Not To Worry, Friend, "There's Always Another Sale™"
This discussion has been closed.
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
Yes. I just wrote three myself in the last 30 minutes myself:
1) The DAZ Studio 4.10.x translate, rotate, and other viewport gizmos cause DAZ Studio to hang for a minute or two (workaround for me for the time being is to activate the Geometry Editor and use the parameters/posing tabs instead of the gizmos in the viewport)
2) Every single one of the Michael 8, Marc 8 for Michael 8, Lucas 8, Gunner for Lucas 8, Milo for Lucas 8, (dark) Tyrone for Darius 8, and (albino) Darius 8 have seams and color change between the torso and the Genesis 8 Male anatomical Elements. That it's every one of those makes me think there is a render bug in DAZ Studio 4.10.x concerning geografts which I think is how those genitalia are made in Genesis 8.
3) When I have two instances of the same base model in a scene and activate the geometry editor and select only one of those instances in the scene tab and then use marquee selection (should to the same though with lasso & the other) to select geometry that I hide DAZ Studio will somehow of invisibly selected geometry on the unselected instance in the scene tab and hide geometry on that model too. It could be a human model, two pairs of the same shoe model, and so on, doesn't matter.
4) In the past year I've filled out 2 tickets for overcharges from DAZ and got prompt and curteous refunds of the overcharge.
5) In the past 2 years I have also filled out tickets to return 2 products in the past that I bought and simply didn't like and got store credits.
They can't fix what the don't know about.
"Instances" has a specific meaning in Daz Studio. I'm assuming you are refering to two objects loaded in the scene: i.e. Table, Table (2), etc. The problem you describe has been around for a long time. And I agree it's very annoying!
Pretty much all of this. The items I wanted from Sy dropped back down to under $10, and so I bought them. The PA didn't "lose" $3 because I didn't buy them at the higher cart price... the PA made a $10 sale they wouldn't have made, absolutely wouldn't have made, otherwise. That doesn't mean other people might not have been willing to pay the higher price. I was never going to pay that, though.
If the PA has already made their money back on time and investment on the product (which is likely) - then ANY sale they get from me is better than no sale at all from me - no matter *what* the PA *thinks* is fair price from me. This is nowhere more obvious than in digital art. It isn't like the first copy on their PC is somehow more tangible than the millionth copy that I download from a server. It isn't like an oil original versus a cheap print.
I mean, ultimately, this is eventually why movies end up playing "for free" over broadcast television. The product has reached a point where reaching the largest audience for FREE is what the product is worth - you make your money other ways (advertising)... That doesn't mean you can't still go into WalMart and pick up a copy of The Matrix for $9. But for a lot of people, watching with commercial interruption is just fine... they would *never* actually pay for the movie directly, though. It isn't a perfect analogy - but it kind of works out this way.
Then we have copyright and lapsing into public domain. Technically, if Disney stops perverting the intention of copyright law, all this 3D content SHOULD lapse into the public domain in around 70 years time. Because even the founding fathers recognized that the value on a unique work of creation, generally, is not eternal. There is a shelf-life on it.
Oh, just checked my cart and everything jumped in price again. Seems the earlier prices were a glitch, since I double checked the discounts and they are all correct. Kinda regret not buying them when I saw them cheaper. On the other hand they were, once again, an impulse buy rather than a necessary addition to my huge library of assets. So, dumping the cart was no problem. No spending for me today as well, it would seem. I guess the problem with glitches in your favor is that once you see them at a certain price, you become unwilling to spend more on them (even if the difference are only a dollar or so in each product, they still add up).
I disagree, if a person who created a work of art is still alive, there is no way that work should suddenly be of zero monetary value and free to anyone who wants it. And your analogy doesn't make a whole lot of sense, imo. Don't get me wrong, your opinion is just as valid as mine, but I just have to respectfully disagree.
That's why copyright is usually "life plus X years." People tend to leave the life part out.
If it was only the life of the artist I would be happier - currently it's the LOA + 75 years if I recall correctly. Which is absurd. I'm sure it will keep getting bumped up - every time Mickey get's close to lapsing out of copyright, they extend it a little closer to infinity.
Creation date plus fourteen years, which an optional extension of fourteen years would be much more reasonable.
Thanks, I thought that might be the case.
I also wish copyright terms were shorter, but I don't agree with 14 years as a baseline, I think thirty would be more reasonable. Fourteen sounds way too easy for a film studio to never pay authors royalties again.
I'm down with life, too, but I think that leaves it too possible for someone to die right after creating something and then say their significant other never gets any benefit. So there would have to be a minimum length.
