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
Finally got around to looking at this thread.
OH HELL NO.
The biggest draw of the Daz store has been the knowledge that every single product (with the exception of a single ancient one) has exactly the same licensing terms, so I know I will never have to think about it. Getting rid of that certainty? Bad move.
Same here, same conclusion:
It should at least be possible to ban every article with editorial license from DIM, DAZ Studio and the product display at the shop by a change in the user settings of that software/platform, so to avoid any chance of someday being sued.
I know its going to be great for Star Trek Fans etc, but for many other customers those products are like landmines...
Dumb question time: Today's freebie has been released the 2022-08-17, so it's after the announcement of the Editorial licensing... I don't see any differences in the product page so I can't tell myself... Which license it has? Standard or Editorial?
I'm starting to feel less and less confident buying stuff in the store these days, this new Editorial License is a Damocles Sword I really don't like over my head... I really don't want any product that has a license different than plain commercial one.
Once you have bought the product, you can see the licence on your product page
Would be neat, if Daz got some arrangement with companies that allow us to make fanart. I doubt it'll be Disney though, they're not too fond of that stuff. Maybe game publishers like Electronic Arts or CD Project Red, from these two I know they don't mind stuff like fanart, and regard it more as free hype and advertisement, just as long as it's non-commercial. Back in the day of Mass Effect 3, Bioware (and thus by approximation, EA) was even quite supportive of a fan making plushies of Mass Effect characters and selling those to other fans at material cost.
So I wouldn't hold my breath for Disney/Marvel/Lucas Arts products, and wouldn't expect anything from Paramount franchises (like Star Trek) either. Microsoft, who now also owns a ton of franchises, is a big unknown. I wouldn't put it past them to do a trial on some choice franchises, like Bethesda's Fallout, and in case of success, try to take over the entire rendering industry.
Exactly... Once you have bought it... I don't want to risk having any Editorial stuff in my library.
We need to know if those new licenses are already here and how to recognize them. As I said, I'm really afraid of slipping into one of those while purchasing stuff.
There are not yet any products with editorial licenses, and I would expect that when there are that information will be on the product page in some form (or forms).
At the least they should clarify whether the editorial licensing would be limited to products encumbered by 3rd party trademarks, or is it going to be a just a (lower cost) pricing tier across all products like some other stores?
It seemed clear to me that this is going to be for things that require it, not an option for items that do not.
As a note, it had better be up front on the product page, preferably a big bold banner... because the first time I buy something, and find out after the fact that it was the editorial license, I'd be starting with asking for an immediate return and refund, and I would immediately stop buying most products from here.
Note: There's no indication when things are a Standard License, so none of us are getting the sense this stuff is going to be well labeled. As much as we all "know" that employees do NOT visit the forum, it would behoove to have some indication that this has been brought to their attention and acknowledged.
But acknowledging the forums would imply they are real... and we all know the forums are a figment of our collective imaginations.
Just to make sure late-joiners are up to speed, this is what DAZ EULA says about Editorial License:
"If the online DAZ store identifies the Content as being for editorial use only, Users may use the content only in a manner that is allowable under the fair use doctrine which, in certain circumstances may permit the use of copyrighted or trademarked material for an editorial, non-commercial purpose to illustrate Content that is newsworthy, or of public interest, provided, however, that (i) DAZ makes no representation, warranty, or guaranty about the applicability of the fair use doctrine to any particular use of the Content, which the User should determine in consultation with its own legal advisors, (ii) the User may not, in any event and regardless of the fair use doctrine, publish or distribute the Content through another stock media clearinghouse, and (iii) the User must take all possible and reasonable efforts to credit the copyright and/or trademark owner of the Content;"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Perhaps it's better to find definition through negation as seen at the top of the thread to see whether you could use anything with an Editorial License in your work:
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.)
I personally would not even take a free download for something licensed like that, YMMV.
Torquinox, thanks for the useful heads-up on the actual wording of the EULA.
It's still rather baffling as to what Daz's thinking is. As to "(i) Daz makes no representation . . .", this is Daz trying to shift all blame for IP violations to the end user. Of course, this just highlights that Daz knows beforehand that IP violations are likely to be a problem. And "(iii) the user must take . . ." is a bit wacky and ambiguous. (I guess "Content" and "content" (with a lower-case c) are synonymous and identical--just a minor matter of typography.) Daz content is, supposedly, the intellectual property of of Daz and/or the PAs. I'm thinking that "Content" in (iii) is referring to IP rightfully belonging to third parties (e.g., Mickey Mouse is owned by Disney). If the end user is rendering and distributing images in which the IP of other parties appears, citing or crediting those parties is meaningless. If the image is protected as fair use, no citation or credit is necessary. Informative, maybe courteous, but not really necessary. If the image is not protected as fair use, citing or crediting the original IP owner serves no purpose but to highlight that the IP doesn't belong to the Daz user. They would need permission from the original IP's owner to use the IP, unless that permission is granted with the license sold by Daz, with Daz having obtained permission via prior arrangement with the original IP owner.
Well, if you are going to be allowing PA's to use non-standard licenses in the store, I say there sould be a filter for it so people don't have to see it. I think a good chunk of people will simply not buy them. Having to keep track of various licenses sounds like a nightmare.
