Digital Art Zone

 
   
4 of 6
4
The Can or the Bottle
Posted: 10 February 2013 07:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  26
Joined  2010-11-27
Richard Haseltine - 10 February 2013 06:31 AM

Copyright does not require registration - it belongs to the creator at the moment of creation. registration is a tool for obtaining damages in the event of a successful prosecution, in the US - many other countries do not have equivalent requirements for that.

If part of a product (a morph, say) is used in the creation of another than that other is a derivative product. Whether that can be detected is a practical matter, but it is a derivative none the less. It is simple to avoid problems here by using tools like reverse Deformations to separate out your own morph from those of others.

Content in the stores or sold as freebies should eb original work - it may use the joint centres of another figure if it is clothing or the like, but that is permitted under the item’s EULA. If an item is built using parts of another’s work beyond what is permitted in the EULA it will be taken down when discovered.

Well this is terribly wrong in case of a court approval you need the proof that you registered your Product before that it will not even reach a copyright fight. Basic needs for Copyright protection.
if someone takes a UN-registered Item and register it to office the original creator will most-probably loose any rights to it , it happen many times not a rare thing.
then the originall creator will be asked of proof that he registred the Product , he cant so in end effect the original creator will be the one who stole hes own product. I know you will say this is not right , but basically how allot of big cooperations work .

then is it so that the Eula counts for the Original Creator Or only for original DAZ products , is a tax fee even if the copyright holder is a third Party over Daz who then Pay’s the creator ? is the reseller under a special Contract with Daz as hes Employee. who controls the fees for reproduction is it Daz or does he give away the whole Office work to the original creator ?

I read always Special Permission From DAZ so I assume once you place a Product into this store you totally loose control it is as if an original Creator just gives all the rights to a cooperation as soon as he place its in the store. but if it ever would come to a copyright fight the Original creator will stand alone Daz will refuse the Protection for the rest all is fine as long as the money flows in

this whole thing is not to Protect the creator or the Costumer ... nooo it is to Insure the cooperation more control and more Income.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3104
Joined  2009-02-24
Hades 65 - 10 February 2013 07:09 AM
Richard Haseltine - 10 February 2013 06:31 AM

Copyright does not require registration - it belongs to the creator at the moment of creation. registration is a tool for obtaining damages in the event of a successful prosecution, in the US - many other countries do not have equivalent requirements for that.

If part of a product (a morph, say) is used in the creation of another than that other is a derivative product. Whether that can be detected is a practical matter, but it is a derivative none the less. It is simple to avoid problems here by using tools like reverse Deformations to separate out your own morph from those of others.

Content in the stores or sold as freebies should eb original work - it may use the joint centres of another figure if it is clothing or the like, but that is permitted under the item’s EULA. If an item is built using parts of another’s work beyond what is permitted in the EULA it will be taken down when discovered.

Well this is terribly wrong in case of a court approval you need the proof that you registered your Product before that it will not even reach a copyright fight. Basic needs for Copyright protection.
if someone takes a UN-registered Item and register it to office the original creator will most-probably loose any rights to it , it happen many times not a rare thing.

That’s called an involuntary transfer of copyright, and can be ousted in a court of law. Unless you specifically agree to transfer ownership, you remain the copyright holder of your material. If you contest it the focus is on the them to prove they own the material, not for you to disprove it. That said, they likely won’t have the work-in-progress steps taken to reach the final product, and therefore don’t have a leg to stand on in court.

In general the law works to protect the authors of works, not against them. If you’re the original copyright holder, you have most of the power unless you specifically state otherwise.

 Signature 

Find me on DeviantArt
Download my free IBL presets for Luxus
Re-upload of Cresent’s awesome pwToon shaders
Create your own Smart Content

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  931
Joined  2003-10-09
Jazzmin - 10 February 2013 12:00 AM

As I understand you can’t copyright themes, such as Steam Punk, Victorian, SciFi, nor can you copyright a can opener, coffee maker, chair, etc, and if you’re going to copyright anything you better dam* well properly file it with the copyright office if you want to have it enforced, if needed, later on down the road.  With regard to the new EULA, it’s all fine and good that DAZ wants to protect their business, however I don’t believe it’s legal to hold hostage product previously purchased under a previously agreed upon EULA.  It would be okay if the product(s) were free, but money was exchanged and when you’re talking about an exchange of money you get into a whole new ballgame of laws and consumer protection. 

