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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
this looks like something from what I've read around a few may be interested in different to others and has that tv scifi look like star trek think you could sell this
and the fact there are a lot that can't use iray at all often see asking is this product 3dl or how do I convert this to 3dl think you've replied to a fair few of these
been asked a few times on some of my renders on content I've kitbashed such as creatures if I could would sell them of course couldn't cause they were created using others products but theyy get noticed so when I do make my totally own originals or other original content best way to gain interest is basicly do ton of renders and upload them everywhere I get a few comments from some of the content creators whose products I use too so yeah say you want to do textures or add ons to an existing product show off what you can do in your renders crediting the products/linking them and maybe after several the creator of the content and or daz may notice and become interested and maybe offer you new product to work on again same with rendering if your really good in that a content creator may ask you to work on promos on a product they are working on there are a few that have been asked to do this. But first you gotta show off what you can do and the best way is post lots of renders in the galleries and forums related to product/s you are using
In general, you can get away with taking photos of a street scene that includes a known location and the buildings that occupy it. But as soon as you feature a specific building or turn it into a product, you will need a release from the owner and the business that is occupying the building. The case law about such things has gotten much tighter over the years. If you take a shot of the i.e. "Sony" building and create your own model of it and sell it as the "Sony Building" for Daz, Sony could come back and say, "Hey, you're making money off our brand and likeness...We didn't authorize that." Or, they might simply want to make sure that you aren't doing anything that puts a bad light on their brand, i.e. "The evil villain's lair in the corrupt Sony building..."
In general, it is always safest to get a written release...even if you think you don't need one. It doesn't matter if you are 100% in the right. If your product gets held up because a business decides to press suit, it will cost you plenty to fix it, even if you didn't do anything wrong. However, if you can send them back a note that says, "Here is a copy of the release that your company gave me to take photos," they probably won't go any further.
Publishing companies like Daz know that any potential risk should be avoided. Nobody wants any more liability risk, when it can be easily avoided.
I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I've just run into some of these issues as a professional photographer. Unless you are strictly journalistic, it's always best to get permission.
That said, it's not a bad idea to have both, and if you can find someone to work with, it's worthwhile. Maybe Daz has some ideas about that.
As far as Google's street views are concerned, I can only guess that 1. they are considered to be educational by design, 2. they are freely available, and 3. the work is wholistic and not singling out any specific location.
I'm sure there are more considerations, like the value to the community...etc.
Re: Product identity
I did game testing a while back, and with car games, there'd often be interesting rules. Like, there was a game where the car would become visibly damaged as it hit stuff. Except if you were driving cars made by X. X's cars always looked pristine.
See, X gave permission to use their cars, but never wanted their cars to be seen in a negative light, IE: damaged.
I don't know the answer to that. If I had to take a guess I would say that google streets falls under editorial maybe??? The real estate people the same thing, plus most of them have permission from home owners to take photo of the house, how else to sell it? :) Google and the real estate people are not selling or making profit from the images themselves. I primarily photographed people and animals, so I'm not real familiar with property releases. I just know if you want to make money off a picture of someone else's property, publishers, in the United States anyway, are going to need a property release.
the game franchise Gran Turismo is a prime examople there, the creators had access to a host of brands but the companies did not like allow their cars to be seen damaged in the games but in other games such as the Burn Out series which showed of the damage to the various cars, trucks, bikes extra were not based on any actual branded cars
With Google maps, they are not branding anything in the photos as their own. If you took that same picture and made a billboard or model, you are, in essence, branding it as your own, which is a no-no.
Seems to me like Google is precisely singling out individual properties since you can pump in individual street addresses to get a street view predominantly featuring that property. And, does anybody doubt that Google is making money by doing this (by driving traffic/branding at the very least)?
I hear what you are saying, but Google does put their name at the bottom of every street view picture.
Anyway, just to be clear, I have no interest personally of selling any such products anywhere, let alone the here in the store. I spend quite a bit of time around lawyers and I just find the discussion interesting.
I agree with cdpro that erring on the side of caution is always a good idea. That being said, "Publishing companies like Daz know that any potential risk should be avoided." is an interesting statement . . . I don't want to name any, but I know of more than a few products sold here in the store that seemingly profiting off of somebody else's intellectual property. Guess that means that releases have been obtained, eh? ;) lol
- Greg
I'm not sure that I'd call the ability to locate or zoom in to individual properties as "singling them out." That's more of a sort of "all inclusive." You can do that with every property. Nevertheless, I see your point.
All in all, trademarking and copyright issues keep a lot of attorneys in business. Most case law is about interpreting the situation as applied to the statutes and precedents. So, every expensive lawsuit is all about who's attorney can make the most compelling argument. My point is really that most of us small time operators can't afford the expense of the suit...right or wrong. Google on the other hand, has very deep pockets.
For instance, a lot of movies won't include branded grocery items in their shots. 1. They hope to get sponsorship for such advertising. 2. They don't want a holdup in case some brand doesn't like their product displayed in the film...even though there is really nothing illegal about having branded items showing in a film. They'd just rather avoid the headache. I personally had a few of my photos in the background of a Warner Brothers film for a brief second. They were blurred out and hardly recognizable. But, WB payed me a token amount for the usage, just to avoid any problems.
Now if I go and take a photo of the aforementioned Sony Building, that photo is my copyright. However, actually using that photo can be a problem for anything other than a documentary or news piece, or just a personal display. Generally, those are fine because they are educational and noncommercial in nature. But, if I go and sell photos of the Sony Building, I might get into trouble because I am making money off their trademark. You could argue that it's just photo of a building. But, Sony would argue that the value of the photo is in the fact that it was their building and not just any other....and so on...etc.
So, if I'm Daz or any other similar type company that has hundreds of potential submissions each year of very well done products, I'm probably going to pick the product with all the i's dotted over the one with potential liabilities, unless I believe the sales potential far outweights the risk of any lawsuit. Just my take on it. :)