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
I don't think that's cool. I don't want something with questionable IP status.
In the case of the Retro Props 2, I don't think that is true. From what Jack said I beleive DAZ unilaterally added the license after they had purchased the product.
I agree, which is why I won't buy them and want an easy way of identifying them in the store so I can avoid them. And also, an easy way to identify them in DIM and DAZ Studio so I can not install them or remove them. I suppose it's possible that DAZ could buy out any PA item I've purchased with a standard license and re-release it with an Editorial License, at which point I'd want to stop using the product and would be very unhappy about it.
I was just saying that from DAZ's point of view being able to keep products in the store, and release new products, that may appear close to someone else's IP would be a good thing for DAZ.
In case of DOs probably, I have no idea how things are done or if PAs are told about licensing upfront. Still, this should make them interested in finding out; it might hurt them in the long run, if they end up with several of these items on their page.
But I was talking about actual PA items, that are under their control.
A good way of losing customers maybe. If they sold an item then changed the license afterwards, I'm pretty sure that'd be the last purchase for most people. It certainly would be for me, how could I ever buy anything if such a posibility existed?
And this is a big concern, especially if the change happens after the time limit for refunding an item. When an item changes license from Standard to Editorial, DAZ should: (1) email anyone who already purchased the product with a standard license and inform them about the change to the license, (2) re-open the refund window so people who want a refund because of the license change can get one, and (3) not break/remove any discounts that may have been earned on that order by purchasing that item.
(edited to fix a typo)
What Daz should do is ensure something like this never happens. Even if people would accept the solution you mentioned (I certainly wouldn't), what happens to those who used this items in their projects? What about those who sold projects with said items? Suppose a customer comissioned something for a book cover, and it went into print, or it's for a digital book that's already selliing. Would you tell them to recall everything because... uhhh... Daz change the license to a product you used?
It simply isn't possible for DAZ to change the licence after one has already bought the product, everybody that has any experience with contracts knows that.
RangerRick mentioned a different situatiion , one where they'd remove an item from store and repost it under editorial license, not a direct license change. That could happen theoretically. Even if you bought it under standard license and keep that license, there'd still be something wrong with that item, if it was changed. And the store wouldn't back your original license, as it'd appear with editorial instead.
Why is that difference in licence not noted in the product's readme?
If it was sold with Standard Licence, that licence would be shown in your Product Library. Just like items that were pulled from the store for any reason, would still be in Product Library for ones that bought it before it was pulled.
DAZ can't ensure that it won't happen even for things that were sold with a standard license. The best they could do is indemnify the customer. I don't believe they do that, although, I'd have to go back and re-read the EULA to be sure that's not in there. And, yes, it's a disaster for those involved when an IP infringment, no matter how unintentional, is discovered.
I can think of at least one item that (from memory) seemed ot be a great reproduction of a set from a major movie that disappered from the store. And, also, a character released in the store that seemed spot on to a non-human character from a computer game currently being developed that was changed and re-released. This was before the Editorial License was an option. If a customer used those products in a comercial way they would have similar concerns/problems. I've seen a few threads about "why has this product gone" but I've never seen a thread where DAZ identified a product as being removed over IP concerns. The points you're making about liability also apply to items sold with a Standard License. The Editorial License gives DAZ a way to make the (potential) customer aware they may have IP issues to deal with, especially for commercial use. Unfortunately, without being told who the IP holder (or potential IP holder) is it's not as useful as it could be.
I think they are hinting at an extreme and rare case where the item is pulled entirely, including automatic refunds and pulled from downloads and library. But if that case were to happen, then it still wouldn't apply as people would need to rebuy under a different license agreement.
I agree that's how it should work. I'll have to go back and re-read the EULA to see if it has anything about customers accepting whatever is the current license, as opposed to what a product was sold as. I thought that was kind of standard boiler plate for general consumer licenses. In another thread there was at least one person who mentioned they saw the Editorial license in their product library and seemed surprised. I don't know if they bought the item when it had a standard license or if they bought it after it was re-released with an editorial license.
I was about to ask, are we talking about something concrete here or just a made up case? I can't imagine a way for a license to suddenly change either. The license you got at the time would be the only relevant one for you.
In the case of the Retro Apartment Props 2 product it was DAZs decision, not the PAs, could possibly be the same with the Cyber Racer.
Why punish us and reward DAZ? Were I a PA in that situation, I'd be asking what needs to be done to the product assigned an editorial license by DAZ 3D so that they could choose to change it to avoid loss of sales.
That likely happened and the PA did not want to go change the product and re-render promos/icons. All of that takes time and delays a release which means delayed income. Not to mention it's mentally draining going back to change a product that you considered to be finished. I'm pretty sure I would've gone for the slightly less desirable license instead too if given the choice.
After a quick re-read of the EULA at https://www.daz3d.com/eula ; it's pretty much as I expected. No one should panic but everyone should re-read the EULA every once in a while.
My read of "Section 1.0 General License Agreement", "Title and Ownership" is that it's up to the user to obtain any additional "rights or consents" which may be necessary for commercial use. No one should panic here. It's probably only going to matter for works that in whole or in part may resemble established IP; so a name, form, image, slogan, paint color, etc that is trademarked or has a copyright requiring license for use. Anyone who is concerned should be reading the EULA themselves and double checking with their legal consultant.
