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
Considering the importance of this topic for their customers and the valid concerns raised, the utter silence of Daz personnel responsible for this area is quite deafening...
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
Non-commercial only? But what about my God-given right to turn a profit?
It's the same complaint that comes up every time someone releases a non-commercial freebie.
Totally fine by me.
As far as I read most people here just want to be able to tell apart those non-commercial items from the normal items in the store. Considering the store pages it is a valid concern.
There is a difference between paying for something and not being able to use it commercially (and render contests are commercial, for example) and a freebie. I don't understand the complaints about non-commercial freebies.
As far as I am aware the Editorial License is not an alternative way of licensing content that could be released under the regular license, it is for content that could not be released at all without the restrictions of the Editorial License.
Which is why many of us want an easy, quick way to at least KNOW what these items are at a glance - a corner flash, or any other good indication of what the license is, or to be able to exclude them in a search of store pages. While I do renders as a hobbyist, I can acknowledge that first: it would be nice to not have to do a complete top to bottom review of content purchased before selling images in the future and second: if there's granularity provided in the license, that I can avoid the potential of "yeah, if we catch wind of THIS sort of image done then you're in trouble Miss Hobbyist" if I post images that I've made. The former is a very viable concern, the latter is also a concern if I decide I'd like a specific piece for a piece of non-commercial art for, say, my D&D group.
Only if you're including the actual model like they're doing with the NFP series. If you're just making the NFT from 2D images, that's covered under the standard license.
It may not always have to be fanart. There have been many commercial uses in mainstream media with parody. I am not talking about thematic parodies like Austin Powers or Johnny English but parodies like the Scary Movie series or something as recent and popular as Amazon's The Boys series where one cannot just miss the resemblance with the most iconic DC universe characters. While I don’t expect Amazon or any major hollywood studios shopping here for any big budget 3D animation parody, there will always be demand and room for creatively filling up additional pages of Herogasm or vividly illustrating conundrums like what do supes do when they are not fighting crime or saving the world?
I can see this license being used mostly for some of the iconic video game characters. Many Overwatch characters have their own dedicated subs on Reddit, which should give a fair picture about the demand side of things. Not only there is demand but the resistance from original IP owners is also relatively low in this field (with the few exceptions of publishers like 2K Games).
With most of demand being fulfilled within private dedicated Discord servers or artist monetization platforms like Patreon, Ko-fi, BuyMeACoffee etc. (with Twitter providing the reach and marketability) it might be economical for some consumers to fulfil their demands from here, rather than commissioning artists through one of these channels.
I'm not sure I understand this. If I do a cover with a photograph, I pay a fee because I'm using someone's image. But the whole point of me being a CGI artist is I don't have to pay lisencing fees because I create my own images.
I get paid $60 a cover. I can't afford to pay not only $$ for a product, but also a liscening fee on top of that. In that case it makes no sense to spend 12 hours on a cover. I can buy a photo and slap titles on it like everyone else.
I'm not paying a licensing fee to use someone's original dress or character, if that's what you mean to do. I already paid once.
As to Disney-- I wouldn't use a Disney product that wasn't marketed by Disney. That's a great way to get sued. There is a very fine Captain America costume with Cap colors. I used it for a superhero book cover, but with a red texture that looked nothing like Cap.
I don't usually even download freebies with non-commercial/editorial license. Waste of time, don't need the hassle.
None of this is relevant - the editorial licenses will be for non-commercial work, which your book covers are not, so you simply will not use this content 9even if they allowed actual editorial use, as with Tubosuid, I believe it would still exclude your use case). There is no suggestion that there will be ongoing license fee - when you buy content from the store the (one-off) license fee is what you are paying.
