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
As you have missed the point, let me remind you what he said - "As for trademarks - you have to register the trademark in EVERY individual country."
This is factually wrong as my counter-example shows. He might know enough of the law as it applies to him in his own environment but he is not equipped to give legal advice.
And to remind you again, he did not say "If you register in another country you also need to register in Canada to get canadian protection," he made a claim about "EVERY individual country" (emphasis his).
The big question that comes to my mind about Editorial Licenses: With what kind of licensing will we get our PC+ sub's items and freebies...
Technically he is correct when you register with EUIPO you are in fact registering with each individual member country as each member country has to be informed of said registration, you just don't have to personally do it in all of them as it is done for you
Late to the party. Fine, if you want to sell this stuff, but if you do, you must make it easy to filter such things out not just in the store, but also inside the program and DIM, just in case someone ends up with some editorial-only-freebie installed, accidentally or because their use case for Daz Studio has changed.
Yes, yes, DIM can't do it now. This is a necessary feature, regardless.
That would depend whether Daz accepted content requiring an Editorial License for those - I would tend to expect not, but we don't yet know how inclined PAs will be to take advantage of the new opportunity..
EVERYTHING that appears in an American Feature film has to get copyright clearance. If you are using vintage curtains for a mid-20th century period movie - the original fabric from the 1950s had copyright information printed on the edges that got cut off when the curtains were made. The same with most upholstery fabric. The couch may be generic, but the fabric is still under copyright, and the company that owns the copyright can claim they are losing the licensing fee that can be charged for its use. And courts can and do stop the release of films if there are copyright lawsuits that haven't been settled. When you make big budget feature films, in a coffee shop across from the shooting location there is a table of lawyers with phones and computers, and similarly a table of accountants.
...good point. Something I cannot use in my illustration work has no value to me, even if it is free. If such items appear as are Daz+ ones then there will be no purpose in maintaining a membership
I tend to pass on many G8, all G8.1, dForce, and "skimp/sexy" products that appear as Daz+ items or even Daz+ freebies which already lessens the value of membership. Adding non commercial products pretty much would be that final straw.
If it means added items I won't ever want to get, I am fine with it.
If it means the useful items that are offered now get replaced with such useless items I won't ever want to install to prevent any possible accidental legal issues in the future, I am going to consider ending my subscruption.
Some clarification about applications for trademarks in multiple countries, from the website of Canada's Trade Commissioner Service (https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/guides/intellectual-property-prorpiete-intellectuelle.aspx?lang=eng):
When applying for overseas trademark protection, you have two choices:
1. Apply separately in each country.
2. Apply under the Madrid System.
The Madrid System is a convenient and cost-effective solution for registering and managing trademarks worldwide. File a single application and pay one set of fees to apply for protection in up to 124 countries. Modify, renew or expand your global trademark portfolio through one centralized system.
Applications for an International Registration under the Madrid System can be filed through the WIPO Madrid e-Filing service, accessed through CIPO’s online services.
Where a country is not a member of the Madrid System, an application for trademark registration must be filed with that country directly.
[Endquote]
So, if a Canadian wanted trademark protection in the USA, the EU, and Japan, there's no need to send separate applications to other countries, unless you really enjoy extra paperwork and fees. One application and one fee (in Swiss francs) for multi-country (but not global) trademark protection.
As to quilters, who knew they were so litigious?
$100,000.00 . That's how much it costs for a Canadian to register a trademark through the Madrid System. That's for ONE trademark and covers 5 categories of products. They have an online fee calculator. If you want your trademark to cover more than 5 categories of products, the cost goes up. How many of us have a hundred thousand dollars to register a trademark? I don't have the patience to read through all the details anyway.
While fascinating the details of trademark registration are perhaps a bit out of scope for this thread.
I am not a lawyer, but I assume that platforms distributing fan art and other fan developed content enjoy certain concessions under Safe Harbor in many jurisdictions. Whether this new editorial license allows suffcient legal immunity to Daz as a content broker under Safe Harbor is perhaps another discussion. For example, are platforms like Twitter, Reddit or Discord getting sued for hosting those communities or distributing such content?
A familiar way to look at it would be machinima (generalization, not the company) content or any other Fan labor (Fan labor products may be protected by the Fair Use Doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Law, which judges if a work is copyright-infringing... *). This aspect of content creation should be familiar for someone who has been into video gaming during the last two decades. Any machinima style content that has high production value needs to be monetized to recover its costs.
And there lies the paradox. Developers of any high quality machinima style of content won't be able to use editorial licenses since that prevents any commercial usage. They can't use the standard license either, since Daz won't or cannot sell those items under the standard license.
* I strongly recommend reading the entire Fan labor wikipedia article to get the full context.
I guess everyone knows that Copyright and Intellectul Property are complex matter to discuss. But it's useless discuss this now and here, DAZ3D already decided to jump on that train. I think at this point they got that very few likes these news...
What everyone should ask DAZ3D is to put a serious, clear and unequivocal separation between the products under Standard license and products under Editorial license. Preferably a whole different separated site with their own forums.