Under "Three-Dimenshional Works" the first bulleted item mentions "DAZ makes no representation, warranty, or guaranty about the applicability of the fair use doctrine to any particular use of the Content ...". Again, this seems normal to me. Anyone concerned about the licensing, either Standard or Editorial, should re-read the EULA.
I'm guessing most people won't be affected. And people creating commercial content probably don't have to worry about most of the products at DAZ. However, if you're producing art for commercial use you might want to consult with your legal advisers. But that should already be part of your process if you're producing art or content for commercial use.
There's lots of other stuff in the EULA that people should be familiar with and I'm kinda surprised that some people seem surprised at what's in there.
I don't object to DAZ offering products with an Editorial License. In general I won't buy any out of caution even though I don't make anything worth bying. I am concerned about the lack of visibility of the License type on the product page and inability to filter based on license in the store, in DIM, and in DAZ Studio. I'd also like DAZ to identify the "copyright and/or trademark owner of the Content" in the product page and "Read Me" page to assist us in complying with the EULA. Some people have already said they're going to mention a number of the questions/concerns people have raised to DAZ. I'll probably try to craft a politely worded support ticket to DAZ with my questions/concerns/suggestions when I get a chance.
..I dumped the Cyber Racer and the asked for a refund on the Retro Apartment Props 2.
What other ones are there?
All I can say is that product of retro accessories for the retro apartment lost a sure sale to me. The other product that has that problem, the cyber car, also lost a sure sale. If they loose 25% or more of their sales then, depending on the price, it would of been worthwhile to rework them to remove that editorial license.
In my eye, those two products are the exact type of product I'd never of expected to be bothered with such a license assignment.
I'm curious about how one is supposed to do this part... "the User must take all possible and reasonable efforts to credit the copyright and/or trademark owner of the Content"...
The two current items don't give any indication of who those trademark owners might be... I'm guessing "LEMB" is supposed to be "SMEG" (Only because I recognize the lettering and have seen their products which are not common in the US) and the Cyberracer is probably something related to Cyberpunk 2077 (I don't own that game, but it seems probable), but neither product actually claims to be related to those trademark owners.
So if one is not familiar with the subject matter or recognizes it, reasonable effort there is probably a Google search and a guess and when that doesn't pan out, forget about it?
This is my precise problem with the Editorial License... not that it exists, but that it's suddenly a major additional factor of review added to the store, a complete additional manual review on my part of every product, with the lack of visibility and lack of a filter option to exclude the license. It's like they don't see a substantial enough difference between the licenses with respect to their customers, although with a large percentage here it's probably true.
I returned and asked for refund for Cyber Racer and it's add on Liveries, Retro Apartment Props 2 + plus RAP set 1, the apartment and both pose sets, of these only Cyber Racer and Retro Props2 had this restriction but I thught it was pointless having the other products becauseof this which is sad really cause these sets looked great but I didn't want to risk legal problems if I sold renders. Wa given full refund. Slightly off topic but not, I do remember some armor released mabe gen2male years ago that had restrictions too could only use in personal renders not selling renders
this brings up a question about useage of other stuff sold in store now that resembles certain items/themes from movies shows as well as figures that either resemble strongly characters from various entertainment media as well as real life people/celebrities are we going to have to keep an eye out on new release figures in case they have this new restriction as well as other productsand will previous released stuff have restrictions added and before anyone says no they can't do that yes yes they can as I've fallen foul many times in life from the oh they wont do that and then they did
I'd be slightly weary, making stuff resemble other productions too much. I'd assume, though, that PAs take some care, not to be too close with a character, however if you recreate whole sets, and it's not a parody or a meme, or even if, it might get itchy. Fan fiction movie making attempts tell some story there. Still you do have models of cars and ships from real life, and it's well known, that some manufacturers don't want their models used, while others impose restrictions on use, ending up similar to an editorial license.
I don't have issues with other type of licenses, may they add creative commons and what not else :), but i'd also say, it has to be made transparent, at least if the standard license is not contained (!), as that's the actual transparency issue, e.g. with the icons with the cart buttons. My problem with licensing rather is, that PAs in theory can add restrictions in the description text, which is horrible by nature, and of course such text belongs into the box/area where the other licensing info is put.
Yeah, I just saw the similarities to the real appliances and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the logo that's the issue. It's almost 1:1 the same font and the company's very prominent, brand-specific placement.
All I can say is...if you're a content creator, please don't? I can't imagine any situation in which I would even want a highly-visible random word plastered in block letters on a prop that's probably not going to be the focus of a scene, and the flower design isn't even something the company makes as far as I can find so accuracy isn't the point here. Granted, it's better to have the license here as a heads up, but man. There are sites that sell photorealistic replicas of real products to make 3D renders indistinguishable from photographs for magazines or whatever, and these are not that. They're nice props, but there's no reason to do this.
@Daz_Travis Again, I believe both customers and PAs need to be instructed by DAZ about what kind of items will be subject to the "editorial license" and what's the reason behind that. So that customers are well aware and PAs can avoid the editorial when designing their items for the shop, or be aware that a particular item will be editorial.
Unfortunately, the license part in the Product library can be overwritten by Daz ... as seen when the 3dprinting license was introduced.