EULA Update & Editorial Licenses Coming to Daz
Daz_Travis
Posts: 79
Hey everyone,
Dropping by to let you know we’ve updated our EULA. This update includes the introduction of Editorial Licensing, changes to content limitations, and more. With these changes, we hope to provide more product variety by carrying items we’ve been unable to offer under the existing EULA restrictions.
Key EULA Changes:
-
Introduces a new licensing level called Editorial Licensing. This allows for a new type of content to be restricted to non-commercial purposes.
-
Allows new Daz store content to include additional license restrictions beyond the standard agreement on the product page. For example, a trademarked product may include additional information.
-
Removes the unit restriction for 3D Print Licenses and updates to establish a 3D Print License for potential purchase.
What is an Editorial License?
Editorial Licensing is a licensing agreement that defines the usage of a product as editorial only. Purchasing a product with an Editorial License gives you no rights to any IP within, meaning you cannot use it commercially unless you secure the rights with the original IP holder(s).
Editorial License Restriction Examples:
-
Products may not be used in games or NFTs, either transformative or derivative works (2D or 3D)
-
Products may not be used to create any merchandise (book covers, clothing, logos, etc.)
-
Products may not be used in any advertising or promotional material (online, TV, etc.)
-
Products may not be used in any unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)
Read the full rights of the End User License Agreement for more details.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I will NEVER buy a product that doesn't have a commercial license, not ever. Not even if you gave it to me for free. That's right, I wouldn't even add it to my account if it were free.
I will NEVER (read: never ever ever ever) buy a product that is trademarked. If it isn't allowed for commercial use, it's less than pointless. Just having 'non commercial' items in the store makes Daz a place I would be unlikely to shop. If I can't trust that everything I buy can be used, I have no reason to shop here.
Another reason I always liked the store was the fact that everything was under one license agreement, I didn't have to look at additional pages or restrictions. From your second bullet point it looks like you may be offering venders a way to add extra restrictions or changes to the basic license, which isn't remotely helpful or user friendly to the customers. I like knowing that everything is under one license and in order for someone to sell a product here, they have to agree to it. That way, I know I'm covered because the license was simple and covered all products.
That's not me being dramatic or giving you an ultimatum, it's just stating a fact. If it can't be trusted that everything is commercial, there's just no point in shopping here.
The problem with you now being able to offer items that wouldn't have been allowed under the old EULA, is that those items probably shouldn't be on here in the first place.
Just sayin'
Edited to add: I'm aware that there was a restricted license on a product for V3... like a million years ago. I actively avoided it. Which is exactly my point, having things to avoid store wide is a problem.
So from reading this it sounds like there will be 3 different licenses agreements on the products available in the store.
Will the Editorial License soon take over the Standard License? If it does, it means that it will affect lots of people that want to create art, comic books, even promo renders included when selling items as a PA. For example, junk recently created a promo image for a new Mousso character. If any of the products he used had the Editorial license, Mousso would not have been able to his art as sample render for the character.
I'm curious on how often PAs will opt to sell their products using the Editorial License now that it's available. It will be sad to no longer be able to use Daz products for 2D art in all the ways many customers might be using them right now. What will the upgrade prices be to upgrade from Editorial License to Standard License or will you only offer upgrades to Interactive License for the products with Editorial Licenses? Will you sell products with an Editorial License and no option to upgrade? It sounds like you're adding this for a specific vendor type that the store doesn't currently sell from, but it's not clear on what type of PAs want to sell products with this license type.
I will reserve judgement until the new licenses show up in the store - but it's not enough to just list the restrictions on the product page; I'll need to be able to determine which products in my content library have restrictions.
Big red exclamation mark on the thumbnail in Content Library with "For your own eyes only!!"
Something along those lines anyway.
I just hope there is no chance to retroactively change the Standard licence on anything I have already bought to the Editorial licence.
I am going to join the group of customers who shall avoid anything with the Editorial licence like a plague.
What are 3D Print Licenses? Can I get a link?
This kind of reminds me of when Daz announced that store content would be encrypted to prevent piracy. Many users got up in arms, equating encryption to "DRM", and said they would never buy anything that was encrypted. Daz encrypted a few products and then encryption went away with no explanation.
