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.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
Seems DAZ is working extremely hard to be a 100% synonym for FUBAR
Of course... You are 1,653% correct.
But.
Look at the web address where you posted this sensible point.
Aint never gonna happen.
The smartest thing to do would be to separate the shop into a non-commercial section so serious users never waste their time.
But, that's not going to happen.
Nothing sensible will.
if i could figure out how to make daz characters printable, I would be all for this too. Hopefully not further restrictions.
DAZ has changed and it is changing again. I would prefer opening it up instead of further restrictions. What is it to DAZ how we use their purchased assets as long as we dont give away the assets in our work? 3D imagry, videos, or 3D prints, as loing as its not copyrighted, or other things like Disney characters, whatever.
Most of the Flipped Normals content already has a non-commercial use clause, stated oin the product page. The old Anne Marie Goddard Digital Clone for Victoria 3 had some limitations, also stated on the product page.
So one vendor and one product from fifteen years ago... ?
That wasn't confusing... one vendor and one product to avoid.
DAZ is going to screw up so many new users with this.
All for the glory of the acronym that shan't be mentioned.
Edited to add:
The Anne Marie Goddard Digital Clone for Victoria 3 is long gone and the Flipped Normals stuff (which includes content models) is mostly instructional materials and the notification for it having any sort of different license is a link to the Flipped Normals website which just explains the difference between commercial licenses and personal/non-commercial license, and is not an actual EULA which I'm assuming only shows with purchase of the product, which the user must read to realize whether or not any content or models included is for commercial or private use.
So, not be picky or critical of the reply, but those are not necessarily the best examples, because if DAZ expects everyone to pick through an EULA to figure out what's the dealio, that's just gonna eff up lots of people.
Also Edited to remove an incorrect reference because I mistakenly confused Flipped Normals with a different vendor.
So guys...just to get this right..if someone uses a product and makes a render of it ...then overpaints it in 2d ..then sell the image....he needs to have the editorial licence from now on?
That sounds like you still need the commercial license.
Looks like everything right up to the selling bit would be fine with just an editorial license but once money or other exchange of goods/services/whatever is deemed profit is involved then the whole thing changes and you'd need the regular commercial "it's okay to sell stuff made with this" licensing.
Sorry Richard but Flipped Normals sell only tutorials, and all props from this tutorials are only for example and guidelines. I don't think that's the best example.
I agree with those that have said these products should be in a separate section, and that section should have a filter to hide it, to avoid accidentally getting something that can't be used as the other products.
Dana
The current license that all products (except one ancient product that I don't know if it is even in the store anymore) come with allows for commercial use. That covers what you described.
The new license does not add any new usage, it is more restricted than the current license. If you are planning to monetize something, avoid products with the new license when they eventually get added to the store. But what you are talking about is currently allowed and that isn't going to require any changes.
Honestly, I have no idea what Flipped Normals means by "Non-Commercial Use", which is part of why I've never bought any of it. They're tutorials - am I supposed to forget everything I've learned from them if I ever start a commercial project?
Seriously, what does "non-commercial use only" mean as far as a tutorial?
~~~~~
As far as the Anne Marie Goddard Clone, that's no longer for sale on the store, and the fact that Daz *used* to sell a product with additional restrictions doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea to do so again.
Tthe use of Daz products is already extremely confusing to a newcomer, and the number of times on Discord I've had to go through the difference between standard and interactive licences, or "no, Victoria 4 isn't a Genesis 8 morph", or "That character's built off Michael 8, you'll need him too to get the results as in the promos", or "no, you're not allowed to do that, that involves sharing the mesh files", or "No, Olympia 7 is a Genesis 3 character, there was no Genesis 7"...
... at least one thing that was extremely simple about the default licences for an asset was that "As long as all that leaves your computer is pixels you've rendered, you've basically got free reign". Render it in DS, render it in Unreal, render it in Blender, modify it, combine it, make seventeen backups, sell the work, put your renders in an erotic game... as long as it wasn't otherwise illegal, the simplicity of how permissive the licence was was one of the major selling points at Daz.
Given the level of confusion that already exists, I think it's extremely important that every possible step is made to keep it simple for newcomers.