As far as US law goes, ex post facto law is a huge NOT GONNA HAPPEN when a potential conviction concerns punishment.  These laws have to do with criminal and not civil issues.  It’s also known as retroactive law, which is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.  That’s basically what this, and any other EULA drawn up AFTER the purchase of a product(s) and agreed to BEFORE this, or any other agreed upon EULA, is.  This is why there are consumer protection laws, US Constitutional laws as well as the Constitutions of each state.  That’s why the US Constitution provides for protection from the abuse of power by the government and if it’s a criminal charge against a customer, it’ll apply here.  You can’t keep changing your agreements and expect your customers to go along with it or be forced to agree to it.  But, no matter, nothing is going to happen to make this right for both DAZ and their customers unless some sort of litigation is brought.  Actually, all our bitc*ing isn’t going to change a thing unless there is a court decision.

You may be right but I’m not sure enough to say definitively that you can’t apply a retro active clause to an existing EULA if it pertains to something like a new technology that didn’t exist when the original EULA was written, such as 3D Printing. I don’t think the laws are so rigid as to be able to force a company to have to leave themselves unprotected on all purchases made prior to that new technology. Now the holding hostage part I am inclined to believe is illegal and if not in the very least it is poor form. Since I don’t know for a fact it is illegal though I’ll not make a statement that it definately is. Yes there are consumer protection laws to keep companies from substantially changing the rules on a customer after they got their money but to protect copyrights from a new way they might be infringed upon isn’t substantially changing a rule or it’s intent it’s merely expanding it. Just look at Credit Card companies for example, they’re always changing their privacy policies on existing accounts. By your view they shouldn’t be able to and should be forced to honor the policy in place when the account was first opened, yet they are not. Sure the government protects consumers but they were protecting business first, protecting consumers was an afterthought.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  931
Joined  2003-10-09
Kyoto Kid - 10 February 2013 03:03 AM

..so basically, let’s say I want to create a physical 3D figure “print” of my namesake based on the work I’ve done using Daz figure and clothing meshes along with he MAT textures for use as a personal mini figure in an RPG game, I would need a special licence form Daz even though it would just be for my own personal use?

As long as you are not distributing the original meshes or the original meshes can’t be extracted or reverse engineered from what you are distributing. Games create a unique scenario though in that it is near impossible to prevent some risk to the copyrighted material and so to that end game developers have special licensing which usually is substantially more expensive to help offset the potential loss the inherent risk may cause.

You say though it would only be for your use so in the game it might mean you could only implement your unique character in a way that is visible to you and that other participants in the would see the default character. Now if by RPG you mean the older real world kind like Dungeons & Dragons, you could have your physical representation of your character using Daz meshes because the other players in the game couldn’t extract the mesh or reverse engineer it from just seeing it. You would have to give them a copy of your physical representation to take home with them, that then would be illegal but then it also would no longer be just for your personal use.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  931
Joined  2003-10-09
HeraldOfFire - 10 February 2013 06:34 AM

and BTW is it not what most Creators do all the time derive from other Products ans sell it as an original ??

This almost offensive to suggest. There’s a great deal of work which goes into creating content, and copy-pasta is rarely one of them unless it’s from their own work. Anything derived from an existing mesh, unless with specific permissions, wouldn’t be allowed. They’re usually either created from scratch or from a very basic template either made by the author themselves or bought for the purpose. In the latter case they’re a derivative work, but the templates are generally VERY basic, so the final product rarely looks anything like the original.

