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
How many and which languages should it be available in? There are roughly 6500 different languages spoken in the world today, not to mention thousands of dialects.
Coldrake
Oh wow, 6500, eh? I didn't know there were that many different languages spoken in the world today. How about they start with the basics Spanish, Italian, German, French, Russian and the dialects can manage if they have a basic start.
Now I'll pose a question to you. How do you think Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, HP, etc get the job done? I mean they have attorneys too, so someone must be advising them properly otherwise they wouldn't go to the trouble or expense to make sure their customer base can freaking understand them in addition to making sure they can competently agree to the terms.
I have no idea, I'm not an attorney.
How many languages do Renderosity, RDNA, Content Paradise, and Xurge 3D offer their eulas in?
Coldrake
I have no idea, I'm not an attorney.
How many languages do Renderosity, RDNA, Content Paradise, and Xurge 3D offer their eulas in?
Coldrake
You don't have to be an attorney to answer that question.
As far as I know they only offer their EULA in English, and I never said they shouldn't offer their's in other languages.
Think outside the US... there is a great big world out there and the Internet allows all of them to access businesses, including DAZ, Rendo, Content Paradise, Xurge, RDNA, etc. If a company is selling digital content and they require an end user to agree to something then they ought to provide that agreement in the language the customer speaks, otherwise the agreement is a moot. That's why there are treaties and fair laws in place with regard to comprehension of contracts; it actually protects both parties. But, if the customer agrees, so they can install the content they purchased, but doesn't understand English, then it's going to be difficult to win the case should it become necessary to litigate.
Bottom line: what jurisdiction will EULA violations apply? How does that jurisdiction treat foreign-language license agreements from native agreements? Are EULAs binding? For example, as I understand, under German law any EULA that the user only gets to see AFTER buying the product is void. Matter of fact, in the US, courts have found some EULAs invalid.
10-13 years ago the Internet wasn't common place like it is today. Rendo got its start in 1999, DAZ in 2001, RDNA 2003 or so, I don't know about Xurge and I think Content Paradise in 2006. Globally, people probably weren't making purchases of digital content as they are today and that's why the EULA wasn't a big deal; they were probably mostly making sales in the US. But today, global sales of digital content has apparently grown exponentially, and that's why it's important to offer the EULA in different languages. At least make an effort.
to the lay person It may seem overwhelming as to how DAZ, Rendo, RDNA, etc would offer their EULA in different languages, but it is not beyond the realm of possibilities if a company actively looks for a solution. Actually, the translation is the easy part. The hard part is finding an international lawyer to make sure the EULA is completely valid in all countries that the software is distributed.
Why should they do it? Because it's fair and the decent thing to do.
First of all it is to understand the difference between Copyright and Patent Law .
I Went through the eula carefully, and allot of what it says goes under a Patent, but is the thing that the creator
made really Patented ???
Copyright means you cant redistribute an Object pretending that you have made it in its original state.
as for we talk here about ad-dons of a basic Patent this product can not be Patented.
if the product would be torn apart and modified it would not be the same anymore and could in theory
be redistributed again under a new creators name.
Modeling is to compare with A pencil and Paper .
Now Lets talk about Playdoh , you can do anything you want with that mastic the owner is always the one who
made the sculpture if someone else takes it and modifies the structure it will be hes creation.
the Patent is the basic material.
another sample :
you take a mannequin ( The ones you see in every clothes store ) then you take some I-phones an old PS2
old newspapers to make your Papier-mâché etc.
you now build your Cyborg with those Copyrighted Parts by taking them apart and glue em on the mannequin
you used allot of company's products to finally create your Model. And if someone will like it you will sell your Product
as yours even doh you used parts from Sony And Apple. why is this ? because you created something new and it was your idea
as an Artist. as long as none rips apart your Little statue is under your Copyright will the new Owner take it apart and make something new he will be the next owner.
So to understand this Eula, it means nothing else then as long as the mesh is not modified it can not be redistributed under another Name, as soon ripped apart, and something new has been created it would be for anyone free to use.
in the case of a patent .. there it would have to be something new , not an ad-don something can only be patented
if it is a new Invention.
So the Eula would have to be modified, that the product can not be redistributed in its original state and that a third
is not allowed to pretend being the creator. Redistribution in another form can not be prosecuted.
For the Languages !!
the languages concerning those addon Products ( Third Party Products ) has to be delivered in the same language as the Patented Programm.
if the Programm is Provided In three Languages ( Poser ) English French and German would have to be Provided the users will probably speak one of those, only to understand the usage of the Program.
as For DS it is only in one Language so the necessity to provide more then English falls off.
so Poser ad-dons would have the need of three languages
That's 100% not true.