And also for late comers, pay note to the part about "Products may not be used in any unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)"... particularly the use of the "derogatory"...
Derogatory is extremely open to interpretation as one individual's idea of satire can be interpreted as derogatory by another individual or institution.
The definition of "Derogatory" is "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude" or "expressive of a low opinion".
To associate "Derogatory" with "Unlawful" is extremely concerning and needs further explanation by someone in charge, because the inclusion of such a limitation being deemed to be "illegal" can severely limit the scope of use for a product, even if it meets all the other requirements, such as non-commercial, not used in merchandising or advertising, etc.
If there's one thing that the current DAZ marketing team has proven repeatedly, it's that they have an astonishing ability to screw up things that were working fine prior to that, and very little ability when it comes to fixing things that aren't. It will probably take them about two years to realize that this was a bad idea, another two to admit it, and a year after that to finally undo it.
It's not multiple non-standard licenses, it's one - the Editorial License.
It would still be a good idea to be able to filter it out
1 - Editorial License
2 - Interactive License
3 - 3D Printing License
4 - Noncommercial License(from other sites)
That looks a lot like multiple non-standard licenses to me. In addition, RL Media only mentioned non-standard licenses in relation to the editorial license. "Having to keep track of various licenses sounds like a nightmare" doesn't mention non-standard licenses and can include both standard and non-standard licenses, as well as licenses from other sites.
I brought this up earlier. I think what they mean is "Defamatory", which would be unlawful... but saying that Editorial content is not allowed to be derogatory is a completely different kettle of fish. Half the purpose of Fair Use and Editorial content is normally to allow review and criticism, which by nature have to be able to express a poor opinion to actually be valid.
yeah, that's one too many. I just want to be able to see the items for sale that I can do whatever I want with. The print and interactive ones mean nothing to me, and they are offered in addition to, not in place of. If something was offered as print only, or interactive only, those would interest me just as much as something offered under this new scheme would. None.
I suspect it's for stuff that is fairly obviously the intellectual property of a third party. Like, known characters and vehicles from comics or games. Ofcourse, none of us knows every single intellectual property, so I do agree that such products need to be clearly marked with a bolded line saying something like "X is part of the Y intellectual property. The Y IP is owned by Z, and the Editorial License agreement (? link to info) applies to this product."
Still even with these limitations, I do hope this license means Daz managed to get a partnership with some big publishers for a vareity of awesome assets (possibly even the exact assets used in games), and to accomplish that, a license like this was to be expected.
Only 1 and 4 are basic licenses for using the content, 2 and 3 are additional licenses on top of 1.
Add me to the list of people who say not to this type of license. I stopped downloading freebies years ago that weren't available to use for commercial renders. With a content library of over 6000 items it would be impossible to sort it in any meaningful way to ensure that it doesn't cause an issue.
That may not be true. I say "may" simply because we still haven't received any clarification from Daz, but please note the second bullet point of Daz_Travis' original post:
The second bullet is separate from the whole Editorial License discussion and as presented, it means that any new item could have its own special license conditions, while another has a different unique license. So these EULA changes lay the groundwork for many, many non-standard licenses.
Customers will have to keep a sharp eye out to make sure they don't accidentally buy something they can't use.
Like I said before - "fair use" and "editorial use" are AMERICAN concepts that may have no equivalent in other countries, or they may mean something completely different. Copyright terms are the responsibility of the seller, not the buyer. The license has to be 100% unambiguous for the whole world, unless DAZ is planning on only selling these "editorial use" licenses to Americans who are only going to show the art within the borders of the USA - which means no posting to the Internet which is worldwide - remember? - the World Wide Web.
No, as with the standard license it needs to be clear on what daz allows. Whether use is further restricted by the local laws is a matter for the end user, not Daz.
The information already available shows you won't be able to use items carrying this editorial license to do anything commercial, and items with that license may even carry some non-commercial exclusions. What more should anyone really need to say?
Someone really needs to define "commercial". Commercial could mean TV commercial. Social media platforms are monitized. So a person uploads content, such as rendered images or animations, to their social media account and it is posted publicly, and the platform adds a literal TV commercial that plays before your content is seen, or right in the middle of your animated video - suprise! - they interject a television commercial, then your animated video is allowed to continue, but there are annoying pop-up advertisements superimposed over your video. It's unquestionably commercial. Other sites monitize 2D static images like photographs and art by paying you actual money if you are an "influencer", or if your posted content shows or references a brand, you can be paid directly by the brand. If anyone is paying anyone, or if you are being paid, it's "commercial" and you have to pay income tax on it. None of the major social media platforms are charities, or non-profit corporations. Or you upload your renders or animations to crowd funding sites so your supporters can pay you money to look at your renders. How likely is it that a render is going to ever be "news worthy"? Or your render is going to be used in a physics text book? Selling a print is commercial. Exhibiting a render at an event that requires a paid admission from the public, is commercial. You use a render on your personal blog, and the blogging platform slaps an advertisement somewhere on the blog - and it's commercial. If your content is being used to generate advertising revenue for anyone - it's commercial - even if you yourself are not being paid.
Yes, that's my point. Items with editorial license are probably unsuitable for any normal use due to the licensing. And as we have already read, Daz offloads responsibility for checking the suitability to their customers. Ergo, I would avoid anything offered under this editorial license. It's not the Content you're looking for.