(xkcd by Randall Munroe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Licence)
Artstation does it. It's not hard, and if the customer can't figure out which license to buy, the fault doesn't lie with the store.
I think I am not interested in it as I can't remember what stuff is commerically allowed to use and what isn't. Or will there be someway I can tell in DS if it is editorial or what not?
Which is why many people prefer to shop at Daz and not at ArtStation.
Nope, it'll be just like this... (From a Flipped Normals store page)...
If you look at their store pages, there is no indication there is anything different licensewise other than that last line above, with the link in grey (not blue or red or something to catch your attention)... Not good for someone who sees a good looking product and is used to everything being for commercial use and therefore doesn't read through all the product details because they are sold on the coolness.
I guess it's a "buyer beware" situation.
The interactive licenses get a whole box... but something like this which could lead to possible legal problems is matter of factly tossed in at the end of a line the product details.
Any reasonable person creating that page should have known better than to just toss that in without calling attention to such a potentially problematic license issue.
Red text draws your attention to important information as does colorful links https://ilyabirman.net/meanwhile/all/hover-highlight/
I hope im wrong and it's implemented thoughtfully, but I'm not holding my breath.
As soon as I read this, I assumed that vendors like ROMFX or 3DUK wanted to set up shop here and therefore a new license was needed to cover their products. This is exactly what this license sounds like it would cover. Yes, you can buy this model of "The Spider Man" or "The Cat Woman" but no, you can't use them in your video game or visual novel or commercial renders.
And do those vendors get permission from the original IP holder for their products? Because if not, that's what I'm talking about as shady.
Somebody in here gets it! Now if DAZ would just confirm this, maybe the panicking and criticizing of those not making money from their art could stop.
Well yeah, I'd assume the sellers would actually BE the original IP holders. That's why I think this could be a good opportunity for hobbyists to be able to use official models of established properties in their artwork, and for hopefully a fairly low price because of the non-commercial use.
Except they're not the original IP holders. I Googled ROMFX. Just at a glance, they sell stuff like Pocahontas and Robocop look alikes. Do we seriously think they are legally representating both Disney and Orion Pictures?
Of course not, and I'm confident that DAZ will make sure that those selling established products are their legitimate owners. I meant that Mike Smith actually understands one of the primary points of these new licenses; to *allow* familiar franchises and products to be made available legally and to not assume this is some shady deal DAZ is cooking up to screw customers who bought a 3D car six years ago that kinda looked like an Aston Martin.
My initial thought was that the intent with the editorial license was to possibly initially sell items partnering with the companies they are selling NFT's with (the companies that own the IP rights to the products). Thus, any violations to the Editorial license would probably get contacted by the IP holders lawyers, not from DAZ3D.
If interested in who/what name brand products DAZ (or more accurately TAFI) is creating NFT's for, just click on the NFT link at the top of the page.
I really doubt I would be interested in anything with an editorial license. But since I have no concrete idea about what this might include, there is still a remote possibility I might want get an item I really like. Doubtful, but possible (it's also a possibility I might win the lottery - doubtful since I only buy a ticket or two every few years .... but it's still possible).
As long as everything is made clear about which products will have these non-commercial/editorial use only licenses and there's a way to sort them out in the store I see no problem with having them available for those of us who want. But I do hope they won't actually cost more than regular Daz products do already. For instance, I would not pay $300 for a G8 version of Harry Potter. Terrific looking model but so far above my budget as a retired hobbyist it might as well be on the moon. :sigh:
Respectfully, you're skipping over the part where, as far as we know, these aren't going to be flagged in DIM or DAZ Connect. That makes a huge difference with the way the libraries are structured in D|S. DAZ has gone out of their way to avoid having users learn to set up their own directories and do their own organization, so if they are not being clearly distinguished it becomes up to the end users to find a way to keep track of what content they can and cannot use for commercial products. If they have been moving towards a simper user interface, that is counter intuitive.
And I also completely disagree on the second point. If the definitions of the licenses are unclear to the point where the users do not know which license they need for their purposes, the fault is 100% with the store. We will see once it is actually implemented if the language is cleared up in the store so that they answer the kinds of questions that keep coming up in this thread.