Fourteen years with renewal was the original term in the Copyright Act of 1790. The US Constitution allows copyrights for "limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." "Limited times" implies that the duration is less than a lifetime, but I've never seen a copyright case bring up this provision...
I'm not sure I see a disagreement. I thought Donovan was saying that content should fall into Public Domain as prescribed by current law...70 years after the original creator's death. But, don't worry. Many companies and individuals are clouding Public Domain with all kinds of usage rights loopholes. It is much harder to find creative works that are confirmed as 100% within the Public Domain than ever. I believe the movie analogy was just an example of the stages of a product's commercial viability. There are the box office prices at the upper end where 1 viewing might cost $20, The $20 DVD price with unlimited viewings, the Netflix $10 per month price with somewhat unlimited viewing, and finally, the general broadcast viewing - paid by commercial sponsor, but free to the public. It isn't a perfect analogy because movies are sold under many different formats compared to 3D content which is usually digital download. But, I get what he was going for.
Fourteen years was the original term of copyright. Most revenue for all but a few works is received within seven years of creation. Make it thirty if you really must, but I think that if someone can't take the basic work to renew a copyright, they shouldn't receive it for so long.
I believe Lawrence Lessig did argue this in a case, but I don't have the time to google it up right now.
The copyright maximalists (cultural thieves in my book) are on record of looking for eternal copyright "Forever minus one day".
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/05/helprin_on_perp.html
"Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
7 Oct 1998 Congressional Record, Vol. 144, page H9952.
As to Disney's right to extend copyright on the original Mickey Mouse Steamboat Willie or other early works by Walt - I believe that they should be held to the same standard as the law that was in place at the time of creation. However, I don't have a problem with Disney as an entity, claiming that Mickey is a trademark or mascot of the company and require compensation and permission to reuse Mickey's likeness in for profit works.
Agreed. I feel if a person has the copyright on anything, it is theirs and a legacy to their family. If anyone wants to create a usage license off of it, fine, but it should always be theirs.
There is more I want to discuss, but this thread is already way off topic
Anyone found any good deals in the past hour?
Cdpro, not only did you "get me," but I agree with your expansion and clarification as well.
I understand that Disney has a vested interest in protecting their viable characters that are child-friendly from entering into a public domain where they could be used for anything by anyone, creating potential confusion and erosion of their brand image... so I'm even ok with the idea that they keep Steamboat Willie active by making him the introduction to their films to prevent the character from lapsing into the public domain and showing up in porn.
It may be a little far fetched, but at the same time, I don't think Disney is completely paranoid to be afraid of such a contingency.
The intent of copyright law was *never* to give the Tolkien estate a license in perpetuity to profit from the Lord of the Rings. The concept is that all great works are built on previous works that have gone before that have lapsed into the public domain - and that society is built on this principle. The minute we stop respecting that idea, we end up with Tolkien Estates LLC, INC, where there is only the most marginal of links to any surviving members of the Tolkien estate that JRR ever knew, but which has lots of money for lobbyists and political donations. :)
You want your artwork to make your heirs incredibly wealthy? Be "Stephen King" successful with your art during YOUR lifetime and leave THAT estate to your heirs.
But I am content to agree to disagree with those of you I don't see eye to eye with on this issue. In the long run my point was...
"If I buy your content and you're a PA and you made $.10 on the sale because of a glitch, but I never would have bought the item otherwise... you didn't LOSE the asking price of the content... you made $.10 you never were going to otherwise. Multiple that by 20,000 people, and that $.10 is a good chunk of income you wouldn't have seen without the glitch. I know you think you LOST $100,000 in that example, but you actually earned $10,000."
I bought Andie for O7 for $1.54. I had O7 Pro Bundle in the cart for $9.95. I already owned most of the O7 Pro Bundle. But for the money, I thought it was worth picking up the base character and a couple of outfits.
On the other topic, I do agree that copyright should be renewable by a family as an inheritance. But, that does cause a risk of tying those works up in obscurity if the family does not actively republish the work over time and continuously make it available to the public. You also have to take into account publishers tying up copyright in perpetuity if the rights have been signed off. Of course, Public Domain does not prevent the original creator's family from republishing and reselling the work. It simply means that they no longer have exclusive rights and cannot prevent others from doing the same. My feeling is that a rule allowing the family to renew copyright with each new generation, but with the caveat that the family takes the responsibility to make the work available to the public, either through commercial publishing, or Creative Commons licensing, might be a good way to insure that the family receives the benefit of owning the copyright, but also does not allow an important work to fade into obscurity. You might also make this special law available only to family of the creator or assigns, preventing large corporations from tying up copyright forever.
