Only non-commercial use for 3-D printing: ho-hum
Tobor
Posts: 2,300
In my humble opinion Daz should reconsider their non-commercial policy regarding 3D printing. Their policy doesn't make sense. A 3D printed object is immutable, merely a small step-up from a 2D image. The original geometry, morphs, bones, and other unique attributes of the object cannot be recovered.
3D printing does not expose anything tangible from the original model. As such, it's an unfortunate policy, because it will mean that other than occasional hobby use, Daz and its software will be passed by for this exciting technology. I'm guessing they might eventually license the assets for printing, and such a license will cost more. That'll fail. Unlike game assets, which contain a version of the geometry and rigging, 3D printed objects don't. So the arguments for selling higher priced licenses won't fly. Artists have many options these days, including totally free models, and they understand the technical implications.
Imagine if they insisted on only non-commercial 2D renders. Fully 80%+ of us wouldn't be here, and their business would be run out of someone's garage.
With Iray, and new game licensing, I was hoping Daz was ready to encourage more professionals to use their products. But marking anything as only non-commercial, will stymie that. I am hoping that if Daz is serious about 3D printing, they will understand the majority of its potential is in commercial use, even more so than 2D rendering. There's no tapping a market when you've set up barriers to entering it.
I'd be interested in someone at Daz could shed some light onto their thought processes regarding licensing for 3D printing.
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
I have to disagree, first off, I totally understand DAZ's stance as it seems on the surface. Why allow commercial printing of your assets and lose out on the end revenue. I would also allow it with a special license, similar to the gaming licenses which I would expect DAZ to do in the near future. I can totally see a 3D business venture using DAZ assets at specialty shops in the malls, fairs, or craft shops, why shouldn't DAZ have a bigger part in providing the majority of the building blocks and base for such a startup business.
You mention "I was hoping Daz was ready to encourage more professionals to use their products", I doubt pros would consider DS when more professional options are avaliable. I see the potential for "DAZ" to cash in on 3D printing, afterall they have all the assets and tools to make it happen and I would be curious on how it's going and what the future plans are. Seeing as they do have a 3D priting tab and custom 3d printing supposedly coming on the website and they don't allow commercial printing, it seems they do see the potential this type of asset might bring in the future. I do agree though, that they should be doing more to "tap" the market, but ther only barriers i see are the ones to keep then from losing out, not to keep users from cashing in, guess time will tell.
Why then allow commercial 2D renders and lose out on that end revenue? The reason is quite simple: you won't sell any assets! It'll be the same for 3D printing. The bulk of the business is in commercial use.
Have you not heard of Thingiverse, or the many other open source asset sites that support 3D printing with FREE models? If Daz was the only game in town, some of your points would make sense. But FREE is the model to beat. If they are looking to play in the commercial scene, they're coming at this very late, with others having already set the rules. If they are intent on staying non-commercial only, then none of this matters, but they're giving up on a whole new population of artists.
Hardly. The 3D printing manufacturers and software developers make it happen. Daz is providing a conversion tool to translate asset geometries into the widely standardized and documented format used in this industry. If they want to encourage people to use G2F and related assets, great. If not, 3D print artists, who create works for a living, have many other options without high fees or restrictive licenses.
It comes down to this: Daz has the opportunity to provide another outlet for commercial artists to render their own creative works, just as they do for 2D renders. Or, they have the opportunity to watch other vendors eat their lunch.
DAZ make their money off selling the 3D digital model to begin with. They gain no revenue from our 2D works already, so how does it differ for 3D? How is a creator artist meant to make their money back on the expenses of a 3D printer and the materials it prints in, if they cannot then sell them? Printing out a 3D model I can only give away have made me resistant to using DAZ's models (not that I am printing in 3D ... yet), and I am still waiting on more information from them, as their 3D printing page leads nowhere.
I'm in agreeance with you Tobor, DAZ will be watching others eat their lunch if they lag behind in 3D printing tech.
I disagree with you that DAZ should want to change the rules with 3D printing. The current agreement is stressed at the seams and will not be workable in the long term. The OP is right. Either let us use the 3D output like you already do the 2D output, or set up a NOMINAL payment for 3D permissions. Nominal, dammit. That means small.