I dunno, I'm starting to like getting fifty sword meshes for $3 or twenty scary masks for $1.50 after waiting, oh, 15 years for similar masks to show up here. ;)
I would hope that the opposite would be true and that products forbidden from commercial use would be less expensive than others. I guess it will depend on the vendor, but if that starts happening, people will probably just go to those sites mentioned above to get what they can.
AlmightyQuest: You're right, we don't know how this will be implemented yet, but it's possible that the items that are not for commercial use will be so obvious that practically any user will remember (like a Bugs Bunny figure or a Coca-Cola bottle). Maybe they'll be flagged in DIM with keywords or have an acronym in their title. I wish DAZ would tell us a little more about this as well.
On an Artstation page like the one I posted a pic of, if you mouseover the little question marks next to the licenses, a pop-up appears telling you exactly how that license can be used. They are absolutely not at fault if a user buys the wrong license.
My point in being critical about this is that it sucks for newbies and hobbyists or anyone who might eventually want to sell renders, or even dabble in getting paid... even for contests...
Years ago when I first started out with Poser/DAZ, discovered lots of freebies and cheap stuff that were either not for commercial use or were not very clear on what it could be used for... initially I didn't realize that was an issue because I discovered ShareCG which has the Usage Rights information right there, more or less easy to see...
I had to go back and read through tons of Readmes and eventually just deleted the remainder of anything I didn't pay for or couldn't confirm the usage rights of... it was very discouraging because some of the stuff was pretty cool.
Should I have known better? I guess... but that's not always a consolation or something you can always deflect to the consumer...especially if someone doesn't read the forums and doesn't see this notification and this new license tier isn't handled right.
DAZ is always telling us ad nauseam, "the vast majority of users don't read the forums, so forumites concerns and opinions don't reflect the majority of users"... Okay... So if that's the case, and there are lots of users out there that may have gotten used to DAZ selling 99.867% commercial licensed items, it's gonna be crappy surprise to discover after the fact that they've been buying items under the assumption it's still all commercial, but that's now no longer the case.
Especially if they already sold something before they discovered this.
Why am I critical?
The one vendor that sells non-commercial content kinda just mentions at the end of the product description that the item is for personal use only... which might suck for someone who is used to buying DAZ stuff and has come to expect that it's 99% commercial usage... they see the product, check it out and miss that last line... the problem is it's the oddball in term of usage, so why not make it extra clear that it's for personal use only?...
Look at the way that's kinda tacked on there after the product details...
Personally, I'd have checked out after "Well Crafted" because it doesn't sound like details, it more like an ad...
Plus there are things that make no sense to be for personal use only... HDRIs?... Who expects a paid HDRI at DAZ to be personal use only, what flippin' good is that?
But that's all irrelevant, the point is the one oddball vendor doesn't go out of the way to avoid mistakes, why am I going to expect DAZ to implement this in a reasonable fashion... I see lots of those "people who don't read the forums" being caught off guard, as well as newbies too if this isn't implemented well and extremely clearly.
People who use DAZ products for work and to draw income don't need more drama in their lives, and hobbyists or newbies don't need land mines being laid about for them to stumble over.
For me personally, I'll be check license restrictions like a hawk now because I now know there is possibly more stuff like I detailed above... I just feel bad for people who might not find out about this until it's too late.
I'm really hoping DAZ pulls this off in the best manner possible.
I think I'm getting it.
Theoretically, if someone sells a videogame character here, but someone else sells it on Renderhub, the figure here would be subject to an editorial or non-commerical license in the Daz Store, but may not be on Renderhub. How will that work?
(I hope that makes sense).
@SnowSultan ... I hope you're right about any future non-commercial-only Daz stuff being cheaper. The Harry Potter character for G8M is by 3DUK. It does come with hair and outfit and wand prop and is extremely last-movie-accurate judging by the promos. That said, the expensivest Pro Bundle Daz ever produced to my knowledge is nowhere near $300. Funny thing is, the same artist has Hermione, Ginny, Luna, etc. for G8/G3 females and they are around the usual $20 or so I'd pay for a good Daz character here. Odd to see a male figure priced higher than the corresponding female, then again he *is* the series star.