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
Yes, I would be surprised if that was not the case.
Come to think of it, the garage figurine industry has a long history of creating "lookalikes" of famous figures / scenes. If my memory serves me correctly a friend / master designer once told me that you can create and sell a figure of for example the Alien without infringing the copyright as long as you don't market it as 'Alien' but 'the SpaceMoster' for example...
I would certainly not set up a shop to sell the (rather unattractive, generic) Genesis figure, market 'Michael5' or 'Victoria 5' nor a PA's morph and market it by that name.
Exactly. There are some excellent true 'artwork' items being created by artists. They start with Genesis and make it with clothing into some pretty fantastic looking items ... and I think it's the fact that all sealed, it makes a good item to be used for 3D printing.
Up until now as far as I've been able to tell from forum conversations and the occasional query; the company's concern has always been to protect 'their mesh'.
With 3D printing becoming more of a market, it would be logical that if there's more money to be made "selling licenses" as they do for "games", some companies will do that. Other companies blanket forbid the practice.
As for games; if I have a game on my computer and make a game piece for the game on my computer, that's my business.
BUT if it's to leave my computer then that gaming license is required.
So I can take my artwork to a 3D printer [even if I could afford it, haven't got room for one] and get an item printed for me, that's my business. Unless it's otherwise stated on a product page here; that's how I read the license.
Yes there are words in it that would indicate possible future sale of licenses for 3D printing ... and let us all hope that they are better written before release than this one was. Because I don't know a blessed soul that would buy a license to make one 3D print of their one treasure.
OT: I keep a big dog. Sometimes she gets excited for her treats and I have to remind her not to bite the hand that feeds her.
I have never had to tell her not to bite off the hand that feeds her.
That is not correct - 3D printing of content from the DAZ store requires a separately purchased license, not yet available.
Richard, I don't know where the post is right now ... but people did ask and we were told that we could have our work 3D printed. And somewhere on my computer is a copy of the replies. The stated concern was that the mesh didn't end up being released to the wilds. [my paraphrase]
And in another thread another moderator told us that this was why accepting the new agreement was good, because it includes permission for 3D printing.
edit to make possible correction ... it might be that what was said was information about 3D printing, not permission. I'm not removing what I said because there's been way too much other censorship going on so I don't know whether which way it stood at time of writing.
Well, that is indeed a use worth making a special EULA modification about (as opposed to 3D printing). It's about some manufacturer getting inspiration from your meshes and creating a "heavily inspired" real world version of your brain child.
It's something we've already pondered about at TD (given we mostly make architecture and furniture); But that's not a new problem, it's an actual one, as it can as easily happen with 2D technology. No need for scanning or whatever, just have a good look at it and decide people might like to buy a real version of that.
Obviously that loophole is fully allowed by the new DAZ EULA, for they apparently never thought about it...
See, we were at square 99 and we appear to have trodden on a snake that's taken us back to square one.
The way I understand the EULA at the moment is that if I have my own 3D printer, I can print in 3D without it breaking the EULA.
If I need to send my files to someone else to print it in 3D for me, I need a special licence.
I've stated this position several times now and no one has directly said this understanding is wrong... Everyone is confused at this issue simply because it has not been made clear.
So if my understanding is wrong (and I admit to being as confused as everyone else), It's ironic that a company dealing solely in 3D environments, 3D content and 3D software doesn't at present allow 3D printing.
I sell cameras but no one is allowed to take photographs with them. :-)
Is it, or isn't it?
Can I print my own stuff at home with my very own 3D printer using the DAZ stuff I have legally bought at DAZ? Yes or no? :gulp:
There seems to be a pattern according to which every second poster says "yes", every other says "no", which IMHO is a sign that the message (whatever it might have been) didn't really get through.
My, I always tended to think EULAs were for clarifying things up so people know what to do (or not); It sure seems that EULA just muddies things up, which means it's actually worse than no EULA at all.