First of all I seriously doubt there is anywhere near 20,000 people buying 3D content here regularly. Second of all you're losing sight of the bigger picture -in which there are MANY people who buy 3D content here at the super low glitched prices that WOULD buy the same product at a more reasonable higher price - and there are people who put crazy amount of hours into creating content that gets almost given away when we get major glitches that people then announce on the forum. There's a problem when PAs are spending countless hours creating content that they would otherwise be getting a fair amount of money for - but because of insane glitches they aren't. It was one thing when the glitches where few and far between, but lately it's been nearly every day and then people anounce it on this thread and suddenly you get people who have things on their wish list that they likely would buy at a higher price, but why would they if they can get it for next to nothing because of a glitch?
I don't want to argue about his anymore, because frankly it's getting really tiring, just please keep in mind that there are real people who depend on decent sales to make a living here.
If I write a book, for example, and I want my descendants to keep the profits from it, I should have that right. I wrote that book, and I own every thought and word that I put into it, not the public. I don't owe the public anything; I choose whether I give away or sell my creation. If the public wants a free book, they should write a book themselves and give it away. Everyone should have that same right. What they create belongs to them or whoever they give it to. (And I say this as someone who has given away tons of tutorials, maintained an informational website, and run a free educational group for 11 years... Never charged anyone membership or asked a penny for any of the materials I created. But I had the right to charge if I wanted to.)
No one should have the right to tell anyone when they don't own something they created, whether it's art, digital models, a house, a statue... That's like telling a descendant of Van Gogh that after his death, the painting hanging in his daughter's house (and I'm making this totally up) has to be removed and placed in a museum. He's been dead 70 years (14 years, whatever), hand over the painting; it no belongs to the public. It's no different than telling someone that they have to hand over a farm that their grandfather broke the land for, planted, and maintained for decades against drought, locusts, etc. Intellectual property is just property. If someone else wants to own a piece of intellectual property, they should do the work and create their own.
It's so strange that folks are so willing to declare the the profit from someone else's work is somehow unethical, and everything should just be given away/shared with the world. Artistic endeavours should not be declared a socialist state. Anyone who wants to share or profit from art can create it themselves. Someone wants an idea they can borrow for a work? Stephen King, Disney, etc., aren't the only people capable of original thoughts. Lady Gaga isn't the only one who can write a song and sell a record. Folks should quit thinking up reasons for why someone else owes them something and do the work themselves.
Diva, back to the Glitch thing...You won't get an argument from me, just the way I see it. When an item is new and as yet, barely made available to potential buyers, a Glitch that wipes out the initial profit could be devastating to the PA. However, on an item that has been available for many months or years, it is likely that the majority of sales have already happened and that the PA or Daz have already received a good amount of profit from that item...or conversely, that it hasn't sold well and has been lost from sales radar. An item like that might actually benefit from a Glitch that makes it super tempting to the otherwise disinterested or marginally interested buyer. Of course, the creator will lose some money per sale. The point is that it might possibly sell now, as opposed to being continuously overlooked. I have to tell you that personally, there are many items that I like, but don't really care enough about to buy. A crazy low price will often cause me to pick up a few of those items. This does not mean that I'm advocating mass glitch buying all the time...only that such a sudden price drop can spur sales attention and not always be a negative. No doubt it would be best if these were actually planned sales. But, I have to admit that I have fun loading the cart and seeing what kind of crazy stacking happens. That keeps me coming back to the store day after day.
If I buy your content and you're a PA and you made $.10 on the sale because of a glitch, but I never would have bought the item otherwise..
That's anecdotal and not really true (Even for you). To say you would have NEVER bought it, then it's YOU that wasted money.
You might as well NOT have bought it at any price. What can possible be in the store that is only worth ten cents to you, but at the same time so worth adding to your runtime? lol
Buying it today for 10 cents doesn't mean that I would not have bought it two months from now for $3.50 - a low price but also worth buying at.
I just wouldn't be buying it at $3.50 because I already got it for the .10. That's the rub.
I mean, we're touching the bar of everything should be free- attitude which justifies getting something of value and THE LOWEST PRICE POSSIBLE as BEING FAIR.
- and we are now using all the common piracy excuses to justify the basic idea of not wanting to pay anything -----
- for something- we know has value (by default, or else we wouldn't be downloading it and adding it to our library.)
Case in point, if Daz made a huge grey block, no mesh no texture, no morphs, no nothing and it ate 10 gigs of space and charged $100. You'd laugh. If they reduced it to 85% off, would you suddenly want it?