The OP is also right about another thing. If it's a pain in the heiney, people who want to do commercial 3D printing will eventually turn to other solutions for that 3D printing, even if it requires re-modelling in another tool such as Blender or ZBrush. Once THAT starts happening, then "human beans", such as is our wont, will get better in those tools. And as our expertise grows in the OTHER TOOLS, then why bother sticking with DAZ even for 2D?
Being complacent is dangerous in this fast-moving industry. Apple took too long with their watch. Please get off the couch DAZ and come up with a workable solution.
You fail to understand the twitsted nature of the legal issues. To a layman a 3D printing of a DAZ asset is a 3D format which the EULA says the user way not redistribute in any 3D format without a special license. A well written 3D printing license is needed to protect DAZ from unscrupuleous people that may try to use any 3D printing exception to make an end run around the no redistribute part of the EULA.
? hypothetically, if i 3d printed fairy figurines, i can't sell the figurines at craft fairs?
A little addendum to my earlier post: Daz is my absolute favorite 3D vendor. I want them to succeed here. My point is not to be critical, but remind that 3D printing has a huge commercial potential. I'm not sure of the legal reasons Daz would not want to license for commercial use, or if they eventually intend to charge for a separate commercial license (a small fee that covers additional support and R&D is certainly acceptable). They don't mention a separate license, so for the time being, we have to assume commercial printing will simply not be allowed.
That 3D intro page has been unchanged for a while, and some of us are wondering what we're going to be able to do with this wonderful new technology. Seems to me it would be a crying shame if we could only print for our own bookshelves.
That is correct. You can't resell them.
As for the EULA, Daz specifically disallows "three-dimensional physical representations" in a separate paragraph. I guess I don't think like a crook, because I don't see how allowing for that means someone could make an end-run redistributing a digital asset.
This is where Daz could fall behind the times, allowing another company to be the go-to resource for 3D printing. Someone *will* fill that space. I'd like it to be Daz.
I'm not failing at understanding anything. If anything, I (and the OP) get it, and we get it seemingly with a better sense of urgency than DAZ does!
DAZ needs to work this 3D agreement for this new era of opportunities with due haste or else they will miss out on new market opportunities, and even could lose existing business. At this moment in time, it is their game to lose. But lose it they can (and will) if the industry/market comes up with a solution before DAZ does. Look at the people in this very forum who say they have stopped buying from the store for some reason or other. Customers WILL leave if they think they are not being served well. Customers WILL try other products if there is some perceived benefit or lower hassle.
Here are a couple of examples:
1. Apple took too long to release their Apple Watch. Now there are tons of other solutions that were available first and Apple won't show us the sales numbers for their watch. And in some cases such as the Moto 360, Apple customers have switched away from iPhone and the Apple ecosystem to get a workable smartwatch. Whether or not "wearables" are even necessary or could ultimately be successful is a completely separate argument. The point here is that customers will only wait so long for something that they think they want/need.
2. Hundreds of thousands of people have stopped buying General Motors cars. To the point where GM doesn't even make Pontiacs and other brands anymore, and even "needed" a bailout from the government. I can tell you precisely why. Honda (and Acura), Toyota (and Lexus), Nissan (and Infiniti), Mercedes, BMW, Mitsubishi, Kia, Hyundai, and even Fiat cars are all over the road now. Many of them are perceived to be safer, more reliable, and less of a hassle to get repaired. Even the most brand-loyal amongst us will jump if our relationship with a manufacturer/maker becomes too fussy.
3. "Copper phone", cable, and satellite TV providers are losing subscribers by the droves.
3a. Copper is on the outs because it's old technology and will end up costing you $60 per month and that doesn't even include long-distance calling. Alternatives abound; starting with cell/smartphones. For some like me who still want a phone in the house too, services such as Ooma, Magic Jack, Vonage, and others are popping up with "free" and "premium" tiers of VOIP service with free domestic long-distance calling included. And you only pay for the government taxes, which in the US amounts to about $3.50 per month! Call quality is excellent, and even major companies are moving away from their old phone "backbone" systems, and in many cases they are removing phones entirely and letting their employees make calls from their company laptops and workstations. The "phone company" has seen the writing on the wall and now they are providing their own VOIP systems bundled with their cable and fiber services (U-Verse, FIOS, etc).