(Note I don't accuse/attack you, Richard, you're just trying to help, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear you only know as much as you could personally guess out of that new messy EULA. Some DAZ official should step forth and give people some legally binding explanation of what they intended to say (yes, I know it's Saturday)).
Is it, or isn't it?
Can I print my own stuff at home with my very own 3D printer using the DAZ stuff I have legally bought at DAZ? Yes or no? :gulp:
There seems to be a pattern according to which every second poster says "yes", every other says "no", which IMHO is a sign that the message (whatever it might have been) didn't really get through.
My, I always tended to think EULAs were for clarifying things up so people know what to do (or not); It sure seems that EULA just muddies things up, which means it's actually worse than no EULA at all.
(Note I don't accuse/attack you, Richard, you're just trying to help, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear you only know as much as you could personally guess out of that new messy EULA. Some DAZ official should step forth and give people some legally binding explanation of what they intended to say (yes, I know it's Saturday)).
It says "Physical images (3D-print, molded copy, CNC-routed copy, and the like) of Content or any art derived from the Content is permitted only by User’s purchase from DAZ..." and then goes on to mention the license. Grammar error notwithstanding, that means any physical images, regardless of whether you create them yourself, still require a purchase of that license.
The fact that that license is related to delivery to someone else makes things read as a bit... muddled, though.
I'm curious as to whether it was actually meant to apply to personal 3D printing.
Hmmm .... i combed through my posts looking for certain threads. Seems somebody has done a MASSIVE thread removal.
I'll hedge that thing which were, somebody decided oops, maybe not.
But if I'm wrong, so are a whole lot of other people. And that tells us that what is wrong is how the licenses are being worded, period. And, you know, if one license is referring to a second not yet published license, conceivable, none of all this is truly applicable because one cannot agree or disagree to "part" of a whole, not knowing anything of what is the "whole".
I did find these two parts of sentences from 2 posts somewhere in the Commons;
from a forum member.Me too (check my first post in that thread), for I surely don't see what the big problem might be with people printing their favorite pinups/hunks (for, seriously, it boils down to that actually. Nobody will want to print a Stonemason scenery).
What DAZ surely needs, much much more than a new EULA, is a PR director. Not some chief cheerleader like we see passing from time to time, but someone who has the corporate power to cure the biggest problem DAZ has: Nonexistent/bad communication.
I've been studying some older EULAs and to me it seems obvious that a statement like this:
"User does not have the right to pfrovide the 3-D Model(s) to others in any form or on any media."
does not intentionally refer to a physical 3D printed object but to any media used for piracy.
Although today it may be interpreted as "a physical 3D printed object" as well.
It is clear that earlier EULAs gives the user the right to use the model for
"creation and presentation of animations and renderings".
The EULA does not grant the user any right to create physical objects from the licensed mesh. The statement:
"All other rights with respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ3D (and its licensors)."
should cover any question about 3D printing of any Content at home or through an external 3D print service.
Nothing but images and animations period You may profit from them commercially though ;-)
This brings me back to the current EULA in which there is an attempt to cover 3D printing as well.
| Physical images (3D-print, molded copy, CNC-routed copy, and the like) of Content or any art derived from the Content
| is permitted only by User’s purchase from DAZ, via the User’s online DAZ store account, permission to deliver User’s
| derived works (art), including necessary Content, to an entity that creates 3D-images in a physical medium.
|
| User may then deliver User’s art in file format to that 3rd-party to have physical images printed or created, up to
| the limitations set forth in the online DAZ Store as delineated on the purchase page associated with the
| permission product.
|
| These limitations govern (i) personal and/or commercial use of the physical, printed images; and (ii) the quantity of
| 3-D printed images allowed.
My first interpretation was:
"If you are a legal customer/user who purchased the content in our online store, then you have the right to deliver your derived works (art),including necessary meshes to someone who can create 3D-images in a physical medium." Reason for interpretation in green.