Guess what? PA's can't legally produce or sell products that are Trademarked or Copyrighted - that's why they are Trademarked and Copyrighted in the first place. So if you think you can make a 3D model of Fred Flintstone, or Marilyn Monroe, or the Empire State Building, or Batman, or Ralph Lauren furniture, or ANYTHING that ever appeared in a movie or TV show or book that is still under copyright - you can't. PERSONAL USE means personal use of a copy YOU MAKE YOURSELF (like if you save a photo from the Internet to your own privately owned computer) - it doesn't mean SELLING a copy of something for the personal use of someone else.
Putting any kind of restrictions or limits on the use of assets people buy to use in renders they post on the Internet or publish in any way, or display publicly, or receive any kind of compensation for, is going to cause you to lose your business - because people won't shop here, and PAs that sell here will move to other 3D content market websites. You’ll lose their trust, and they’ll leave, and they’ll never come back - no matter how many WE WANT YOU BACK emails or special offers you send them.
The ONLY reason most people shop at DAZ3D is that they don't have to be concerned with copyright or Trademark issues. You mark even ONE product as EDITORIAL USE ONLY and you'll lose the trust of the people who shop here.
I will NEVER buy 3D content that has restrictions on commercial use in 2D projects or products. I will NEVER add them to my content library EVEN IF THEY ARE FREE.
You confuse customers about legal rights to your products, you’ve lost them, and instantly. I purposely don’t shop at some of DAZ3Ds competitors BECAUSE they sell some products that are EDITORIAL USE ONLY.
Legal ramifications of COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK issues terrify, absolutely terrify artists in every medium.
I'm ALREADY questioning whether I should buy anything else here.
If DAZ3D wants to sell EDITORIAL USE ONLY products, I suggest you start a new company with a new name and a new website that has NO connection to DAZ3D - to sell those products.
BIG BIG companies make wrong business decisions and they lose a lot of their business, or all of their business - such as CNN, AOL, MYSPACE, TUMBLR, and gradually FACEBOOK/INSTAGRAM and TWITTER.
I don't want DAZ3D to disappear.
COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK laws are DIFFERENT IN EVERY COUNTRY. There is NO international trademark law. The copyright laws are DIFFERENT in Canada from the copyright laws in the USA. And every country repeals and revises copyright and trademark laws. So this EDITORIAL USE ONLY - only applies to the US. There's 195 countries in the world and ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTYFIVE different sets of copyright and trademark laws - most of them in languages that 99% of us don't even read or understand. I'm sure many counties DON'T EVEN RECOGNIZE "editorial use". Some countries take Inellectual Property that is in the Public Domain and change the law, and put it under copyright again. Warner Brothers got sued for using Sherlock Holmes, which is in the Public Domain. In Canada we have a CANNOT TRANSMIT law, which means you can't even email some things, let alone, God forbid, you post it on the Internet anywhere for any reason or purpose - ever. The US has a Parody exemption in its copyright law - Canada does NOT have a Parody exemption, which is why Canadian TV producer Lorne Michaels had to move to the US to create Saturday Night Live, and why Canadian commedians such as Mike Myers, Jim Carrey, and Dan Aykroyd had to immigrate to the States.
European countries are introducing THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN laws.
And there are MORAL RIGHTS laws which can prevent you from even letting anyone see the art you produce.
And PRIVACY LAWS.
And these laws just exist - you don't even have to notify anyone that those laws apply to what you are using or what you are using it for.
I can't promote my art on Instagram because INDONESIA has a law that says that nobody under 21 can be exposed to the art. And my art is of JESUS.
You know something, people don't need more stress, more confusion, more anxiety, more uncertainty. I got fed up with iTunes and finally just erased everything I bought from them.
OK, true.
I like the new 3D licenses though. Maybe I will try to make my own Christmas Manger scene.
