EULA Pop-Up Denies Access to all purchased Content
Consumer573
Posts: 282
Hi.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. For those of you who have heard me, I'm not trying to start something. This is my way of protesting.
Daz did it to me again. I purchased content and now, when I am in a mode to download, the company puts up an accept or not accept EULA for everything I have bought from day one to now. I have to click ok on the thing to get stuff I paid money for even if I don't have time to read it.
I feel it is holding "my" content hostage.
I cannot seem to find a way around this EULA to be able to download content.
I cannot emphasize enough that I do not like this practice and that I feel it should be considered either illegal or unethical. It discourages the reading of the EULA to such a degree where the EULA can potentially be considered uninforceable. People already have their money invested and this comes up after that fact. A EULA should come up prior to the action of purchasing content, or if you want to hold past content hostage the customer should be given a reasonable period or number of access times to read it and accept the changes or not. Further the changes being made should be disclosed from what was agreed to previously, and money should be refunded if the conditions become unacceptable.
I am stating to the world that I am not reading it this time. I am tired and I want to enjoy content this weekend. So I am just going to click ok on whatever it says - because that is apparently what I am expected to do (though I am making a copy in case this action comes back to affect me) without reading it in advance. I am clicking ok not because I necessarily agree to what it says, but because I want access to what I have purchased, which is probably what most other customers do.
I don't know of any other company that uses this practice, after purchase and for a whole library.
I am telling you this DAZ to make you better and, I feel, more ethical, for something that some people consider legally binding but which is quite obviously being treated in practice as lengthy documentation not intended to be read.
I will probably say this again if this happens again. Because I want to be on record that there should be a better way.
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
The change is the granting of permission for non-commercial 3D printing. If you have bought content and don't want to agree to a revised EULA you can always ask for a refund. In the past the EULA had to be agreed to at the time of install, so in some ways that would be even easier to miss a chnage - at least now the pop-up does alert you.
I read the 3D printing and I actually think what is being done is a good idea. But the way the DAZ Eula is being implemented basically just encourages customers to click ok to get it the heck out of the way without reading it. Yes, many people have become accustomed to this type of thing in the industry, but it doesn't make it right. And here it blocks a whole body of transactions over what can be many years or even (now) decades, not just the most recent purchase. At some point there will be a copyright dispute and someone will say, "hey, your company didn't really want anybody to read this tome by the way you set things up so I'm not at fault." And eventually some reasonable person on the mediating side might say, well, yes, the system actually is set up to discourage people from reading the agreements so all the people doing that really aren't at fault. This is not customer protection and it is not long term copyright protection, in my opinion.
From the parallel 3D discussion in this same forum:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/52091/
"...and as we have seen with most laws, if the line gets blurred even by little actions, someone else will want to push it a little further later, then a little more and all those movements will make anything impossible to enforce. That is the reason for the hard line stance. Digital copyrights are already a tough thing to enforce, so anything that weakens it is a disservice to us all." -RawArt
Thanks, Richard, I've said my piece, vented my frustration. I said what I'm going to do, and you've defended the company.
I can't actually say that I can agree with the assessment that the way the new EULA is being implemented discourages people from reading. To me, it has been placed in a likely place where it will be encountered if you are purchasing or accessing your purchases. The fact that people do not take the time to read is entirely on them. A company can only do so much to try to ensure that a user/member sees and reads the EULA and then it is up to that user/member to make sure they have read something they are going to indicate that they have read.
People read EULA's? :)
so, I can print figures of characters I use in tabletop games?
but I still cant use my content to print miniatures to sell in a tabletop game I publish?
I find that pretty restrictive and completely against the spirit of Daz, the company and the community as a whole.
In the past EULA updates have put all parties, the vendor, the artists, and the customer in a more favorable position and clarified things.
Nevertheless in the future it might very well be that some customers will not anymore agree to revised EULAs for previously purchased licensed products.
Therefore it is very important to address possible legal issues that are created by linking an acceptance of the latest version of the EULA to general access to the DIM.
There is no need to ask for a refund if one does not agree with a revised EULA.
- - -
I) For any legal purposes the EULA that was in place a the time of the original purchase of a license to use a product is the one that is binding for the customer.
II) A revision of that EULA for already purchased product licenses is only possible if both parties the vendor and the customer explicitly agree to accept a revised version.
III) It is the duty of the vendor to present the EULA in a form that is accessible for the customer.
IV) It is the duty of the customer to read the EULA before he purchases any licenses to use products.
V) If a revised EULA is introduced the revised EULA applies to any new purchases the customer makes.
Statements I-V are based on international business law but have not been evaluated for accuracy, completeness, or changes in the law.
