Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
You going to pay one way or the other for commercial use- either you pay someone else for royalty free images, or you take/make your own, paying with your time.
That's one of many reasons I'm here. I'm an indie author, and royalty free stock images just didn't offer what I wanted when doing my book covers and promo graphics. Plus, everyone else is using them, so the same stuff pops up over and over again, which is boring. While I can and do take my own pictures and sometimes use them, I needed things I couldn't create. 3D was a good alternative. Daz's usage terms are generous, and the prices are a bargain when you compare them to some of the stock image places. With stock images, you get one picture, one angle, etc. that you can change somewhat in a photo program, but there's so much more freedom with 3D products. I'd much rather pay $10-$20 for something I can use over and over again. With 3D, I can buy it once and can use it or alter it in a thousand different ways. And even if someone copies what I did, they probably won't get the exact same effect. What's created is fairly unique.
it's very complicated n a lawyer from deviantart spent a hour explaining it at comic con on free fan art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKBsTUjd910
selling it is another thing.
yes they took morphs of celebrities down at renderosity.not a rumor.
anyways if it's theres they can do what they want with there stuff ,so they might never mess with you.they might mess with you a decade from now or maybe tomorrow.if you mmess with there stuff then your asking to be mess with.if you don't mess with there stuff then they can't mess with you.
Well I'm confused then. I thought you said "without the logos or the BMW symbol, would NOT violate Trademark protections." Trade dress is trademark too. It may (typically) come under common law trademark, but case law holds precedence for it as well. Physical goods don't need to be exchanged. The law applies to representations (ads, images, etc.) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
(As usual, not legal advice.)
If you must use it, email the company explaining exactly what your using the image of their product for, and ask if it's ok with them for you use it.
If they say it's OK, print out that email and save it as proof in case you need it in the future.
Around the early 2000, someone made a graphic novel called, "Three Fingers" http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=fullsize&issue=87203590896%201
...then why would would the model of the Kawai EX (misnamed as Yamaha, which also makes grand pianos, in my previous post) on Turbosquid carry the following licencing conditions?
Editorial Uses Allowed
Extended Uses May Need Clearances
...and
"The intellectual property depicted in this model, including the brand "kawai", is not affiliated with or endorsed by the original rights holders. Editorial uses of this product are allowed, but other uses (such as within computer games) may require legal clearances from third party intellectual property owners. (eg, Kawai Pianos - my add).
That would be the design copyright or logo coming into play...along with a healthy dose of CYA.
...that's why I gave up on it in the end. Better to play it safe, however now I'm back in the same dilemma I was before in that I need a model with an accurate frame details and stringing (the latter for close in shots) as you don't perform a recital or concert with the lid closed.
The anime "Your lie in April" has one of the best grand piano animations that I've ever seen done -- absolutely gorgeous. If you want some eye candy, there it is. My understanding is that they paid handsomely for the use of the model even though Japan has some of the loosest trademark use laws in the world (using SANY on a radio instead of SONY is enough to not get sued and is done in much media). There have been many grand piano styles over time and a great many of the designs are now in the public domain since they are well over 100 years old and some are absolutely beautiful. However, pianos are such a niche item (and so complex) that few take the time to do them and not charge for their time. Considering how much time it would take for the detail you're looking for, I don't blame them.
It could be a good reason for you to learn how to model. Specifications for piano dimensions are well documented and many of the parts are duplicated (pegs, hammers, strings, keys). Creating a prop could be a good learning project. Now, rigging everything and getting ERC handled for animation would be terribly time consuming, IMO.
Kendall
..I am trying to learn modelling, but it is slow going. As you mention a piano is a fiarly complex instrument (I know, I not only performed on them, but moved, regulated, and tuned them as well as studined their construction). I also actually assisted in building a Hubbard Kit Harpsochord many years ago and even helped tune and regulate pipe organs (now there is one very complex musical machine).
It would take me years to get up to that level of modelling skill. Currently I am wrestling with modelling just a single organ pipe (Hexagon), something that should be fairly simple, yet I am running into difficulty with getting the proper shape around the mouth area. This is why I prefer to pay others for going through that trouble as I would rather spend my time creating scenes and writing the story that goes with them. Before you mention tutorials, there are so few anymore available in written form so I have to resort pretty much to "seat of the pants flying" (which involves a lot of frustrating trial and error) as I have a very low retention with video learning due to short term memory issues.
I was willing to pay the price for the .obj version of Kawai EX model (124$) even though it was not rigged (I could do that myself), it was the "grey" area of intellectual property that stopped me. What surprises me is Ness released a very nice harpsichord model with exquisite detail years ago, that could even be used in animations, for a very reasonable price (I have it). I've been hoping he would release a nice basic 9' concert grand piano. Even if it cost as much as a big Stonemason set, It would be worth it as I wouldn't have to be concerned about patent, copyright or trademark issues.
It's not really a "gray" area -- pretty black and white, really. Neither Turbosquid, nor the vendor, can't convey commercial rights to the asset, as another party owns intellectual rights to logos, tradenames, and possibly trade dress of the base product. That doesn't stop you from separately obtaining permission. If you have a project in mind, and it doesn't show the real product in a bad light, many companies are willing to grant the permission at no cost. Animated instruments are a fairly common subject in videos, so if that's your goal, they'll already understand what it is you want to do.
There's a "catch" in that they are unlikely to give blanket permission to just any project you might want to do, now and in the future. Each use will require separate permission.
The specifics of Turbosquid's licensing notwithstanding, the typical grand piano has few unique design elements that can be trademarked. Get rid of the logos and any unique wood turning designs that could be protected under trade dress or design patent. With only modest mesh editing, you might be able to adapt a "for editorial use only" asset into a generic asset.
Tobor's usual disclaimer: the above is not legal advice.