In some countries, EDITORIAL USE is anything OTHER than advertising. So editorial use would cover things like photos reproduced in college text-books, photos of "news worthy" events published in news media - but EDITORIAL USE doesn't mean the original creator loses any of their many rights to the material, or doesn't have to get paid for the use. Then there is the American concept of "editorial use", which is that the fashion photographs that appear in fashion magazines are "editorial" and not advertisements. But they are not legally "editorial" photographs - so the fashion magazines hire famous photographers to create the "editorial" fashion photos as "work for hire" which makes the magazine a sort of temporary employer of the photographers, and the right for the magazine to publish the editorial photogrphs is transferred to the magazine - BUT in many cases, the magazine does not own ALL the rights to the photographs.
You need specialized Intellectual Property lawyers to work all this out all the time. You can't buy a quilt at a store and just put it in your movie as a background prop because there is a quilt artist who owns the rights to it.
Did the Supreme Court rule that "fan art" is not compromising any of the rights that the legal rights owner has to the material? I'm asking because I don't know.
I think a lot of people really do not understand the complexities of trademark /copyright use in the USA (Fauvist made an excellent post about how additionally confusing it gets with other countries laws so everything I will say further is just for the US) This kind of thing will just be a huge mess and headache for DAZ. First off there is NO personal use exemption in these laws. That said you would probably not ever be punished for pure at home use since that use would be hard to prove as a case for damages so no money could reasonably be lost or gained for the holder. Now if there is ANY public display that could change things radically even if the work is not the primary source of the monetary loss/gain. By and large when you read about large companies suing small entities it is not because they are greedy/evil (they might be but that is irrelevant here) but because they HAVE to. In the US if you do not adequately defend your rights you risk having a court declare the work has slipped into the public domain and you lose them. Two real world examples from personal experience; many, many years ago my friend wanted to make a superman home based movie (we are talking 8mm here), don't ask me why but he wrote DC and asked them if that would be OK. They (politely) wrote back and told he could not do so and they said they could not allow him to do so because they had just sold ALL movie rights for a commercial project (this was a few years before anyone even knew about the start of the superman movies). Second my old Med. school gave away T-shirts with Bugs Bunny in scrubs with the logo "What’s up doc?" but failed to ask for permission. When Warner’s brothers found out they informed the school they had to stop immediately. They explained they DO license the character to schools and nonprofits for a token fee BUT that had to be approved BEFORE the items were made and distributed and now they could NOT; since to do so could be used as an example they were not seriously defending their rights. I have serious doubts many of these super close hero costumes are legal, but the holders are at no real risk if they cannot be shown to be prove ably aware of the violations existence (they would rather play dumb than be forced to waste resources stopping the person and receiving nothing but bad publicity for doing so (cannot get blood from a stone). I highly doubt Marvel/Disney would EVER officially license a 3D model of their characters suits not to mention risking getting sued themselves if it looked like the actors. Also do they want to risk having the Arian brotherhood having a freely distributed picture of Captain America saying they aren’t such bad guys after all? Sure they could sue but if the guy making them lives in a swamp what would they get? Even stopping him would result in bad web news about a mega corporation bullying a little guy with little to no details (feel free to switch any group you want here the outcome stays the same). So DAZ please consider this: you get more vendors hawking questionable merchandise. A goodly amount of your customers will not go near it. It will have a lot of poor quality (I do go to other sites and see a lot of pure dross. It will fill up your servers, you will HAVE to jump through hoops to keep this stuff away from customers who do not even want to see it. Some will disregard all warnings you post and will get caught up in who knows what legal hassles which you will probably get dragged into at some point. GOOGLE WILL wind up producing searches with tags like DAZ sell copyrighted works or DAZ involved this group or DAZ lets customers get sued, which will hang around for years. Your site will undoubtedly experience performance hits sorting this stuff causing customer churn for what? Is it REALLY worth it?
There's a fairly extensive body of international trademark law. 193 countries are members of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The organization addresses international patents & industrial designs, as well as the "Madrid System" for trademarks.
As to the use of a quilt as a prop, this is almost always allowed as "fair use". The quilter really only has protection for their design as a design--they're protected from someone making and selling an identical quilt/too similar quilt. Permission of the original designer of a prop item is rarely needed.