- - -
The legal relevance of the EULA Pop-Up
The current practice to prevent access to the DIM before a revised EULA is "accepted" may lead to unintended legal issues.
Accepting a revised EULA for already purchased product licenses MUST be separated from accepting a revised EULA for product licenses that are going to be purchased in the future.
Clicking "accept" on the revised EULA as it happened in the past can only be interpreted as acknowledgement of the new EULA for future license purchases.
Clicking "accept" on the revised EULA as it happened in the past can NOT be interpreted by default as an explicit sign of the user that he accepts the EULA also for all previously purchased product licenses.
- - -
Possible improvements to the current situation:
- The practice of locking the DIM before the revised EULA is accepted should be stopped.
- For convenience a notification about a revised EULA should be displayed before checkout and not after the purchase.
- For legal purposes the revised EULA is accepted when the user checks out and purchases a license to use a product.
- Accepting the revised EULA for new purchases needs to be separated from accepting the revised EULA also for previous purchases. :exclaim:
- The access of the customer to his newly purchased licensed products in the DIM should not in any way be linked to agreeing to a revised EULA for his previous purchases.
- In theory the customer has the right to accept or deny an EULA revision for every single product license he already purchased.
- In practice it may be more convenient to accept the revised EULA for all previously purchased product licenses in one collective declaration.
- An option to accept the revised EULA for all previously purchased product licenses can be added in the account area.
- For convenience the account information, order history and / or product library could indicate for each licensed product which EULA is applied based on if the customer accepted an EULA revision for previously purchased product licenses or not
- - -
This post is not legal advice. The statements and opinions are my personal expression and have not been evaluated for accuracy, completeness or changes in the law.
LOL, obviously we see DAZ and the community in totally different lights. DAZ is a business and we are all consumers (unless you have never purchased anything from DAZ and just hang around for the freebies) so it makes perfect sense to me that the company would do the normal things they do to try and protect their IP and make money.
As a business owner, I am really surprised at how Unrestricted DAZ is with their business model in many areas.
thousands of dollars over 10 + years. I have the original daz|studio BETA in my archives. being forced to accept a EULA that governs all those previous purchases is ridiculous, further, you make an attack on me, implying I dont spend money and am therefore incapable of making a valid statement or that my opinion is unfounded. you will now be ignored in your entirety.
Check this (around 7:48): ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plT5989P1v4#t=468
Please keep all posts civil
In the past, before DIM and the new way of agreeing to the EULA, you agreed to the EULA every single time you installed a product.
I've always viewed my purchases as buying a license, not a product. I'm paying for the privilege to be able to use it in my works, whether artistic or otherwise. Changes to the EULA for ongoing services, such as licensing aren't abnormal. Ask anyone who's played an online game and had to agree to new terms after an amendment was made.
Anyway, in this particular instance they're giving us more rights not taking them away. Surely if anything that's a reason to be happy, not to cry outrage? Previously you weren't allowed to 3D print them, now we are. It might not be the easy-ride to making a profit selling figurines, but it's better than it was. I'm rather confused as to why you consider this an issue.
This is not an attack but a statement of fact. In recent years, many things have changed at DAZ. It is my understanding that those who started DAZ are now gone. Suffice it to say, DAZ is a business. Like any business they are looking to protect their business assets.
Under the current EULA, you can only print 3D figures for your own personal private use. This in itself represents a change from just a few weeks ago when the EULA said any 3D printing was a no-no. At one time, you couldn't use any DAZ assets in games. Now, with a gaming license you can.
They have already stated there would be more to come with regards to 3d printing. This is new territory, give them time.
Look at it this way - you will always know when DAZ changes the EULA. If you dig around on other sites you will find that the vast majority hold you to the most current EULA - even if it is diametrically opposite to the original EULA you agreed to when first visiting the site. And there is nothing here that prevents you from downloading your purchases and then making backup copies (which has been against the EULA of some software in the past).
well, actually, 3d printing wasnt mentioned at all, therefore not restricted. Sending a file to someone who didnt have that file's assets was, so 3rd party printing was off limits. however, nothing in the EULA in the past prevented anyone from printing their purchased items on a 3d printer they own.
this comes down to a new channel for artists to make money, the old 'unforeseen future usage' and since the potential for money is involved, they are now placing restrictions on making money. Im all for business, but changing the rules in the middle of the game, only to serve your own interests, is wrong.
Ive a good mind to move to another 3d content provider over this.
so much chit chat for just render naked babes and 1 light...duh.
The relevant clause from the previous EULA is quoted here, by another forum member
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/49713/#728922
Answers to open questions removed by user
A serious exchange of ideas is not anymore possible in a locked thread.
Therefore the answers became obsolete as well.
We have decided to lock this thread, as it is becoming repetitious