I thought this would basically be the same deal as with images and animation: "Create commercial content as much as you like as long as the content data is not reviled."
My second interpretation did not make any sense of the part "permission to deliver User’s derived works (art), including necessary Content, to an entity that creates 3D-images in a physical medium."
Now I believe I finally deciphered the intention of the whole text:
"The only way to acquire the right to have a physical object created from the Content or any art derived from the Content is to purchase a 'permission to deliver the derived works (art), including necessary Content, to an entity that creates 3D-images in a physical medium.' from DAZ, via the User’s online DAZ store account".
It's just the wording that sounds ridiculous for those of us that only need to deliver the data to our own output device...
... but then again, we never had the right written into the EULA to do that in the first place...
... just the same as we were and are NOT allowed by the EULA to let our children play with out content though we KNOW they won't sue us when we do...
... after all the people who run this company are humans, not...
Oooh, I might if I had a 3D printer though. To dress up some scenery, for the start of a diorama-type thing, as part of a base for another printed model...
Me too (check my first post in that thread), for I surely don't see what the big problem might be with people printing their favorite pinups/hunks (for, seriously, it boils down to that actually. Nobody will want to print a Stonemason scenery).
What DAZ surely needs, much much more than a new EULA, is a PR director. Not some chief cheerleader like we see passing from time to time, but someone who has the corporate power to cure the biggest problem DAZ has: Nonexistent/bad communication.
LOL
Off Topic but I can't refuse a set up like this...
That seem to be the problem even within most companies as well...
Nonexistent/bad communication
Trust me, you wouldn't.
3D printing yields smallish blobs of white plastic, so a bigger scenery would look like crap, lacking scale, definition and most important, color. Ah yes, and overhangs don't work either: It is layers of plastic piled up one over the other, and you can't pile anything on thin air.
So yes, you might manage to do it once, and after visiting friends ask where you did find this strange piece of broken cinder block, you wouldn't ever try it again, the joke having cost you much, much more than buying the original mesh in the first place (printing resin, the "ink", being rather expensive).
Yes, except DAZ has pushed it to the next level.
I expect any time soon they might notice it hurts their bottom line.
Trust me, you wouldn't.
3D printing yields smallish blobs of white plastic, so a bigger scenery would look like crap, lacking scale, definition and most important, color. Ah yes, and overhangs don't work either: It is layers of plastic piled up one over the other, and you can't pile anything on thin air.
So yes, you might manage to do it once, and after visiting friends ask where you did find this strange piece of broken cinder block, you wouldn't ever try it again, the joke having cost you much, much more than buying the original mesh in the first place (printing resin, the "ink", being rather expensive).
Not so, not so, my friend. There are multiple companies out there who offer this service so architects have a nice previs model for their clients already.
Trust me, you wouldn't.
3D printing yields smallish blobs of white plastic, so a bigger scenery would look like crap, lacking scale, definition and most important, color. Ah yes, and overhangs don't work either: It is layers of plastic piled up one over the other, and you can't pile anything on thin air.
So yes, you might manage to do it once, and after visiting friends ask where you did find this strange piece of broken cinder block, you wouldn't ever try it again, the joke having cost you much, much more than buying the original mesh in the first place (printing resin, the "ink", being rather expensive).
Not mine ;-)
But the build material isn't cheap... Even though the printer was free the smallest can of wax is 10.8kg and the cost is 2350 €...
But the build quality is acceptable :-P
Well, as adamr001 suggested on a closed thread; I have planted a friendly ticket.
Trust me, you wouldn't.
3D printing yields smallish blobs of white plastic, so a bigger scenery would look like crap, lacking scale, definition and most important, color. Ah yes, and overhangs don't work either: It is layers of plastic piled up one over the other, and you can't pile anything on thin air.
That's an accurate description of the earliest 3D printers. The state-of-the-art has advanced rapidly over the past decade or so.