3b. But the phone company is an ISP now anyway, and there's no such thing as an ISP that is "just an ISP." They're media companies and they always want to sell you those "bundles", where you get phone, internet, and TV all together, but they're charging as much as $150 per month for all this. That's still better (a little bit) than sat-TV, which all by itself will run you the same $150 in some markets here in the US. People perceive the cable and sat-TV content as garbagy and expensive, and...it's wrong to have to pay for advertisements!
3c. Enter Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services which have some pretty good entertainment content these days. Customers can pick what they want, typically for $8 to $10 per month for each selection and completely skip the garbage and intelligence-insulting adverts. Cable and fiber providers of course own the cable and sat-TV services, and so they try to make it VERY hard for people to buy "internet only". I dare you to find the option on Brighthouse's, Fios, or U-Verse websites. But luckily, you can usually just call them (with a phone) and say you want high speed internet only, and they'll be happy to sign you up.
These are just three examples that people will LEAVE a service provider or manufacturer if they think they are not being well served, or if their concerns are not being addressed. I think of DAZ as "king" in making and brokering 3D assets, but our relationship is already under stress. First, their sales already annoy me. Second, the gaming licenses seem steep in price, at least the "indie" options do. And now the 3D printing agreement also seems too restrictive to me, a loyal customer who has spent literally thousands of dollars already in the store. So you can see that I feel our relationship is already not optimal and the reasons are slowly ticking higher.
Right now, DAZ has the market, industry, and business opportunity to reinvent themselves. The question is, will they? The clock is ticking!
My "failing to understand" is not only not true, it doesn't even apply to the problem here.
If you want to make commercial use of 3D prints please open a support ticket for Sales.
I just wish I had the right to give one to somebody as a present actually, not that DAZ would know in all seriousness
and if only DAZ set up an agreement with a decent 3D printing company to do prints you could buy for others I would take that option too.
I was writing an article on 3D printed cake toppers. I was half-way through when I re-read Daz's 3D Printing page, and saw it still talked about non-commercial use. I had to rip out all the mentions of Daz.
There's plenty of money to be made with plastic or LDM ceramic extrusion 3D printing, but there's a huge opportunity for 3D printed food service. These use 3D printing mechanism to deposit sugar, chocolate, or cake icing, in different colors. Serveral companies use 3D printers to create customized wedding cake toppers. It's not really edible (some use wax), but it involves simply two human bodies in traditional wedding garb, and photographs of their faces. I can see creative wedding planners using Genesis 2 to create ogre, alien, and fairie wedding toppers, among man7y other possibilities. The opportunities are there for the taking. Some entrepreneurs in this business are already commisioning custom 3D models to sell as part of a turnkey package. So all this is coming fast.
once upon a time i was planning on using daz content on my cheap home 3d printer to make ceramic molds with , But after going a round or 2 with daz on the commercial rights of my ceramics I made with the molds using daz content. I decided to say screw it. its was not worth it to use daz content if i have to pay a royalty for making ceramic molds .But someone at Autodesk forum pointed out some stock CAD files t i could use , and i still make some stuff with poser that is not daz content for fairy base figures and stuff.. . even though I could make the molds & daz may not relies i could use the content with out them knowing it. I rather not play those games and found things i could use for my cermaics royalty free that works better anyway. so I don;t bother with daz anymore because i had to convert all my files over to cad files Anyways. so its easier to just have already done. :) so it no long matter to me
There's a current thread about 3D sculpting programs, and Mudbox keeps coming up. I can't afford ZBrush out of the gate, but I can afford ten bucks a month for Mudbox. So, I'm going to learn 3D sculpting. There are enough royalty-free and open source basic humanoid shapes available that I'm going to just make my own aliens and goblins. I use TurboCAD Pro for my CAD stuff, so I can create most anything there out of primitives. So in the end, I may not even need a Daz license for 3D printing. It's not like printing requires the resolution and rigging of a model like Genesis 2. It's overkill 100X.
