means a exception to an otherwise more restrictive license, e.g. the "fair use" exception to copyrighted logos etc. It would be much more clear if Daz simply followed standard practice and called it a "non-commercial" license, or if that doesn't cover enough use cases, perhaps a "Restricted License".
Interactive licences are more about Daz trying to protect their 3D assets.
If somebody includes a Daz mesh in a game but it's in a format that can easily be ripped from the game and used elsewhere, they lose control of it and pontential sales of that product. That's why the Interactive License includes terms (last time I looked) about the buyer making reasonable efforts to secure the 3D assets from being extracted from game files.
I think the store needs two things to make this new license go over well: An active, visible indication when something is under either General or Editorial licenses, at minimum an icon indicating Editorial under the thumbnail when browsing, and a corner banner on the product image on the actual product page like we get when a product is on sale or brand new, preferably in a different color than those other corner banners. And a filter, like "Hide what I own", that one can click to hide products under Editorial licenses when browsing and searching - the default state of this doesn't matter as long as it's presented directly to the buyer on a browsing page. There should also be a good indication when viewing one's Cart that a product is under the Editorial license. The easier it is made for someone to see and make an informed decision about whether to buy something under an Editorial license, the better it will go over when the new license is rolled out.
kyoto kid made an interesting point to which I'd be interested in the offical stance - will it be possible to use items bought with an Editorial License in Daz competitions? (Or only if you lose?!)
So, would we be able to use them in contests for which monetary (store credit) prizes are offered ?
Sorry, my head is spinning. Can someone please answer two questions, in plain English:
Will I need a license to create still renders of my characters along with game characters, and be able to post them to the internet (or keep them for personal use) WITHOUT a license?
Will I need a license to 3D Print Daz models?
Of course you do. You always did.
Did you or did you not agree to abide by the EULA? https://www.daz3d.com/eula#general_license
It is right in there! In plain text!
"Terms of Use. Two-Dimensional Works. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, User may (i) access, use, copy and modify the Content in the creation and presentation of two-dimensional animations and renderings, (ii) incorporate two-dimensional images (including two-dimensional images that simulate motion of three-dimensional objects) derived by User from the Content in User's other works, and (iii) publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense User's two-dimensional animations, renderings and other works; provided that User may not in any case publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any renderings, animations, software applications, data or any other product from which any Content, or any part thereof, or any substantially similar version of the Content can be separately exported, extracted or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or format."
Of course you do. You always did. Read the EULA. It's right in there.
So this may mean I could potentially have my rendered image showing a Louis Vuitton bag with a Hermes scarf and a Tesla car if the image is used for editorial purposes only, yeah ?
That's kinda what it sounds like, yeah. That we'll be able to buy real-world products and maybe characters too, probably for lower prices than usual (at least, that's what most non-commercial options do), as long as we absolutely do not use them in anything that earns us money. There might be some usage rules too, like not to use them in imagery designed as hate or racist speech, etc.
I'm...still a bit puzzled as to both why we can't get more specific information on this from DAZ and why users are thinking this is going to be overly complicated or even shady. Like I said, if the product says it can't be used commercially, then you don't use it that way.
Sadly, isn't that simple... You can't use Editorial licensed materials in many other situations, even non-commercial. As you said, there are other "rules" that you have to comply.
I guess that other site that sells game rips is taking too much of the pie!
Why would anyone in their right mind pay for something that can’t be used commercially? I could understand freebies ( I hope not DAZ+ freebies) This makes no sense to me and I hope there are big warning signs because I would never purchase anything that can’t be used commercially!
What would we even do with those products? Make a Christmas card for grandma? If you used it online for your portfolio and someone hired you because of it, is that making money? If this is going to be purely for hobbyists who never want to make a cent from this, there needs to be an easier version of DS. Who is going to learn this complicated software & not want to monetize it? This whole thing makes no sense to me.
Man you guys are tip toeing around land mines here.
The biggest issue with this is that a number of people start out as hobbyists and later start to become more professional in some capacity. What happens if a user makes a bunch of pictures for an art site as a hobbyist, but then later on creates a Patreon?
Has this been considered? Because the Patreon would be a form of commercialism, even if the art itself is all free to everyone. Now this user would have all these works that are under editorial usage while they have paying fans on their Patreon. And they would need to remember each and every one that could be non compliant.
Mine field!
Daz firmly goes between hobbyists and professionals all the time, and even then the users themselves can bounce from pro to hobby at various points. There is so much cross over between them that I have a difficult time seeing this work. It will be a nightmare to enforce, are you really going to lawyer up for every single case? You are creating a mine field for yourselves and the users. Plus, how many people actually read EULAs??? A number of people don't even know what Editorial means. Just look at this thread.
On the flip side, I am very happy that the 3D printing licenses are finally getting updated. The previous terms were frankly some of the stupidest terms ever recorded for a digital product. You killed all enthusiasm for your print plugin dead because of your idiotic license.
That's the point, I started out with this as a hobby and later went to make commercal use of it and was requested images I made before going commercial.
I omitted looking for freebies early on because a lot of them are coming with no commercial use only restrictions or referencing the creator (and while I will give creators a shout out for their good works, Listing them everywhere with an image is troublesome)
So I cut back to use DAZ assets because of the fully commercial use license.
So yes, this has a lot of red flags for me.
Will take a carefull look at stuff from now on
Man, if I responded to this the way I'd like, it would be gone before you could read it.
YES, some of us learn all this complicated stuff and don't monetize it. I've been doing this for TWENTY-THREE years and haven't earned more than a few gift cards for my work. I don't do it to earn money, I do it to make art that hopefully others might like, and most of the customers here do the same.
Flag the products with a big red flag that says not useful for anything except looking at at home
So now one other thing... If I go to the first post, the OP, it has a link to the full EULA which describes all the legal stuff... but if I go to the store, I see no provision to describe what is for commercial or non-commercial use... Just the regular separate box with the interactive license option.
So are we going be notified whether or not something is "Editorial" or "Commercial" on the product page, or is it going to buried in the EULA?
I'm sure the answer is "well, when we have "Editorial" content we'll address that", but having seen how that works out in the past I'm sure that's going to go real smoothly.
The new EULA seems to already be in place since the link is to it and I seem to need to agree to it to officiate the contract.
I'm just wondering how this nonsense is getting implemented as it already seems to be missing a few key provisions most people would have put in place first.
But yeah, good luck with that.
EDITED TO ADD...
I just read through the EULA in the OP link... this seems to be the regular EULA with no mention of Editorial license restrictions...
Did I miss that?
Since it's an addendum, I'm imagining it would appear at the bottom after "5.0 3D Print Add-On License"... but either way, I don't see mention of it.
Again... Confusing if that's to be added later, since you are saying "read this", but it's not the relevant license implied"
Does DAZ have lawyers? Or y'all just winging this?
You do realize it's sort of implied (I'm being nice about the "sort of") that that's going to include the new EULA... right?
You do realize that's going to confuse people in what is a kinda important legal matter... right?
No?
Maybe?
Whatever?