Sure, but we were speaking about printers somebody could afford to have at home (without bearing the name of Rockefeller).
Wasn't that my point? :lol:
Sure, but we were speaking about printers somebody could afford to have at home (without bearing the name of Rockefeller).
I proposed that I'd like to print a Stonemason model if I had a printer, why ever would my fantasy involve one that was terrible? XD
Well, keep us posted.
My issue isn't with the EULA as such, but rather with the necessity for DAZ to clarify generally and publicly (not on a private basis) what this new EULA is attempting to say. Just so we know what we're talking about here, and there aren't as many interpretations as readers.
Because as you surely have noticed by now, in RL your wallet supersedes your fantasy?... :lol:
Because as you surely have noticed by now, in RL your wallet supersedes your fantasy?... :lol:
:lol:
True.
Well, keep us posted.
My issue isn't with the EULA as such, but rather with the necessity for DAZ to clarify generally and publicly (not on a private basis) what this new EULA is attempting to say. Just so we know what we're talking about here, and there aren't as many interpretations as readers.
Well to add another bit of stupidity to an already silly situation, I purchased something today from the Daz store and ticked the new accept the EULA to download it.
It arrived packaged up in it's .zip file. I unzipped it and ran the installer which asked me to agree to the old EULA before it would install the content.
So I'm guessing that the last one I agreed to is the one that's in force, because when you agree to legal documents, the last one presented always supersede any other contract you may have agreed.
It also makes a mockery out of the claim that the new positioning of the EULA was because Daz couldn't package it in with the .zip files when they swap them all over to that delivery system.
I've got no real opinion as to if it's right or wrong, fair or unfair, but I do know, it's in a mess and really needs sorting out either way. :)
Does it define 'Renderings' anywhere in the EULA and restrict them to 2 dimensional paper prints? ;)
I ask because a 3D rendering is just as much a rendering as a 2D one... only with one extra dimension.
And as soon as you apply morphs and clothes to a Daz product, the geometry of Daz's models can not be derived from the actual 3D printed model... but if you need to send the files to a third party, that 3rd party can strip the model and reset his/her pose to default and a pirate copy has been created. This I personally believe is where the problem lies.
If Daz doesn't sort this out very quickly, it will get left behind and miss out on a whole new expanding branch of potential income, while leaving it's loyal customers in the dark and potentially finding other vendors who have a clearer policy.
No, the one in force is the one you will be presented with shortly! :lol:
But let's take it one step at a time. Let DAZ take a breath, make some fresh coffee, and rephrase this EULA so we know at least what we're allowed to do or not.
I still want to know if I can print stuff at home or not, and if not, some rational explanation would be nice to have.
Well, keep us posted.
My issue isn't with the EULA as such, but rather with the necessity for DAZ to clarify generally and publicly (not on a private basis) what this new EULA is attempting to say. Just so we know what we're talking about here, and there aren't as many interpretations as readers.
Well to add another bit of stupidity to an already silly situation, I purchased something today from the Daz store and ticked the new accept the EULA to download it.
It arrived packaged up in it's .zip file. I unzipped it and ran the installer which asked me to agree to the old EULA before it would install the content.
So I'm guessing that the last one I agreed to is the one that's in force, because when you agree to legal documents, the last one presented always supersede any other contract you may have agreed.
It also makes a mockery out of the claim that the new positioning of the EULA was because Daz couldn't package it in with the .zip files when they swap them all over to that delivery system.
I've got no real opinion as to if it's right or wrong, fair or unfair, but I do know, it's in a mess and really needs sorting out either way. :)
No, that's an installer inside a zip, not a zip file with no installer.
Wasn't that my point? :lol:
Sorry m8,
When I read your post I thought it was only about those filament printers with inferior resolution :cheese:
there will come the time when one can have lifesized soft dolls made to order based on 3D models and textures.
imagine the legal mine fields there!