Digital Art Zone

 
   
2 of 8
2
License Agreement / 3D printing question
Posted: 08 February 2013 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2010-12-30
Patience55 - 08 February 2013 08:10 AM

It’s been stated rather plainly in other threads that we can do 3D printing with our models now.
The limitations part, it would seem have yet to be printed out as they would be on any concerned product page. Products not yet made.

Now I would hedge a totally unqualified guess that legally I could now take my precious 3d file over to a 3d printer and have them make me a model to hold in my hand. But, quite possibly if one has intention of setting up a real world store to sell little models of Genesis, one had better clear it through Daz3d first. That’s how I as a member of the “general public” would view comments about possible “limitations”.

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.

 Signature 

“Aut viam inveniam aut faciam”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2013 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2010-12-30
FirstBastion - 08 February 2013 08:25 AM
bringho - 08 February 2013 08:15 AM

So if there in no notes on the product page, there exist no limits regarding:

“personal and/or commercial use of the physical, printed images; and (ii) the quantity of 3-D printed images allowed.”

That’s great news!!!

That is totally wrong!  The limits are dependent on the 3D printing license.

wink

 

 Signature 

“Aut viam inveniam aut faciam”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2013 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1688
Joined  2007-12-10
Richard Haseltine - 08 February 2013 08:38 AM

Since the licenses to allow 3D printing are not yet available I can’t say how they will work, but they are additional licenses - the section of the EULA is saying you need to purchase a license to get 3D prints made (or possibly that the printer needs to purchase, since we don’t yet have the details).

If a full 3D printing licence is not yet available, can we print stuff out with ‘L’ plates on a provisional licence? LOL

 Signature 

I’ve got nothing of my own to promote, no models, no tutorials, no website, nothin’, nada, nill, nowt.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2013 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  74
Joined  2004-12-23

What’s the problem with 3D printing anyway? Somebody please explain, I apparently just don’t get it.  :-(

I mean, if I buy a 3D printer and decide to print 3D figurines, what’s the difference with me using my 2D printer to print pictures of them? The additional dimension?

I understand using external 3D printing services, which requires sending those a mesh would be a problem, since distributing mesh has always been forbidden.
As I said, that being already clearly forbidden, what’s the purpose of that new “3D printing” rule?

*wondering*

 Signature 

Extinct

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2013 09:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1336
Joined  2006-03-14

The purpose of the new 3D Printing Rule is that they’re going to issue licenses to make it possible/legal to do 3D Printing.

 Signature 

My Tutorials and Freebies Index

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 05:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7950
Joined  2009-07-13

Autodesk through it’s free 123D range of products is already enabling users to buy holographic images and 3D prints.
I reckon Daz is jumping on the bandwagon too!
imagin selling holographic renders made to order of your Vickies with a sword at the local arts crafts market!

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
        never forget
A Drows Walk
Jaderail is at it again

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  644
Joined  2011-03-26

edited and removed by user

 Signature 

DAZ User Gallery / Facebook / Deviant Art

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  74
Joined  2004-12-23
adamr001 - 08 February 2013 09:30 PM

The purpose of the new 3D Printing Rule is that they’re going to issue licenses to make it possible/legal to do 3D Printing.

That’s not really an answer to my question, is it?...

What I’m wondering about is, why is 3D printing deemed different from 2D printing. There is no obvious reason I can see (except it’s new), it doesn’t bear the risk of inducing piracy (you can’t extract the DAZ product(s) from that blob of solidified resin), it only fixes the aspect, much like 2D printing. IMHO.

 Signature 

Extinct

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 09:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2261
Joined  2003-10-09
rg5a - 09 February 2013 08:34 AM
adamr001 - 08 February 2013 09:30 PM

The purpose of the new 3D Printing Rule is that they’re going to issue licenses to make it possible/legal to do 3D Printing.

That’s not really an answer to my question, is it?...

What I’m wondering about is, why is 3D printing deemed different from 2D printing. There is no obvious reason I can see (except it’s new), it doesn’t bear the risk of inducing piracy (you can’t extract the DAZ product(s) from that blob of solidified resin), it only fixes the aspect, much like 2D printing. IMHO.

Until the home-3d Printers are common, then the figures, morphs and textures you use will have to be “distributed” to a 3d party printing service. THAT distribution is what violates the EULA.

 

 

 Signature 

A step away from the ordinary
http://www.daz3d.com/shop/rawart/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  658
Joined  2006-09-30
RawArt - 09 February 2013 09:10 AM
rg5a - 09 February 2013 08:34 AM
adamr001 - 08 February 2013 09:30 PM

The purpose of the new 3D Printing Rule is that they’re going to issue licenses to make it possible/legal to do 3D Printing.

That’s not really an answer to my question, is it?...

What I’m wondering about is, why is 3D printing deemed different from 2D printing. There is no obvious reason I can see (except it’s new), it doesn’t bear the risk of inducing piracy (you can’t extract the DAZ product(s) from that blob of solidified resin), it only fixes the aspect, much like 2D printing. IMHO.