Just to be fair I think he’s refering to how someone will come up with an original item and then a bunch of other people will come up with textures, morphs, poses, etc for that product and in a sense profit off the work of the original creator since the textures, morphs, poses, etc would be useless without the original item they were made for. Yes it’s a misapplication or understanding of copyright protection/infringement but I don’t think it’s meant to be offensive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  50
Joined  2003-10-09
LordHardDriven - 10 February 2013 10:48 AM
Jazzmin - 10 February 2013 12:00 AM

As I understand you can’t copyright themes, such as Steam Punk, Victorian, SciFi, nor can you copyright a can opener, coffee maker, chair, etc, and if you’re going to copyright anything you better dam* well properly file it with the copyright office if you want to have it enforced, if needed, later on down the road.  With regard to the new EULA, it’s all fine and good that DAZ wants to protect their business, however I don’t believe it’s legal to hold hostage product previously purchased under a previously agreed upon EULA.  It would be okay if the product(s) were free, but money was exchanged and when you’re talking about an exchange of money you get into a whole new ballgame of laws and consumer protection. 

As far as US law goes, ex post facto law is a huge NOT GONNA HAPPEN when a potential conviction concerns punishment.  These laws have to do with criminal and not civil issues.  It’s also known as retroactive law, which is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.  That’s basically what this, and any other EULA drawn up AFTER the purchase of a product(s) and agreed to BEFORE this, or any other agreed upon EULA, is.  This is why there are consumer protection laws, US Constitutional laws as well as the Constitutions of each state.  That’s why the US Constitution provides for protection from the abuse of power by the government and if it’s a criminal charge against a customer, it’ll apply here.  You can’t keep changing your agreements and expect your customers to go along with it or be forced to agree to it.  But, no matter, nothing is going to happen to make this right for both DAZ and their customers unless some sort of litigation is brought.  Actually, all our bitc*ing isn’t going to change a thing unless there is a court decision.

You may be right but I’m not sure enough to say definitively that you can’t apply a retro active clause to an existing EULA if it pertains to something like a new technology that didn’t exist when the original EULA was written, such as 3D Printing. I don’t think the laws are so rigid as to be able to force a company to have to leave themselves unprotected on all purchases made prior to that new technology. Now the holding hostage part I am inclined to believe is illegal and if not in the very least it is poor form. Since I don’t know for a fact it is illegal though I’ll not make a statement that it definately is. Yes there are consumer protection laws to keep companies from substantially changing the rules on a customer after they got their money but to protect copyrights from a new way they might be infringed upon isn’t substantially changing a rule or it’s intent it’s merely expanding it. Just look at Credit Card companies for example, they’re always changing their privacy policies on existing accounts. By your view they shouldn’t be able to and should be forced to honor the policy in place when the account was first opened, yet they are not. Sure the government protects consumers but they were protecting business first, protecting consumers was an afterthought.

I’d have to do some legal research, but I’m leaning way over on the side of the consumer here.  This is the nature of 3D, new technology is developed every day.  The customer entered into an agreement with DAZ when the customer gave DAZ money… to change the terms of the contract after new technology is developed, which DAZ was well aware, is unfair to the customer and it’s bad business.  It’s fine to change the EULA for products sold from this point forward, but to make it retro is a “Gotcha,” it’s ex post facto and that’s what I object to.  Something else to consider here… the EULA is a contract and contract law is very rigid because it’s a written agreement.  For one party to change the terms after money has been exchanged is, well, unethical and I believe it could be challenged with a win in court, if it came to that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 02:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  12581
Joined  2007-11-06
LordHardDriven - 10 February 2013 11:03 AM
Kyoto Kid - 10 February 2013 03:03 AM

..so basically, let’s say I want to create a physical 3D figure “print” of my namesake based on the work I’ve done using Daz figure and clothing meshes along with he MAT textures for use as a personal mini figure in an RPG game, I would need a special licence form Daz even though it would just be for my own personal use?

As long as you are not distributing the original meshes or the original meshes can’t be extracted or reverse engineered from what you are distributing. Games create a unique scenario though in that it is near impossible to prevent some risk to the copyrighted material and so to that end game developers have special licensing which usually is substantially more expensive to help offset the potential loss the inherent risk may cause.