Coldrake
I can give you a classic Hollywood Sample we have this creation
originally made in 2001 for Star treck
Owner/Creator
Paramount Pictures and/or CBS Studios
or
http://www.trekipedia.net/file/pjem/
well now we look at this modell made in 2011
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/221/d/9/monastery_by_bikovision-d45trde.jpg
this product is found in different stores as a amazing perfect remake ( Well I assume so )
even that the model is only visible from one side in the Movie-clip for approx 5 seconds
now ... does anyone have the right to recopy a model 1:1 Daz Eula Say's no but truth is
you can !!
If the law would be as strict as Pretended then there would be no more model
this up here is just a small sample of many Creations , in here at renderosity and other creative stores.
many Ideas stolen from others , without giving credit ,
is it not a fact that Bones for Clothings on V4 are ripped from the mesh ?
is it not fact that 100'000 of textures from dolls are taken from Pictures without giving credit
or even asked the Owner to be used ?? shall one ripp apart the truth of Design and creations?
and would it really be affordable if even the creator would strictly fallow the Eula Paragraph
without exceptions !!!
Your answer is Primitive and Lacks substance based on facts .
give me a reasonable sample to contradict my argument , and not only
That's 100% not true.
first Image is the remake second is the Original from the Movie
I don't know where you get the idea that the EULA is talking about patents. It is setting the terms under which you can use the content, which is protected by copyright.
As for the myth that you can take parts of something and reassemble them and in so doing escape the limitations of the original copyright it is simply not true. A derivative work (one that modifies a copyright original) is just that - a derivative - and as such is subject to the same restrictions and ownership as the original.
As for the Star trek building, perhaps the rights owners are not aware of it and will send a cease-and-desist order when they are (especially if trademarks are involved, since they must be actively defended), though they may choose to allow it as fan art if no money is involved. In any event, if it is inspired by the film item it isn't made from it and so the basis of the action would be slightly different from the situation with an item made from a mesh or texture purchased at DAZ.
You are right that clothes get their bones from the original figure, and often their weights or falloffs are derived from the figure. That is because DAZ 3D grants permission for people to use those in the creation of support products (clothes, hair and conforming body parts). If a new human figure was created using the bones, weights, or mesh of genesis or one of thee earlier figures it would not be a permitted use and a DMCA notice would be sent, at the very least. If items such as photographs are used to make textures without the permission of the rights owner then that would be a violation of the owner's copyright and the derivative would be removed when discovered.
So if I get it right the Eula is actually Forbidding use of any Part of a sold figure into another " Right "
But in the other hand to be able to make business Daz Tolerates to use Bone structures in other figures !
In the other hand it is allowed to make Personal Renderings Clips or images , what I take out of the Eula it is the only thing allowed.
would it be the case that someone Renders Add's that will bring him a fortune , then money would be involved !
in a extreme case lets assume a figure would be used in a successful Hollywood movie , what would the Original Creator do??
I assume he would want credit and a part of the chunk witch would prove what kind of a greedy Eula this is.
At the end the eula Say's nothing more that you bought an unfinished Image , as we talk about modern 2 D Design and not Materialistic things.
witch in another hand would mean that you actually do not even have permission to refine that unfinished Product to create
another more sophisticated one.
In short terms what we buy here are only Images like a painting in our materialistic world that are unfinished and actually is not allowed to be changed.
we all know basics about the Media Law's
you create a movie , you have to give credit to any participants and also permission for Public usage for any used Part. witch also would mean that the things sold here are not worth more then an unfinished Product.
so in theory you would not even be allowed to make a successful movie out of the bought things in here. We call this in our business Language ( You Selling hot Air )
Lets talk about Raw Art ... Booy hey Little Zombie made it to a Newspaper !! What a proud thing but not talking about the actual creator of the render
but saying " I Made this one " now where is the actual creator of that render ?? is it Raw Art or the one who actually rendered the product ??
Lets assume he would of found hes Product in a Resident Evil Movie ... what would he have done ???
Is it that we just buy things in here to make free Publishings for the original creator ? spending thousands of $ to support there Creations
spending hundreds of hours on rendering to give them all the credit ?
so the products compared to materialistic things could only be used as a trophy collection to place into a showcase ( Dust-catchers )
Humans are Pretty Primitive beings well until they recognize the troth.
My mom tough me Share and do not be greedy do not cheat on others !!! so why do I have the feeling when I read this eula witch specifies
opposite. be greedy, do not share, and cheat on others.
If you have Kidds? how would you educate them? would you teach them how to cheat on people be greedy , or would you do what your Parents have thought you to do, being Honest and Fair.
The EULA allows the commercial use of rendered images, stills and animations, without any additional license or credit. So if someone used DAZ content in a film, however much it grossed, they would not owe DAZ any additional fees and would not be required by DAZ to list the source in the credits. Most of your post ignores this and therefore is not valid.