Until the home-3d Printers are common, then the figures, morphs and textures you use will have to be “distributed” to a 3d party printing service. THAT distribution is what violates the EULA.

 

Well, I wish they’d clarify this!

If I ever get a 3D Printer I *AM* making that Cow Chess Set!  If there’s no clarification by then (don’t worry, I’m years away from owning my own such device!) I’ll interpret the EULA however I see fit.  It certainly is not redistributing the mesh if it’s my printer set up.

But the chess set is 32 individual figures printed, and they seem keen to limit the number of figures allowed, so clarification is really needed sometime in the next couple years (earlier for the more financial stable amongst us).

 Signature 

MOO!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  74
Joined  2004-12-23
linvanchene - 09 February 2013 08:33 AM

update their license system in a way to reflect the new possible uses the content could have.

That’s the point where we don’t agree: I don’t think it’s a “new” use. Printing the result of your fiddling with some software and the bought content is something people did since Poser 1.
3D printing is, for me, just an evolution of printing. Like going from black & white to color printing.
So what would you say if the license stated “you can freely print B/W pictures of your renders, but you need a special license to make color prints”?...

linvanchene - 09 February 2013 08:33 AM

One could argue that a 3d unlike the 2d print gives any other party the possibility to to recreate the geometry by rescanning the 3d printed model again. The original model is not protected anymore.
Of course one could argue that the polygons would not be the same.

I think the possibility to extract the original topology from a printed figurine is more theoretical, as the original mesh will most likely be posed, clothed, morphed, not to mention the resulting print is small (which means low spatial resolution). You could probably do as much with a couple 2D views of the figure from different angles.
If I print a life-sized naked Vicky in her default T pose, one could indeed 3D scan her and create something very near to the original mesh. But the associated cost would be so high it would certainly come cheaper to hire someone to redo the mesh from scratch.
My point is that given the cost and the benefit for fraudsters it’s a risk but not a real danger, at least not until making big prints and 3D scanning become really commonplace. If someone wants to get his hands on a DAZ mesh for free he’d rather search the torrents for free than spend thousands of dollars in equipment.

linvanchene - 09 February 2013 08:33 AM

Are 3d licenses really about protecting the geometry and the textures or about a license for a certain use?

It is what they decide it should be, actually. If you build a mesh for an TV ad or show, you usually yield all rights to the production. When you buy stock meshes you only get an non-exclusive license for use.
Poserdom came to be because lots of people (including what was to become DAZ) contributed meshes, making what was initially just a pretty dull and limited app of no real use grow and flourish, spawning a whole ecosystem (which gave birth to DAZ, initially just a department at Zygote). In this context, everybody used the “licensed for use” paradigm, which was the best suited and visibly worked pretty well.
But back to licenses.

The common expectation for that kind of electronic immaterial stuff is that they sell you a license to a non-exclusive use as you see fit, like it happens for instance in the stock photo market. This means you can’t resell or distribute the product, you can only use it to do something else with it.
Let’s stay at stock photography: Imagine I buy some nice pictures to illustrate some brochure/book. Unlike 3D scanners, 2D scanners are commonplace and cheap; How can the stock photo agency which sold me (use of) those pictures protect its intellectual property?
They will have a hard time, won’t they.

Food for thought.

linvanchene - 09 February 2013 08:33 AM

As long as the original shape stays the same one could say that this model is a copy from the other.
But the very second one starts to add morphs and change the shape it will be absolutely impossible to prove the source of the model.

Obviously, but that’s an old problem. Take a (copyrighted) song for instance, change enough notes to satisfy the “reasonably different” requirement and here you go. Blatant copies, look-alikes and “strongly inspired” stuff is all around us. But that’s life, there is a limit to how much you can protect an idea/design. Imagine some author writes a love story, and then prevents anyone else to write any story in which two persons meet and eventually fall in love…!

linvanchene - 09 February 2013 08:33 AM

Ask yourself: How different has a story in a movie or book to be in order to be considered different?

There are very well-paid IP lawyers who do this for a living… LOL

linvanchene - 09 February 2013 08:33 AM

I guess in ten years some people may consider to hire lawyers to figure out if they can use the 3d content they purchased today in different stores with technology noone would have thought of to use now.

Well, that’s rather theoretical, since in 10 years most of the stuff we use today will be considered so low-res and limited very few would bother using it. Just look 10 years back, it was IIRC when V3 was released. How many still use her, or worse, V2?
Besides, there isn’t that much which changed in technology since 2003.

 Signature 

Extinct

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  74
Joined  2004-12-23
RawArt - 09 February 2013 09:10 AM

Until the home-3d Printers are common, then the figures, morphs and textures you use will have to be “distributed” to a 3d party printing service. THAT distribution is what violates the EULA.

