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
So another DAZ+ item? Is this is another unfortunate mistake? If not... I know what to think.
Curious. ZYstance currently has three items for sale, two of which are licensed under editorial use. Both are vehicles, and the other item is an extra texture set for one of them. I'd assume using "Cyber Racer" [editorial] with the "Cyber Liveries" [standard] add-on instead remains editorial since altering an editorial item does not change the base item's license?
Their is a lot of text on both of those cars. I wonder if something like "MotorSport" got flagged on the first one but wasn't on the add-on while "Cyberpunk" or "GT R" got the second one. Or if it's intentional from the outset by either the PA or Daz, that's totally fine by me so long as it's clearly marked. One suggestion I'd echo is that if there get to be more and more of these, it would become useful to have a filter category for license types.
I'm thankful this thread exists, though, as I personally need the ability to monetize my art and animation.
No, there's an actual sports car that's named "R-35" and looks pretty much the same (minus the cyberpunk-add-ons): Nissan GT-R R35
Doubt it's a mistake this time, it's even mentioned in description.
Yup, Jack mentioned in the + forum that changing the textures won't alter the license.
@BeeMKay
Ah, I see it. That would make sense. I cannot imagine where you start, trying to make a non-branded car. I recall a podcast or video where people were talking about how for GTA, Rockstar had a specialist who could tell cars apart by the headlights and gave the modelers a really hard time trying to make something realistic and familiar yet not copying something else.
@ioonrxoon
It's good to know. While I truly wish the items do well for the PAs who put in hard work, personally, I'd never want to risk accidently using something incorrectly, for reasons both legal and artistically ethical.
edit: spelling / grammar
Unless they're shaders that can be used on other items, they really shouldn't release texture packs for editorial items with standard license. It only serves to create more confusion, and there's enough of that around this subject already.
Yeah, I was thinking about that. Technically the textures could be used for something else, and technically it doesn't require the restricted license, but I've often considered items based on the add-ons. I was recently considering getting Horse 3 due to the Reindeer and Tapirdary extras that I liked, even though I've only just gotten the dForce mane and tail for Horse 2.
Oddly, it's the opposite for https://www.daz3d.com/retro-apartment-props-2, but at least there the base item is a standard license. You could add your own props or, I suppose someone could make an alternate prop pack. It's too bad that set cannot be completed and used commercially, yet c'est la vie.
As soon as I saw the promotional email I thought, the car is going to be editorial license... Resembles too closely a real model, just like the previous one.
I know there are a few in the store that do look like real production cars, maybe they have received permission from the IP holder, but there has also been cases where the model has been modified even after the model and promotional material were already released.
This one is editorial license only:
https://www.daz3d.com/cyber-racer
Anybody has found any decent use for Editorial license items?
I know, I could render them for my eyes only, but what is the point of it.
If I understand it correctly, I think you can use them in images that you freely submit to the gallery (or similar on another site) so perhaps fine for "hobby" renders (depending on the context). Submitting to competitions where a prize is available might be a stretch too far and direct commercial use is not allowed. However, the licence details on the site also do say that you should try and credit the copyright holder - but I don't think I have seen this information specified on any of the editorial items so far. Unless I have just missed it?
Ok, thanks for the tips.
I need to be more careful of what I choose to purchase.
Well, please note that I am not a lawyer but it's always best to be on the side of caution with those items. In addition to the previous things I would also avoid using said items in a negative light or in any image that could draw any kind of controversy.
I used to do game testing and when we did racing games, it was interesting what car companies would or would not allow.
Like, there was one game where cars could sustain damage and visually change. But BMW refused to let their cars ever be shown damaged, and so the devs had to make their cars an exception. (Either that or not have BMWs)
I remember reading something like that a while back. I always used to avoid the games where cars would just bounce off the walls as if they were toys and much prefered the racing games where my lack of skill was represented by the crumpled bonnet and black smoke from the engine. Much more fun :)
So it's the same situation now - I would much prefer PAs to create original things rather than copy existing items that then have to be hobbled by the editorial licence because they did not get an official agreement to sell those items under the standard licence.
I love Carmageddon because it showed damage. But you can fix it on the fly. Slpattper Bonuses were the best. Weckfest is less violent and it less sadistic than the original Carmageddon. It's about zombies
My go-to was always NICE2/Breakneck. I have just seen it's on Steam but not worth me rebuying it since it seems it's pretty buggy (understandable for a 23 year old game) and it wouldn't be the same without being able to setup sportscar vs bus vs truck races with my friends who all have better things to do these days :P
I played those, also.