To give another example, if a building is used as a location for a film, there isn't any need to receive permission from the designing architect or designing firm.
...also many such common props are made "in house" by the studio.
Thank you Daz but no thank you. I do not want the the mixing of licence types in my Daz installed content. Having EDITORIAL licensed content on my machine that does commercial work is to much of a personal liability under the daz license terms and conditions.
Educational licensees I stay away from. Can't use commercially in any way.
Interactive licenses are purchased separately and I like the at for me as I have no use personally for the need of these licensee types.
Non-Commercial licenses, well duh yeah I stay far away from.
now your introducing a new license type to Daz content from the Daz website? Yeah , option to decline EDITORIAL licensed content from the Daz3d website is is a must for me personally. Don't want any of that content touching or potentially touching my hard drive, or even my account perferably.
The only reason I use DAZ is for the commercial use content if anything comes along thats not commercial use I am just not interested in it and as MachineClaw has said having something thats not commercial use on a commercialy used machine is dangerous.
As has been said already the ability to clearly filter out editorial products from the store would be useful if I have to resort to reading small print in the product readme's that could cause become a spending speedbump.
edited due to my inability to string a sentance together :P
Never put a price tag on copyrighted content, no matter if it's being used for fan art. Any kind of "profit", which includes donations via sites like patreon, WILL get you into legal trouble. Who's going to be the one who gets a copyright infringement/DMCA lawsuit? The person/people who made said infringing content (the PA) or the company that allowed the ability to make copyright infringing content with a price tag (DAZ 3D)?
I can't imagine it is possible that they can go back to something you have already purchased and add a new restrictive license. Going forward yes, but not backwards -- that would be similar to buying something with a 3 year warranty and then being told we are going to retroactively change that to a 1 year warranty instead.
I too will avoid products with this new Editorial Warranty -- too restrictive and makes owning such a product too limited. If most DAZ products start to come out this way, I will merely divert my patronage more to other 3D product web sites.
Anything currently in the store would not chnage, and should not need an editorial license. This is a way to handle content that could not otherwise be handled, as I understand it, not an optional new way of presenting content that could be presented under the standard license.
I was a motion picture and television union set decorator - there are several thousand articles and posts about what is and what isn't copyright infringement. As for trademarks - you have to register the trademark in EVERY individual country. I own trademarks. What I trademark in Canada is not trademarked all over the world. The trademark is legitimate ONLY in Canada.
Court cases about quilts in movies/tv http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Quilting/QuiltingCourtCases.shtml
I notice that you're a set decorator, not a trademark lawyer.
I also notice that you're wrong. Registering a trademark with the EUIPO means that the trademark applies across all member states of the EU, an international body consisting of multiple independent countries.
He stated that he's a set decorator, and as such, he has to know the laws relevant for his job. And that there are thousands of articles about all these regulations. No lawyer degree needed for this. A truck driver also has to know the regulations of the country where he does his job about traffic on the roads. How much do you know about set decorating and the laws needed to the job in a foreign country?
AFAIK Canada, the country in Fauvist has his trademarks, isn't a member of the EU and I don't know if a Canadian trademark can be registered in the EUIPO, which is an office for european union countries. There might (!) international agreements about it, or there might not. And adding to this, there's further international treaties between other countries with a different wording than the european one. It all comes to the pont that, as Fauvist (kind of) stated, Trademark law is a effing complicated area that offers many traps for the careless...
just to be clear
IANAL
(I am not a lawyer)
but
one hopes DAZ at least have a good one
Lets keep the conversation civil and not have a go at each other and keep it on the topic instead.
I was just going to mention that as far as I am aware and please do correct me but when you see a scene in a film of say a room and there are posters or pictures on view they have to all be rights released and I believe FAA (Fine Art America) has a program to sign up to this useage for uploaded artworks, I assume they are still doing it not checked in a good while.