Yes, but that’s a non-issue, since it’s already clearly forbidden.

If the goal of DAZ was to give people a means to send meshes to printing facilities, the EULA should not state that 3D printing is forbidden. “3D printing” is an action which doesn’t imply or require any unlawful distribution of meshes, much like driving a car doesn’t imply killing the owner to steal it.

DAZ’s EULA should only state that distributing meshes is forbidden, but DAZ has a special license allowing you to send meshes to 3D printing facilities.

That would had been the proper way, and people would had seen that as a positive point, an addition, not a substraction.
.
.

(Besides 3D printers’ prices go from the eye-watering to the just a little expensive, so having one at home isn’t just for the wealthy anymore; And that article doesn’t even mention the DIY models.)

 Signature 

Extinct

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  644
Joined  2011-03-26

edited and removed by user

 Signature 

DAZ User Gallery / Facebook / Deviant Art

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2010-12-30
linvanchene - 09 February 2013 01:24 PM
rg5a - 09 February 2013 09:44 AM

3D printing is, for me, just an evolution of printing. Like going from black & white to color printing.
So what would you say if the license stated “you can freely print B/W pictures of your renders, but you need a special license to make color prints”?...

If people would need a special license to print in color I guess people living in 2013 would not be willing to buy.
The PA would have a hard time finding a place to sell.

- - -

There is the PA who wants to sell a product.
There is a customer who wants to buy a product.
There is broker in the middle who makes the deal happen.

Each can deceide for their own:
The PA can deceide not to sell his models in a store where 3d printing is included in the license.
The customer can choose to buy 3d models in another store where 3d printing is included in the license.

But they all do not live in a vacuum. They all live at a certain time in a certain market with specific conditions.
Those conditions can change.

So if you have someone new to 3d content market that has no clue how that all works it might very well happen that in some kind of store some unlucky customer buys the license to just print BW pictures.

- - -

There is one more thing that comes to mind when making the step from 2d printing to 3d printing.

Where does it stop?

If you buy a 3d model of lets say a chair. Would the PA that originaly created the chair be happy if you printed a real live chair from his model and then sell it?

At the moment 3d printing uses some kind of cheap plastic.

But what if you extened the word 3d printing and then start to argue that actually manufacturing that chair with a solid carbon or even metal is also some kind of 3d printing?

I guess that really would stretch the original intened use the PA had in mind.

But then again in the future you might find people who say I designed the 3d model of a chair and you can commericially use it in any way you want as long as you do not give away acess to the 3d model file and its geometry and resell that.

- - -

I believe it really comes down to what all three parties want: The PA, the broker and the customer.

And the very difficult task is to find the right words and labels to make those contracts.

I honestly can only point out the flaws but would have quite a difficult time to find the right words to make those contracts foolproof or better futureproof so that reasonal possible upgrades like BW pictures to color are allowed but all possible missuses that were not intended like real life versions of 3d models are excluded.

 

I totally agree to the above.

Even though printing a real chair to sit in IS possible, one question among others is whether the PA’s model is useful for that purpose?

Another question is whether the PA is the actual designer, or if the mesh is a rip off of some other designers (real life or not) work,
the not entirely unknown furniture company IKEA has more than once been accused to copy other designs: Ikea copies Spanish design

Home 3D printing relies on ABS or PLA plastics at the moment, I don’t know if any of the new ‘cheap’ SLA printers has reached the market yet.
Internet based 3D-printshops provide a number of materials: 3D-Printing Services

Titanium (though probably out of context here) is used to print parts for aeroplanes and prosthetics.

Being an original content creator in my own right I do understand the potentially extreme value of immaterial rights…

 Signature 

“Aut viam inveniam aut faciam”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2013 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2010-12-30
RawArt - 09 February 2013 09:10 AM
rg5a - 09 February 2013 08:34 AM
adamr001 - 08 February 2013 09:30 PM

The purpose of the new 3D Printing Rule is that they’re going to issue licenses to make it possible/legal to do 3D Printing.

That’s not really an answer to my question, is it?...

What I’m wondering about is, why is 3D printing deemed different from 2D printing. There is no obvious reason I can see (except it’s new), it doesn’t bear the risk of inducing piracy (you can’t extract the DAZ product(s) from that blob of solidified resin), it only fixes the aspect, much like 2D printing. IMHO.

Until the home-3d Printers are common, then the figures, morphs and textures you use will have to be “distributed” to a 3d party printing service. THAT distribution is what violates the EULA.

I have to disagree…

Earlier EULA state quite clearly that : “You may ... the creation and presentation of animations and renderings…”
” ... All other rights with respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ3D (and its licensors).”

This does not allow any 3D printing at home or elsewhere…

They did not need to mention 3D-printing if they did not want to change the above into something else but
they came out with a new EULA that mention 3-D printing an a way that I for one could not decipher.

 

 Signature 

“Aut viam inveniam aut faciam”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 8
2