You say though it would only be for your use so in the game it might mean you could only implement your unique character in a way that is visible to you and that other participants in the would see the default character. Now if by RPG you mean the older real world kind like Dungeons & Dragons, you could have your physical representation of your character using Daz meshes because the other players in the game couldn’t extract the mesh or reverse engineer it from just seeing it. You would have to give them a copy of your physical representation to take home with them, that then would be illegal but then it also would no longer be just for your personal use.

...actually this was in reference to 3D printing as it opens the door for P&P RPG players to have custom figures that are exact representations of their characters rather than having to “approximate” using an “off the shelf miniature” bought at the local gaming store.

I don’t do MMOs as I have slow to spotty connectivity and 3D CG is already enough of a time sink for me (albeit a more productive one).

 Signature 

...it’s five minutes to midnight…

I’d rather have a blue sky above me than a blue screen in front of me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 03:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2011-04-19

What good it will do, I wrote a request.

Not that good with words:

I want my paid for Products!

Another day, they are holding my product’s all ready paid for under another EULA HOSTAGE!!!!!  :(

Being forced to agree to a new EULA, to be able to get to my old products, already agree old EULA
Have not bought anything since the new EULA has been in place, was getting ready to buy when are this EULA pops up at me forcing me & may not ever buy here again!

If I am not able to get my already bought products I need a refund on all you’ll are holding HOSTAGE & refund on membership just bought.
If I can’t get my hard money spent products then I don’t need to be with Daz.
They could of let us known ahead of time to get what we needed, seems like Daz is only for Daz not the customer.

Would someone Plz set my Products Free?
It has nothen to do with matter at hand…...
Thanks

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7100
Joined  2005-08-15

Please send a ticket to Support, by using Help > Contact Us if you are having problems

You now need to sign the EULA only once.  Then you never need to sign it again, it has changed very little, and only in respect of ‘3D Printing’  Nothing has changed, and there is nothing to worry about I can assure you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  17131
Joined  2003-10-09
Alethas Fantasy - 10 February 2013 03:51 PM

What good it will do, I wrote a request.

Not that good with words:

I want my paid for Products!

Another day, they are holding my product’s all ready paid for under another EULA HOSTAGE!!!!!  :(

Being forced to agree to a new EULA, to be able to get to my old products, already agree old EULA
Have not bought anything since the new EULA has been in place, was getting ready to buy when are this EULA pops up at me forcing me & may not ever buy here again!

If I am not able to get my already bought products I need a refund on all you’ll are holding HOSTAGE & refund on membership just bought.
If I can’t get my hard money spent products then I don’t need to be with Daz.
They could of let us known ahead of time to get what we needed, seems like Daz is only for Daz not the customer.

Would someone Plz set my Products Free?
It has nothen to do with matter at hand…...
Thanks

I really cannot understand this standpoint. No one is being held hostage.

All you have to do is agree to the New EULA.

Kevin has said that anyone who wishes to download the old installers, and agree to accept the old EULA is welcome to do so, but he cannot understand why anyone would want to do that, because the New EULA is actually less restrictive than the old one was.

 Signature 

Chohole’s Space        NeilV’s Freebies and stuff        Winter Bryce Rendering Challenge        December Freebie Challenge
My DAZ 3D Gallery    11915

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  649
Joined  2006-11-10
chohole - 10 February 2013 05:30 PM

I really cannot understand this standpoint. No one is being held hostage.

All you have to do is agree to the New EULA.

Kevin has said that anyone who wishes to download the old installers, and agree to accept the old EULA is welcome to do so, but he cannot understand why anyone would want to do that, because the New EULA is actually less restrictive than the old one was.

The problem is they’re attempting to actively prevent the bolded section from happening. Account downloads and resets automatically redirect to the EULA.