This way all those interested in the Editorial license will go on the Editorial license site, take whatever they want, discuss as much they like copyrights matters and all they could like while any other NOT interested in Editorial licenses will buy and discuss Standard Licensed stuff totally assured the stuff they bought can be used freely in their works.
Once we are sure what is what, they can do whatever they want as much they want.
So far it doesn't look to be that great a start...
It looks like there is going to be a general "figure it out yourself using this link" sorta deal...
At the moment the interactive license option check box has a "what is this" link that leads to a page that has five license information options...
Both Standard and Editorial seem to be the same general EULA information... clicking the links takes you to different sections of the EULA... So clicking "Standard Agreement" takes you to the beginning of the EULA (1.0 General License Agreement), and "Editorial" takes you to the part of the EULA that mentions "Editorial" usage, but does so in legalese and seems to be missing mention of some the license restrictions mentioned in the first post in this announcement... particularly "Products may not be used in any unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)".... that's a huge restriction to leave undefined.
Enterprise is interesting... Did you know there is something called DAZ Coins?... apparently that's how you pay for license seats in Enterpriseville... I guess it's like the prize tickets at Chucky Cheese...?... whatever, it doesn't actually explain much in detail, or why you are paying in DAZ Coins, which you (I guess) buy with real money and trade for assets... nothing weird about that I suppose, but there is no mention of any special Enterprise EULA agreements there… the “Need More?/Learn More” link just drops you down a few inches to the form to purchase or sign up for the coins… it's not like there is a detailed explanation or anything… also… side note: Nobody likes clicking on a “more information” link that slightly drops them down to something that was already visible a few lines below… it’s kind of unnecessary, disappointing and annoying, especially if I didn’t actually have the opportunity to access information without jumping through a separate hoop… but whatever.
Clicking on the "3D Printing" link takes you to the same section of the EULA as the "Standard" link (1.0 General License Agreement), even though there is a section that specifically mentions this usage (5.0 3D Print Add-On License), but again, whatever, I guess useful linkage is in the eyeballs of the beholder...?
Clicking on "Interactive Licenses" takes you to "3.0 Interactive License Addendum" which also does a marvelously clear job of explaining the interactive license usage restrictions if you are good at words and stuff... maybe not so much if you don't speak English good or legal documentation confuses you...
I guess nobody said clicking the links wouldn't take you to the EULA as opposed to a simple explanation of what this things are, I can see where that would require extra work or perhaps a lawyer who could translate legalese into plain talk... nobody really does that I suppose...
But...
Back to that part about "Products may not be used in any unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)"...
Very, very, very specifically the "Derogatory" part.
Where is that mentioned specifically in the EULA?
I read that through several times and I see that not.
Is that a typo, or a random example that was poorly chosen, or is DAZ specifically saying that certain assets which might meet other "fair use" publication criteria, but if I use these assets in a render that satirically makes reference to a particular well known individual portrayed as a yellow cartoon bear with a red shirt that loves hunny, and that individual is opposed to implications of being portrayed as said bear, because that render uses such an editorial item in it, even though the item is not the main item and the render is not a commercial render, the satirical nature which offends the tender sensibilities of said individual, thus violates the nature of the license agreement?
I really, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally think that needs to be addressed clearly... because if you are already going to just aim people in the general direction of the necessary information using "What's This" links which amount to "Bro, look it up yourself" and you then mention this "derogatory" restriction, you really aught to include that definition in detail, clearly, because the nature of "derogatory" and "satire" are so thoroughly blurred these days.
Seriously DAZ... that needs an explanation, because if people have to worry about pissing off someone in an authoritarian regime somewhere violating the license agreement, that's a big frickin' deal.
You see my point?
...hmm, so say I create a political cartoon (something I've done off & on through the years) that uses a restricted product, From what I interpret on other sites' description and Using an item with an Editorial Licence is permissible if the product is to be used in a news or editorial capacity (which includes commentary), This includes political cartoons as well since sice they often use likenesses of actual individuals , real world objects, brand names, etc, often in a satirical, sarcastic, or critical manner.
So wondering if I published a political cartoon with a restricted product on a news site that accepts guest submissions, would the "unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)" clause prohibit me from doing so?
It kind of sounds that way
...that's what I feared. Had to "dip a toe in the water" to check.
Or is that a "blanket" restriction?... Say a certain country bans all forms of satire directed at their leadership, as is the case at certain geographic coordinates... is that render now in violation of EULA because someone in a different country deems that render derogatory of their leadership?
Even if you are not a citizen of that nation, located within its borders or even actually trying to be satirical...?
I used the example of the yellow bear with the red shirt who loves "hunny" because currently there is a guy who takes deep offense to anything related to that bear not directly related to the cartoon.
Is that nation's interpretation of "derogatory use" now applicable everywhere?
The general definition of "Derogatory" is "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude"... that's far from an illegal action on the patch of geography I'm currently standing on and I find it a little disturbing that this particular word would find it's way into an examplary list of restrictions for an item that is being used for non-commercial art.
Please understand that I'm trying to avoid using a certain word that sounds like frozen peaches, but it's sort of seeming pretty restrictive in that department... especially for an item you are paying real money for.
