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
TurboSquid offers that license option for individual sellers, but the person who uploads it is ultimately responsible for making sure that they're not putting up infringing content (which I know lots of people there just ignore). They can't be expected to vet the copyright compliance of every model sold through their site, so their stance is, "As far as we know, there is no infringing material being sold on our site because that's against our rules. If you find it, tell us, and we'll take it down." This is basically the same stance Daz has toward vendor products that are definitely not Geralt from The Witcher.
When it's a Daz Original item, Daz is the direct seller. They are offering these as part of their branded line of products, and they obviously know they're modeled after real products--there's no ambiguity there. If they're not working in collaboration with these companies, they're taking the same risk as individual sellers, except with a significantly higher chance of attracting the Eye of Sauron.
It is really stretching the credible use of an editorial license to take something like the recognizable design and model number of a real car and recontextualize it as a sci-fi prop, without even explicitly stating what it was based on. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know that this wouldn't ultimately fall under editorial use, but if it went to court a judge deciding the case would look at intent, and they would potentially say, "C'mon, guys, either you're selling a model of a Nissan or you're not."
I think a lot of non-photography digital asset marketplaces have been using editorial licensing as a way to get around the fact that fair use generally doesn't cover making a profit off selling the thing in the first place, regardless of what the person you sell it to uses it for. Photographers can sell their photos for editorial use, and it's understandable that this is also the case with 3D models. But in photography--even when selling on stock photo sites--editorial licensing has standards and restrictions that are taken very seriously, because it's not meant to make it technically okay to sell copyrighted stuff. It's meant for images of real things, real people, and real events to accompany factual information about them. Those standards are why companies don't get twitchy about it, although if you ask them for permission outright because you don't want to burn a bridge with them, a lot of them will say no. Digital asset brokers just haven't risen to the level of audacity that would prompt someone to want to get this clarified in court.
That said, I strongly doubt that any company is going to care enough about virtual dollhouse miniatures that only sort of resemble their products to decide this is the legal stand they're going to spend money taking. I do think a company trying to letter-of-the-law this kind of thing would be pushing it just enough--with enough potential for confusion over whether these products represent their brand or mean that Daz is affiliated with them--for another company to give them a throat-clearing tap on the shoulder and say they don't consider that legitimate editorial use. And if Daz decided to just pull the model from the site rather than push back, the people who bought it would have to figure out what that meant for their ability to use it.
So that's why I think it's worth clarifying whether Daz is formally affiliated with these brands and/or asked for permission to sell models for non-commercial use, or if they believe there's no need to clear that because editorial use fully covers these.
Shame. Would've bought if not for the license. Does have a warning on the product page at least.
Thanks for pointing it out
Thanks for the heads up.
Ditto unfortunately and it's a great looking model. Maybe I missed the warning on the product page but I'm not seeing it anywhere. I really hope there won't be too many of these types of licenses at Daz cause it's one of the main reasons I shop here instead of some other places where there's a large population of editorial licenses. Maybe Daz could put a big red label on all these types so no one buys it only to return it. I guess if the model is something we all recognize, then we'll know to beware.
Thanks for the warning!
Hopefully this was a mistake that they have corrected - I'm not seeing ANYTHING about an Editorial License or a warning on the page now. I even checked the Read Me - nothing.I'm going to go ahead and get it.If you are using the Daz Deals add-on and have disabled the "Optional Licence Add-Ons then you will not see it. I'd suggest you flip that setting off and look again before committing money to it (assuming you care about the Editorial licence)
It still has editorial license. (red line added by me)
D'OH! Yep it was a DAZ Deals thing, or more accurately MY thing (DAZ Deals is AMAZING!)
But it is okay - it won't affect me in any way.
I doubt it was a mistake. It is probably too close to the facehuggers in Aliens.
just read on fb that the creator of this little guy was confused why it got the EL got asked by several others about it, also has another product coming out and mentioned it's getting the EL too
In other words, the decision to apply Editorial License is being made by DAZ, not by (or with) the creator's input?
seems like it at least with a few of the products anyway
Quite understandably DAZ doesn't want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit because a product is an almost exact replica of something from a movie. So they put the Editorial Use only tag on it. You can still use it for all your hobby needs, you just can't sell the renders.
Not sure why the creator is suprised it got tagged with the EL - it's got a massive tail and two of the promo images show it wrapped around a figures mouth. Can't exactly claim that it is JUST a "Mars Spider". It seems like most of the EL-tagged products have similar issues when it would have been just as easy to omit/change certain things and then they could probably have been released with the standard licence.
Very glad to have seen this thready. Daz Deals settings updated. Too bad I hadn't seen it previously since I seem to have bought a few of them.
MS only had to give it a reddish cooked texture and call it a Martian Yabby and he could of gotten away with it.
dropped the facehugger promo and done one on a plate with lemon wedges and tartare sauce
It is understandable, but they could have at least contacted the creator, and let them know, and given them the option to alter the product to avoid it being put under the EL.
Yeah, I think that is probably what it is.
He already has several other products that closely resemble items in scifi movies but they don't have an editorial license.
Surely you know, but let's say it anyway: Previously, items that were too close to known IPs got yanked. Some always got through, some stayed. Not going to point anything out, not going to guess at the rationale for why one item stays and another goes.. From what I've seen, EL allows Daz to keep such items in store and CYA. I expect someone will buy the items - not me, but someone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if you want to do fan art and sell it there are legal ways to get around it but you have to be more creative imaginative and use create something that is not a exact copy of say a creature but an interpretation/inspired by type of creature it can still have some kind of resemberlance to what it is inspired by but with enough changes it is it's own unique creature and this is done a lot already in games, movies/tv, comics and here even there a few products that look inspired by something well known but there are enough variations/changes to make thenm their own unique entitys
Yeah, let's just say, there are some examples that are pretty exact.
https://www.daz3d.com/easy-snap-alien-base
@doubledeviant: Thanks for mentioning! This HR Giger Alien like stuff is what i expected as EL in the first place - products for people to create non commercial fan fiction / fan art.
The products at the beginning (apartment) i found rather confusing, because i didn't really understand why people should buy them under those conditions. IMO an EL could only benefit the fanbase wanting to contribute to their beloved narrative like star wars etc. in a private, non commercial way.
https://www.daz3d.com/easy-snap-alien-base and https://www.daz3d.com/mars-spider are doing well,
so probably many buyers, just do not care about editorial license of them.
Oof, thanks.
Here's the thing that bothers me about stuff like that alien base being placed onto EL... yes, a lot of the people buying it will be fans making fan-fiction for free distribution... but there are also going to be cases where some commercial outfit has been officially licensed to, for instance, produce comicbooks or novels that are officially canon, or at least semi-canon to the franchise universe. Pocket Books, for instance, making Star Trek novels, Big Finish making DrWho audio-dramas, and the like, for which they'll need every related scenery object they can get their hands on to render for the covers of the novels or for the comicbooks... but their hands are tied in that this EL thing got arbitrarily blanket-applied onto anything that looks "too close to a recognized franchise universe" stuff. Clearly there needs to be a way to make it trivially easy for those who are officially licensed to play in that franchise universe commercially to use this content, while still making sure those that aren't to know they should tread lightly on its use so they don't get stomped for using it in something for pay. This is why I really think this EL idea should go the way of the dodo bird, like happened with Daz3D's attempt some years back to slap copy-protection onto their products. 0o