Did it suddenly GAIN VALUE because it's on sale for cheap? Would you suddenly find a use for it?
No, so the stuff you're grabbing from PAs has value.
Wanting things for cheap and free is NOT a moral stance, it's an attitude.
--------------
You pay for television. Television is not free. The broadcasters pay a license for those movies, so no, they are also not free.
Nothing is free, you just don't see your wallet opening and it makes you feel good about your access to those items and services.
My husband always tells me - "you don't SAVE money if you are SPENDING money". (I don't think he gets how sales works....heh)
Anyway, perhaps we should table this conversation and return to talking about sales and things we're liking to buy......I really don't want to see this thread get locked and it's a possibility if things get too heated.
Totally agree that it's sad when the new items glitch, because the artists' highest income is in those first few days/weeks of sales. However, old items - I have bought so much old stuff that I never, never would have bought if it hadn't been that cheap.... tons. If it's cheap enough, I'll gamble that I might use it some day.
It's completely different. Losing copyright does not give anyone the right to your physical property, it just gives them the right to make a copy. You lose literally nothing.
I have sympathy with the whole "I created this, I own the idea forever" mindset, but I genuinely don't believe all of Genghis Khan's descendants all own a tiny portion of his life story, I don't believe Greece should be able to prevent people from rewriting the Odyssey, etc. So at some point there must be a line. Debate has raged for a long time over exactly where that is.
Not at all. There are a lot of things I would buy at low prices I wouldn't buy at high prices.
Let's flip it around. You've bought DAZ figures. Would you have bought them if they cost $10k apiece? No? Did you waste money buying them at the reasonable price?
Thanks again. I intend to check out that link by the weekend. I am in Southern California but the temps this week will be in the 30's. I have a 24 foot wide x 6.5' High and 6' deep exterior aviary housing 200 tiny 1 to 2 inch birds. Today we lost a tiny owl finch and found five baby Gouldians and a new born dove fallen from nests (can't fly and heat rises) so had to replace water radiator heaters with some computerized parabolic heaters and drill holes in tons of plexiglass to bolt to the cage as a wind break. A work in progress. If you don't see me respond to the link within the next while, know that I undoubtedly will.
Well glitch or normal price if I get a bugaboo about I want to do a render with subject matter Y then I will go buy products that I need to make that render even at full price. Well if I can afford it. The only products I'm pretty sure I got on glitches (in hindsight) where those from the Black Friday Freebies and one of those I will buy interactive license for as it is a PA product (eventually). All these other up & down & what is the real intent of these stacking discounts? Are you kidding? I've not stopped once to see if I was getting the actual promised intened price; I saw the price and liked it and bought it or I didn't. It takes massive overcharge for me to notice.
I am trying to wait to see the character released next week but I have the inexplicable urge to go collect all of JGreenles iRay shaders packages and they even aren't on sale beyond regular PC+ price. My character clothing and architecture needs spicing up.
One of the biggest difficulties with copyright in general is not in preserving ownership of original thoughts, but that so many people will get the same original thought without ever seeing each other's work. There are thoughts and ideas which are shared by many...part of the idea that art is often created by the experience of the artist, including the works of others. So, you have to decide how far to take it. How many works on this site are directly derivative of famous people, famous characters or movies, or reminiscent or famous places and things? It becomes difficult deciding where the creator's originalty comes into play and how much should be attributed to the inspiration. So, the question is: should Lewis Carroll's heirs be receiving compensation from Daz for the obvious usage of Alice in Wonderland characters? Very few of the items and characters in the Daz shop could be considered 100% original. If copyright law were to accept 100% ownership in perpetuity for original works, the future of art would be nothing but lawsuits.
I don't disagree that when I create an original piece of art, that I should be allowed to reap the benefit of it. But if I am as successful as I hope to be, it won't be like a single tangible item or property that can be bought or sold one at a time, but rather an idea that is copied over and over again. If I'm very lucky, it becomes an inspiration to more artists to create more derivative works. I believe that 75 years after my death is a reasonable amount of time for my heirs to reap the benefit as well.
What you lose is the exclusive right to copy your original work. You can still sell it if you like. But now, others can also publish the work in part or whole. In recent years, the copyright issue has become more and more of a debate because of digital distribution. The original and the copy are now the same and can be published and distributed with almost zero overhead compared to the expense of publishing just a decade or two ago. Copyright law is now and always will be a compromise between the interests of the creator and their heirs, and the interests of the art community as a whole.
I thought I'd weigh in on the whole value vs price stu...
Oh look! A squirrel!
Wanting to be a PA is looking really good right about now huh? LOL