Important and very much to the point. Decisions about what's derogatory and therefore illegal are political and legal decisions and should always rest exclusively with the state organs created for exactly that kind of decision-making. And IF something is deemed derogatory and therefore illegal, there's really no need to 'punish' it retrospectively with a licence infringement / breach as well.
Edit: And vice versa as well, if a certain form of expressing one's opinion or take on things is not illegal, then there's no need and no call for an enterprise to restrict that by calling it a breach of licence.
I really don't want to start this particular discussion up again, I just wanted to say that this is most interesting, I didn't have the slightest clue! Sounds rather terrifying, to be honest. I already knew about the 'newspaper problem' in US movies, the reason why there're mostly made-up newspapers used (which are often sloppily made and therefore hilarious at a closer look).
The explanation of editorial Licenses abiove clearly states that they are non-commercial. Other sites may have broader permissions, that cannot be taken as an indication of how the Daz licenses will work.
...I'm going on how it's defined by a couple Pro content sites and the description is pretty consistent. I would think that there is a universal standard (now that may differ from country to country but be standard within any single one).
Then why not just call the license "non-commercial"? Instead Daz has taken a term frequently used in the graphic arts and photography fields and apparently twisted it to try to make it mean something else.
Secondly, that does not address the concern raised by McGyver above.
Which brings us to ... it's now been over 3 weeks since the announcement and despite many reasonable concerns and requests for clarification, there's been zero official response by Daz. (no offense Richard, we love yah man, but your posts are not 'official' in the way that those coming Daz_Travis etc are) You would think Daz would be excited to explain why this is a good thing and provide concrete examples of wonderful new content they'll be able to offer, but instead ... crickets.
I've always thought deafening silence was an official DAZ response to legitimate concerns.
As noted above, nothing personal Richard, you rock, but there are others who should at least acknowledge these concerns.
That said it would be nice for someone to say something, even if it's just a trivial acknowledgment... the primary concerns are legitimate, especially the part about making it very clear if something is "editorial" use only and making a good, clear explanation of the difference available that's not a link to the EULA.
Many of the people showing concern are folks who do A LOT of work helping troubleshoot problems, help other users learn the software or do other things that help improve and maintain the value of DAZ's products... many are professional users who share their knowledge and time in the spirit of a good community relationship... I really shouldn't have to say this, but it's really pretty rude, disrespectful even, to leave people hanging after making such an announcement.
Maybe there's a Silicon Valley software mega-corporation kinda perception that good, helpful community members are a dime a dozen and if you alienate some, they'll just be replaced by new one's, so just drop a bomb and keep on keeeping on, it'll work itself out, so no need to worry or waste time replying to concerns.
Not engaging in this topic or addressing the community's concerns may seem like a safe or easy course of action (or inaction rather), but it's shows a lack of appreciation for customers, many of which have been loyal customers for decades, many of which helped build and maintain this community loyally over the years.
If that's meaningless, so be it.
@McGyver you summed up the situation very well.
I'd like to know the worldwide LEGAL definition of "editorial use". Don't bother explaining the American legal definition because the Internet is worldwide. What's the GLOBAL legal definition - considering the COPYRIGHT laws are DIFFERENT IN EVERY COUNTRY. Coul'd you also please provide citations for the global legal definition (preferably by link).
Thanks
I'd love an assurance that DAZ isn't about to become the kind of company that sells unlicensed IP characters, like some other sites I could mention.
Is there one? Licenses are legal documents, but they are not defined as specific types of license by laws in most countries as far as I am aware. Ultimately it is your responsibility to make sure that your usage complies with local laws and with the terms of the license - those are separate things.
No, there isn't one. That's my point. There is no universal "editorial use" law. But if DAZ is going to sell "editorial use" licenses, the license is going to have to define "editorial use" and it has to be a legal definition, not just some phrase invented by marketing staff. I haven't bought stock photography licenses in years, but the licenses used to specify a geographical region, such as "only in the USA", and a time limit, like "12 months" or "one time use only", it specified the media it could be used in, such as "magazines" or a SPECIFIC publication, and a number of times the magazine (or whatever the medium) could be reproduced, like "circulation under 100,000 copies", and a time frame like "one year", and it had a list of limitations - the license didn't just say "editorial use only". It isn't up to the user, it's up to the company selling the license. It has to be spelled out in the license. Do you really expect thousands of DAZ customers are going to go out and hire legal firms to research "editorial use" laws in 195 different countries because they want to put a render on the Internet - especially now that most major social media platforms are monitized making non-commercial use on those platforms an impossibility. You upload a video of your dog onto YouTube and YouTube can attach a bunch of different forms of advertising to it, without your immediate permission or knowledge. Most big Internet platforms have users agree to NOT upload any content they don't own the copyright to - which EXCLUDES "editorial use" licenses, because owning an "editorial use'' license isn't the equivalent of owning the copyright. And they spell it out to you "don't upload any content that you DIDN'T CREATE YOURSELF."
Daz content does not geenrally limit number of renders that can be made, why would it for these items do so? I think you are applying an incorrect set of expectations here, based on misunderstanding what is being offered.