It should be noted, in a major blow to EULA's in general, that courts have recently ruled that, in Oracle v Usedsoft GMBH, in the event that you purchased a piece of software, model, etc, (physical copy or not) you do have the legal right to resell that license, regardless of what the EULA says.
This raises interesting issues in nations which recognize right of first purchase, as, technically, you could legally purchase the license without being bound by the license agreement, in theory. How the court would rule on it, however, is a good question.
Note, however, that the court was quite clear that in selling or disposing of the license the original owner forfeits their right to use the content. It doesn't allow a single license to be multiplied to multiple licenses and, since many publisher already allow transfer automatically or on a case-by-case basis, it's impact does not appear to be that dramatic.
No, the EU refusing to pass ACTA was a blow to the anti-counterfeiting crowd (I'd use a few more descriptive terms, but it would violate the rules of this board. While I'm sure DAZ pays and gets paid a fair amount, most corporations resell at staggeringly grotesque profits, usually while giving the creators the shaft as hard as possible.)
A similar ruling was Verner v Autodesk in the US. The EU court's ruling though does have an interesting twist in that you cannot subdivide the number of license you purchase, if a piece of software comes with more than one license.
The question is: does the License Agreement transfer with the license? It might sound odd, but *generally speaking* the law does treat them as two separate things. Since in the case of the resale, the license has been issued due to the first purchaser having agreed. However, if he sells his license, then, in quite a few European countries, no agreement exists between the second hand purchaser and the original developer, as most do not recognize implicit consent. While the developer does have the right to prevent illegal copying, they would not have the right to exorcize any punitive clauses in the EULA. This means that, as an example, they could not force the defendant to shoulder their court costs unless the judge ruled so expressly and COULD be liable for damages due to poorly functioning software.
In the case of content, if the license didn't transfer then the files would be of very little use - it's only the license's grant of the right to use the content for renders that makes it possible to post renders and animations using the content, otherwise they'd be unlicensed derivatives of copyright works and would be prohibited. So if the ruling is upheld and deemed to apply to content, if the license didn't transfer the content would be useful only for work that never left the creator's system and was not shown to others.
Not sure where you're going with that train of thought, as I never said the license wouldn't transfer, just the license agreement's terms would not transfer. The license was granted to the original party agreeing. The court ruled specifically that the original purchaser gives up their right to the license, not that the license is revoked and reissued with the new purchaser required to comply with the original terms of sale (The EULA not being the same things as the license in Europe). Further, using an unlicensed image does not necessarily make it derivative, in the eyes of the law, any more than a pair of nikes appearing in a movie without NIke's permission makes it derivative, as they sold that pair of shoes and the owners are protected by right of first sale. They could file suit on Moral Rights grounds, but that's about it.
The reason for this, under US law, is transformativeness. Let's say that I had a legal right to own a copy of, say, a dress, even though I did not agree to the EULA. Technically, as long as the design of the dress did not constitute a major portion of the art (say I put a new texture on it and maybe some deformers, and the character dances around a big assed ball room and sings) then it's not even derivative work under US law.
IANAL, but I think Richard's point is the question of what the user has purchased if the EULA does not apply. The general view of 3D content is that, absent the EULA, the content is for personal use. It is the EULA that grants the user the right to sell renders made with the content; otherwise you would be selling a derivative work. As an analogy, if I purchase a copy of a movie, I do not have the right to sell prints of frames from that movie, or photoshopped prints of frames; I only have the right to view it. So is 3D Content considered an artwork, which the end user has the right to use privately but not commercially, or is it a tool akin to a paintbrush, which can be used to create items for sale? While software could be considered akin to a paintbrush or movie camera, as a tool, content seems to me to be more akin to a work of art. You can create your own content using software, just as you could create your own movie with a camera, and sell it if you wished, but creating a render using content made by others would be more like dubbing your own dialog into a movie you had purchased. You can use it for your personal enjoyment, and you could sell the original, but you could not sell derivative works created using it.
The movie thing partially a false analogy though, as selling prints of that frame is a direct copy, and thus clearly derivative work. The Photoshop item, on the other hand, might not qualify, depending on how much of the work is that image, and how much of it is original. Remember that derivative works are not an all or nothing item under the law, but rather taken as a case by case basis (Supreme Court, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music). If it can be shown that the change is 'significant', then EULA or not, transformativness applies and it qualifies as a new work under the law.
It might seem peculiar (and it is) but under the law, using the example above, if taken as-is, it's art (maybe, some of them, such as Optitex tshirts, are so broadly generic that they would be questionable). If it's changed though from the original in some meaningful way, it becomes the paintbrush.
What exactly qualifies as 'meaningful' is a good question.
Edit:I'll add one more complication this causes: Sales records from the online store are no longer sure fire records that someone has or has not bought a product legally, since the private sale of a license, while perfectly legal now, does not provide a big trail of proof to follow, with the burden of proof being on the prosecutor or plaintiff.