Once it stops I’ll happily agree to the new one.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  17131
Joined  2003-10-09

So you would rather go back to the old, more restrictive EULA.  So click to accept the new one, and then only download installers, don’t use the DIM to download any of the new zips. Then, when you run the installers you can click to accept the older EULA, the MORE restrictive one.  Kevin has said if people really want to be governed by the older EULA, that is fair enough. You want be forced to use any of the new less restrictive terms.

I really do wonder how many people actually read the old EULA before they clicked to accept it.

 Signature 

Chohole’s Space        NeilV’s Freebies and stuff        Winter Bryce Rendering Challenge        December Freebie Challenge
My DAZ 3D Gallery    11915

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 07:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  649
Joined  2006-11-10
chohole - 10 February 2013 05:44 PM

So you would rather go back to the old, more restrictive EULA.  So click to accept the new one, and then only download installers, don’t use the DIM to download any of the new zips. Then, when you run the installers you can click to accept the older EULA, the MORE restrictive one.  Kevin has said if people really want to be governed by the older EULA, that is fair enough. You want be forced to use any of the new less restrictive terms.

Nope, unfortunately, the new EULA specifically states that it supersedes any presented at the time of installation. Whether this will hold up I don’t know, but it’s the spirit of the thing I’m against, whether or not I can find loopholes to get around it.

As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself, only the attempt to force people to alter previous agreements. If it wasn’t blocking access to the download and reset pages [maybe presented at checkout instead?], I would have accepted it the day it turned up. I understand completely why they’re doing what they’re doing, but they’re doing it wrong by restricting access to bought content [and originally our entire accounts].

chohole - 10 February 2013 05:44 PM

I really do wonder how many people actually read the old EULA before they clicked to accept it.

Don’t know. I suspect not many, most people don’t. I did, though.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 12:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2005-10-23
Agent_Unawares - 10 February 2013 07:06 PM
chohole - 10 February 2013 05:44 PM

So you would rather go back to the old, more restrictive EULA.  So click to accept the new one, and then only download installers, don’t use the DIM to download any of the new zips. Then, when you run the installers you can click to accept the older EULA, the MORE restrictive one.  Kevin has said if people really want to be governed by the older EULA, that is fair enough. You want be forced to use any of the new less restrictive terms.

Nope, unfortunately, the new EULA specifically states that it supersedes any presented at the time of installation. Whether this will hold up I don’t know, but it’s the spirit of the thing I’m against, whether or not I can find loopholes to get around it.

As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself, only the attempt to force people to alter previous agreements. If it wasn’t blocking access to the download and reset pages [maybe presented at checkout instead?], I would have accepted it the day it turned up. I understand completely why they’re doing what they’re doing, but they’re doing it wrong by restricting access to bought content [and originally our entire accounts].

chohole - 10 February 2013 05:44 PM

I really do wonder how many people actually read the old EULA before they clicked to accept it.

Don’t know. I suspect not many, most people don’t. I did, though.

The differences between the old EULA and the new EULA will have little to no effect on the majority of your customers, including myself.

The heavy handed way in which customers are being forced to accept the new EULA is very off-putting. Couple that with the very unfortunate wording of the initial draft (you know, where we had to delete all of our stuff from our hard drives if we didn’t agree), you can understand why people are reluctant to sign up.

I entirely agree with Agent_Unawares.  Why don’t you just move the acceptance of the EULA to the check-out process (i.e. you can’t buy new products without accepting the EULA for those products). This is what many on-line stores do, and it works very well for them. It would also remove the perception that you are holding our purchased products hostage (which is actually what you’re doing with the current implementation).

I wish that for once, you would just do what’s right for your customers from the outset. You usually end up doing it eventually, but you generate an awful lot of acrimony by drawing out the process.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 12:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9676
Joined  2007-11-06

The problem with moving the EULA to the check-out process is that DAZ 3D is switching to zips, so if you redownload something you purchased in the past and get a zip, and you never ran the old installer, you haven’t agreed to any EULA.

 Signature 

PostgreSQL CMS FAQ
Tutorial: Adding Surfaces in DS
Product Updates: Non-Genesis/G2 DIM Zips
Non-Genesis Items with Metadata
Updated Genesis Products

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 6
4