I hope the non commercial products willl be labeled very clearly, ideally on the main promo image so there is no mistaking anything as there's not a single thing I would ever purchase that I couldn't use commercially.
In my opinion Editorial Licenses are just plain dumb... I hope this will apply on products bought from now on and not the already bought ones, it would be a disaster for many of us creators.
Also, I really, REALLY hope those products will have a separate page on the store and properly labeled as Editorial so I can totally avoid them forever, I won't even open the page containing them, even if they are for free.
Or better, create a separate store where everything is under that license, this way people interested will go there and there will be no mix with the products here that will have a single understandable licensing.
I definitely refuse to pay for something that can't be used in my works...
Hi,
Just to answer a few of the main questions.
It's a fair point about having EL items flagged in DIM or whatever, but that's a huge lift at the moment - and not even sure how feasible it would be.
I have zero interest in checking licenses every time I want to buy something, so unless the store makes it instantly visible from the thumb or at least as soon as I open a product that an item has limitations... I don't know how much shopping I'll do. But I'll reserve any judgement until I see it happening.
This kind of garbage is the reason I haven't bought a single item from places like Rhub.
While I do understand that having an additional "no-commercial" license, for handling unofficial freebies or stuff like that, makes sense...
Having to always look out whether or not a product allows commercial use would be a reason for me to stop buying in the DAZ store. So far, I could always depend on the "when I buy it at the DAZ-Store, it's safe for 2D use of any kind" knowledge. In the future, not any more. I don't like feeling insecure with how I can use purchases.
And honstely... why buy something "for private use" only, when you have tons of freebies running under the same condition ("Non-Commercial") available? Non-commercial licenses kind of defies the purpose of buying the license for the content. If I want to support a freebie content creator, there's always voluntary donations.
Seriously, if I PAY for a product, I want to use it as I please. I want to sell the renders I make, the videos I make, and so on. I understand if you give it to me, you put restrictions on it, I understand perfectly well. But if I pay, I want to do what I want with it. It is not that DAZ gives away the products, on the contrary, the prices have increased in recent years, and in many cases to the detriment of quality. But if now we also invent this other nonsense of the various licenses, I don't know where we end up.
I think it's because fan art for personal use is in demand and people will pay for trademark stuff, DAZ may collaborate with some companies to enable it too.
I don't want it retroactively applied after I buy stuff to use though, even though I don't actually do commercial work or monetise my YouTube channels, just the public nature of it could put me at risk of punitive actions.
I'm looking forward to seeing the 3D printing license. I would already greatly appreciate the ability to give a way as many prints as I like for free, the possibility of a decent merchant licence for 3D resin miniatures might be a way for some people to make a little extra income.
-- Walt Sterdan
"Editorial Use" tends to be a shorthand in user licences to refer to the specific uses given in 17 U.S. Code § 107 that will (normally) validate Fair Use - namely, "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". (And I'm talking about valid fair use, not the very common misunderstanding of it on the internet that "I'm not making money off it, therefore it's fair use", which is just not how it works.)
This is somewhat vaguely defined, as the law itself does not use the term "Editorial Use", but generally it can be understood to mean "must be valid under Fair Use", and therefore mostly means for public information, or for education.
The fact that Daz have apparently added in a "non-commercial" clause confuses things further, as Fair Use can be commercial - not every parody (an act of "comment") has to be non-profit, for example. (Although in practice, for large projects, an agreement has often been reached with the rights holder to preempt any possible legal case)
I believe you probably mean "defamatory" rather than "derogatory".
A review (normally a valid Fair Use) can easily be derogatory (expressing a low opinion of) without being defamatory (slanderous/libellous, for which one usually has to be deemed to be factually incorrect).
~~~~~
In any case, I will join the others in being very sceptical about this, and feel it is important that anything with more restrictive usage rights is made extremely clear - I don't think it just being on the product page is adequate. I think the cart needs to provide a visible warning flag that "Some products in this order have restricted usage"... and indeed, if the store is now bringing out restricted products, the program itself should really have filtering so that restricted usage products can be tagged and hidden from view when needed.
It's one thing when content from other sites has restricted usage that the end user has to keep track of, because those sites haven't got the capacity to add features to DS to help keep track of that, but when Daz themselves are introducing additional restrictions to keep track of, I think the onus is on them to update DS to provide such content management.
