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
All I can say is that if you do like those products, buy them now and back them up on zip files because you never know how long they're going to actually be available. I'd like an accurate Red Sonja model/clothing, and that's exactly what I would do if one showed up here.
Smells stinky regardless who's doing it. Some of your free dl stuff looks gorgeous, btw. But it's the principle of the thing.
I wish I could just hide or filter out editorial use products. I don't want to accidentally buy one.
Maybe DAZ Deals will come up with something.
The irony is that if you go to Comic-Con (or Wondercon or any comic convention) it's totally fine to sell all kinds of fan art and it's not only allowed but it's expected and encouraged. I've had fan art in the Comic-Con official catalog, sold in the official art show and sold at a booth. Never was there a legal issue. Whose trademark would we be violating? DAZ's or ViacomCBS, NBC Universal, and Disney's? I'm not going to purchase the fan art stuff sold here to make sure I don't break the Daz TOS but I've downloaded free fan outfits and morphs in the past and created my own textures for existing outfits and I have no qualms about it. If you search the internet, there are many fan outfits available for free for DAZ characters. So is DAZ paying ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney for the rights to use their IP? And if so, why isn't it legal for us to use it commercially? They are making more of a profit off of it than any of us artists would.
did you see the Vampirella outfit? and its not undel EL Been after one for ages had some close but this is perfect just gotta add the bat symbol nearly missed it cause the promos also have her wearing a jacket but there are a lot of pics of her wearing a jacket like that too just mostly doesn't. Just got to add high heel boots, maybe a collar have had some problems fitting though has some adjustment morphs for some characters if you have them whichI dont but gotta it to fit of sorts and pity not for G8https://www.daz3d.com/spr-cool-suit-for-genesis-9
not much to see there
Borat wore more, easy to miss
Honestly, there's more than enough difference there that I wouldn't say confidently it's based on that.
The comic book outfit has a distinctive (and somewhat separate) collar to its design, and without that the general design of a crossover monokini isn't particularly unique; that could equally describe this: https://www.daz3d.com/stylekini-for-genesis-8-females
Fanart cannot be sold without a license unless it is a parody. Some sites collaborate with different brands (they promote fanart on their sites) because they connected with legal representatives and obtained permission for licenses. So there are legit venders at Comic-con who do have licenses to sell. This old 2018 article addresses the Comic-Con infringement issue. This is an earlier one and there have been notices recently as well. They typically send them out annually to cover their butts.
The article spells out the situation the way I expected. Thanks for the link.
Interesting article. I never actually read that before. This makes sense. Comic-Con would lose a lot by being sued but knows that individual artists are most likely not at risk of serious legal action taken against them and would at most just get a cease and desist letter. Fan art is really just free advertising and it would put a big damper on the show if they tried to stop it. And comic book artists actually get hired based on how well they can depict existing characters. So if Comic-con is leaving it up to the artist's choice, why can't DAZ do the same? Just indemnify themselves and say if we get in trouble, it's up to us to deal with it?
If we're looking at this as a copyright thing and not a trademark thing, then the DMCA actually made it easier for entities to profit off infriging properties. The law spells out a very specific process for reporting and removing infringing content, and by extension, companies are under no other obligation outside that process. The rights holder must file a dmca takedown notice when they identify stolen works. At that point, the person selling the content must remove it from sale, but the seller has a chance to respond and argue that their use does not violate the copyright. Once the content is removed, that's the end of it and the seller generally keeps whatever they made off the infringing content.
This is what Amazon does. A couple years ago, their kindle store was flooded with pirated manga. No mater how much of it you reported, nor how many times it was reported, they took no action against it because the customers are not the rights holders and the on-site reporting function is not a DMCA takedown notice. It took an email to one of the Japanese publishers alerting them of the problem. Amazon takes down all the pirated works, gives the publishers an "Oops, my bad." The law says they did their part, and they get to keep whatever they made off those titles.
Anyone can report IP infringement online. It's part of the Piracy laws nowadays. Look for it if you want. I look closely at my buys and watch many movies, including sci-fi, fantasy, and comics. I see things here I would never buy. There is no difference between any other site offering DAZ models and any other 3D site.
Thanks for the linked articles.
Good point. The decision for a host to remove eligibility for a platform, or vendor to stop selling brokered content, is not limited to what is compelled by law. In addition to the general public reporting, there are also the 'bots. I had a short animation taken down of crystal ball going from a cloudy to a landscape scene, and I was issued a warning (only get 3 at the time). And yes, the landscape was generic, and yes I modeled the elements myself in Carrara. And no, my video was not on a for-profit site in any way. There are plenty of other examples of over-inclusive takedowns.
https://www.daz3d.com/sci-fi--car
Anyone know why?
I don't recall seeing anything like it
Surprised the badging add-ons didn't get the editorial license since they have actual Toyota and Nissan logos.
The hood of the futuristic version does resemble some car, but cannot remember which.
The base model is clearly 'inspired' by italian sports car
I came in to ask about this as well. It isn't because the car resembles some fictional property that I can think of, so it must be because the "normal" car bears too close a resemblance to a real-world car. (Which is strange, because in the past it's been specific branding--logos, names, etc--that seems to have triggered EL for vehicles, and this one has none of that.) My spouse says there are some elements of the vehicle on the right in the image above that feel familiar to them (the headlights and the venting at the back), and they might even be willing to say Lamborghini, but wouldn't swear to it.
(I wouldn't know a Lamborghini if it bit me.)
It looks like they fixed the bundle and all the individual items listed have the standard licensing options. Too bad the sci-fi car is still EL, but at least we have this now.
OK it sorta resembles a Lamborghini
Its the Lamborghini Diablo. The successor to the Countach and predecessor to the Aventador
It looks somewhat like the LOLA flying car used by Marvel Comics Universe's Agent Coulson https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Levitating_Over_Land_Automobile depending on what hardware is above the wheels in the render. I don't think the bodies are a very close match, certainly not close enough to merit an EL, however. (It's not nearly as close IMO as https://www.daz3d.com/x-fashion-america-outfit-for-genesis-8-male-s is to one of Captain Rogers'/Steve's MCU costumes, which is high on my Asking for an EL List.)
Why do people think the EL is something resembling items in games?
The base car is 'inspired' by Lamborghini Diablo.
1. I thought it *might have been* from a TV show, not a videogame. I also strongly implied I could be wrong. Which I was & I am glad you told us what it really was. And yes, "Something from a videogame" seems to be the commonest guess in these cases. :)
2. Not everyone is familiar enough with vehicles to know just about every real-world make/model (especially if it happens to be a make/model/brand not sold in their country).
3. More generally, not everyone could possibly know every IP or common brand that might be used for ELs. It's reasonable for a poster to ask why something got an EL if the product name/text doesn't say and they don't recognize it. I enjoy these Q&As.
https://www.daz3d.com/enzo-vision-formula
Question, before I put any work into it: With so many items now editorial license, I intend to create a second post that has the items listed alphabethically rather than by date of release. The first (original) post will still remain and be the main list. Would anyone be interested in the alphabetical version?
Hi,
Thank you very much for your work. Personally, I don't see much need for an alphabetical list, since you already provide the name of the products in your original post and searching for a specific entry is an easy task, at least for those of us who browse the site mainly from our desktop computer. I'm not much of a mobile user, so I can't really tell how easy or difficult is to find specific keywords with a cellphone's web browser. I can imagine it shouldn't be harder, though.
But that's just my personal opinion.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is public domain, but Universal Pictures' version of the monster is copyrighted (until 2027), according to some light reading about the subject.