...yep, and worse a Daz+ item which limits the selection.
Why can't we get decent cyberpunk cars without ties to a company's IP? The last one without an editorial licence looked ridiculous., My riggers would be laughed out of town driving it.
https://www.daz3d.com/cyber-cruiser
The last decent looking one with the usual licences was this:
https://www.daz3d.com/cyberpunk-car
I just use the other cars sold here and do a bit of kitbashing if required.
Editorial licence items shouldn't ever be Daz+. Random freebies from other sites have more utility than Editorial licence items.
One should not model vehicles if one doesn't know how it's done...
I agree. Restrictions on product usage (editorial license) is not what I bargained for when paying to join Daz+. Only 75% (3 out of 4) of this weeks new Daz+ items are available without restricted usage limitations and associated liabilities.
In what way or sense? In my experience, some freebie items may have a more 'liberal' license, but that may very well be because of the lack of understanding what may or may not be allowed. One might create a freebie of very (in)famous(e) cartoon mouse and offer it with a license for commercial and non commercial use, but don't be surprised if a certain company will come down hard on you if you use that item....
In the case of the cyberpunk car; I get the feeling that CDPR is fine with using 'assets' from their games for fan use (though do not take that is a given). However commercial use is something else. I guess the choice is then a restrictive license or no product at all. And we make the choice if we buy the product or not. (And as mentioned waaay earlier, it would be nice if it is made more clear if a product has a restrictive license.)
As far as I am concerned, limited use or no item equals to effectively no item. It's cluttering Daz+ and lowering its value.
Maybe, but that is a personal/individual thing. There are alot of items that are DAZ+ that have no value to me (as a DAZ+ member) simply because I have no use for those items. But others may find them very useful. And in this case personally, I do like cyberpunk, and I do not make commercial renders, so as such this item does have value to me (just don't have any render ideas for it right now, but that is an other problem).
No, it's not a personal thing. If the item has limited use, it should not be offered even at a discount price in Daz +. It could be offered as a Daz + freebie. The subscription is not free and if items like this clutter it, the subscriber is given less choice.
If an item like this is a regular store purchase, it's only down to the user choice. If it's thrown into the subscription, it's less choice. Safe items should be given as a subscription discout choices.
What I would be interested in seeing clarified is whether Daz has a partnership with the owners of these IPs to produce editorial content. Because that would be legit, but the licensing equivalent of "all credit to the original creator, no copyright infringement intended" would definitely be grounds for a C&D from any company I've worked with. The commercial use has already happened here--around about the time you sold a replica of another company's product for profit--and it looks worse to admit you knew it was based on a real product and sold it anyway.
I'm not accusing the Daz team of knowingly doing something sketchy, and normally I would just assume it's done with permission, but it would be incredibly weird for a company to agree to a collaboration where their brand is not represented at all and their products are only vaguely recognizable.
This is probably an important thing to have clarity on for people who do purchase these models for editorial use. Other sites that allow sellers to do the "editorial use only, pls don't sue!" thing are really just signaling that they're too small and inoffensive to bother with; if DC hits them with a C&D or something, not only is all of that coming down, but there's a good chance they would need to stop distributing the models entirely. They're taking a risk in an area that's only gray because it doesn't actually threaten the IP holder, and going after John Blenders who ports DOA Beach Volleyball girls to G8 for obviously niche uses would be annoying and cost a lot of money. It's a wildly different thing for a multimillion-dollar business to sell an undisclosed replica of a real car under their own brand.
If this has been addressed and I missed it, feel free to bonk me over the head.
Turbosquid does it, and is a lot bigger than Daz, so I am not sure that works.
...interesting that vehicles sold here before this became a thing such as the Spy Car V-12 (an Aston Martin DBZ5) Teuf Teuf (a Citroen 2CV) and Car Ranger (Rover Land Ranger) didn't raise a fuss but now a cypberpunk version of an existing car does.
...agreed.
...actually I find a good number of Daz+ freebies are useful props and items like that. To restrict the use of a weekly freebie because it might violate IP of a specially licensed item if used in any way that would financially benefit the user (including awards for challenges and contests) short-changes Daz+ members for whom a freebie is a benefit of membership.