Well, if nothing in DIM currently needs it, the only way this would be useful at all is if someone accidentally purchased or downloaded an editorial freebie by accident, which, if highlighted well in the store, shouldn't be a huge problem.
It might be easier to update the cart in that case; possibly have a warning box pop up when you go to purchase something in the cart with the editorial licence, like, "This cart contains items with an Editorial Licence, please check this button to acknowledge that you are aware of the restrictions on the item(s)."
As it would only appear when an item with the Editorial Licence was in the cart, the vast majority of customers would never see it, and it should catch any accidental ur unintended items being purchased.
-- Walt Sterdan
UPDATE: Dang!, Matt Castle posted while I was still typing, beat again. I'm getting too old for this...
This Editorial License stuff should be in a segregated part of the store so that customers can shop Daz in confidence.
Joining the choir here, am feeling rather uneasy about this. I can't see the use of editorial licensing for me personally, and it makes me wonder how complicated the future store system will be to navigate. I really hope that there will be a very clear labelling.
On the other hand, some here have pointed out there might be a necessity for this kind of thing, so I guess I'll basically wait and see before I judge. Again, am not seeing much good in it for me personally, yet.
^Was about to suggest this myself. For me, as well as knowing something was non-commercial use when I bought it, the bigger issue would be knowing it's non-commercial use a year later when I find it in my content directory. For myself, I can always add a 'non-comm' folder to my structure and identify items that way, but for most users, it would be better to add something like the border idea.
I've worked in games industry in the past with small companies, who did this securing rights to IP, it's difficult and expensive.
No thanks, not again, it was not worth it, as a small indie developer. Always worked out better to be original.
Yeah, I will not wishlist, not buy anything with editorial liciense and/or has trademark issues. Since you are doing this, just make sure it's really obvious in the shop and well anywhere.
Whether it's feasible or not, it wouldn't make a difference. If Daz store assets can be used in Unreal, Unity, etc., i.e., the kind of software that's often used to make games, tagging stuff in DIM or DS wouldn't have any effect.
What? No, not interested.
It would be beyond absurd to pay for a product that restrict commercial use.
I will not pay for a 3D asset with a license that dictates in which kind of creative work I can or cannot use it.
I would not get them, even if those assets are free. What would be the point if I can't use them?
"Allows new Daz store content to include additional license restrictions beyond the standard agreement on the product page. For example, a trademarked product may include additional information."
"
Editorial License Restriction Examples:
Products may not be used in games or NFTs, either transformative or derivative works (2D or 3D)
Products may not be used to create any merchandise (book covers, clothing, logos, etc.)
Products may not be used in any advertising or promotional material (online, TV, etc.)
Products may not be used in any unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)
"
Like seriously, why would I pay for an asset that I can't use in my works?
Why would I pay for an asset that arbitrarily restric in what context I can use it? I can see the restrictions some people would come up with...
"You can't use this asset for violence and/or gore."
"You can't use this asset in NSFW of any kind."
"You can't use this asset commercially."
"You can't use this asset if you say that my male character is not a female."
"You can't use this asset in NSFW works that features X kind of content."
"You can't use this asset to express your opinions and/or points of view."
"You can't use this asset to express your creative freedom; unless you push X subject."
Hell no! I will not even look at assets with arbitrarily restrictive licenses.
This seems like a push to dictate what people can or cannot create with assets that they paid for.
I will not buy anything from the Daz Store unless, and until, I'm sure I can use it in my commercial works.
Including censorship and restrictions is a great way to, drastically, reduce sales...
Thanks for the clarification, Jack. Rather than trying to flag EL items in DIM, I would rather see EL items flagged in the cart. I, too, will avoid EL items and would love a "heads-up" in my cart (if I were to accidently put something in it) that an item is restricted.
Because not everyone makes money off the art they make here, and if this can result in lower priced products as it does on Artstation, it is a big deal for hobbyists and those who just enjoy making art for themselves and friends.
I don't even do anything commercial at the moment, but I still wouldn't want anything with an editorial license. I think it's a bad idea. Also, selling trademarked stuff? Are you going to get permission from the trademark owner(s)? Because if not, that sounds shady. Ugh. This is a terrible idea.