Not really, no. The resolution is very low on 3D printed items, and even if you get your hands on the 3D printing files like STL files, there's no rigging or morphs. Decent 2D renders are a lot more useful for that. The resolution is higher in 2D. A comic book has multiple POVs, poses, and expressions, which can be turned back into a model and give you a head start at the rigging and morphs.
I really need to save links when I post something particularly good. I did a pretty good analysis of the use cases and distribution channels for 2D art vs. 3D, including my own experience with art marketing and distribution, which really showed how little thought went into the current DAZ stance. At every tier, there's equivalent 2D and 3D markets and distribution. 3D is nothing new or different, in any way, shape, or form.
All the current DAZ position does is confuse and alienate customers, even the customers who won't be using 3D printing. It's exactly like the PC upgrade market. The average PC user will never upgrade anything on their computer, but telling that person that they aren't getting "upgrade capability" will lose sales.
Ok I was trying to be political correct by saying 'twisted nature' and 'layman', so now I will be blunt. Most judges are complete morons when it comes to technical issues and would probably not see a difference between a 3D print and a 3D format. This is why wording the license is so critical so that a small company like doesn't have to being going to court all the time.
Low-end consumer-grade Fused Deposition Modelling machines are the ones with low resolutions. There are mid- to high-range consumer grade machines, as well as powder-based and/or stereolithography-based methods, that are much higher in resolution. In those cases, protection of intellectual property is absolutely necessary.
Haha, I am not ready to talk to salespeople, and I'm sure most of us are not.
But shouldn't we be able to plan forward?
The DAZ ecosystem is arguably the best around. Everything with 2D EULA is clean and clear, even the way-too-expensive game developer licenses! But this mystery for 3D printing makes it hard for customers to plan and hard to stay on the cutting edge of technological development.
I don't see this. Daz has lawyers. They exist to write contractual language to protect the individual/company they're working for. You treat this like there's no way a paragraph could be written to protect Daz's overall interests, and still allow for a new technology. They did it for 2D renders, they can do it for 3D physical objects.
As for the output of ANY 3D printing technology being used to recover a geometry: you have to be kidding, right? All they get is a shape. The actual polygon geometry, rigging, morphs, and other unique aspects of the digital assets (and the things that can be copyrighted) are NOT recoverable. Considering D|S is free, and so is the base G2F model, if someone is going to cheat the system, they'll do it that way. If they want a generic human shape geometry, there are plenty of free and open source digital models to choose from, as well as others that are licensed for commercial use. No one is going to take the time to scan a G2F figurine just to get its unrigged, unboned, unrefined geometry.
It's really simple if I pay money to buy something I expect to be able to use it, including to use it to make money.
Therefore 3D prints are useless unless I can make sell-able action figures of my stories.
If this is not possible, then there is no point in paying money for 3D prints.
I just saved a lot of money. Thank you.
One word...Makehuman.
Giving someone a present is not commercial activity, as far as I can see, so you should be OK to do that under the current licence.
How does anyone even know its G2F?
are there any places to sell 3d print ready geometry?
is there somewhere to send 'test' prints for people who can't afford a 3d printer yet?
only way to test print, is to buy a print from my limited knowledge. There are lots of places that sell services/printers that also have storefronts to get other peoples geometry. Though I'd have to look for an example right now. But last I was digging into this I found a few sites that had user submitted files you could use either to print/download.
mebbe Kinko's still around, lol
For print-ready models, it depends on what you're looking for. The open source site thingiverse.com has many FREE 3D models, including numerous human shapes. There are for-fee resources, as well, but you want to go here first to see if what you want is already FREE. (Notice how I'm stressing the word FREE?)
Depending on where you live, your local UPS store might offer 3D printing. Otherwise, there's a ton of online servicers. Some, like shapeways.com, are set up as marketplaces.
Having toyed for a while, I can say that *human* 3D prints do not sell well. No one's interested unless it's A) from a well known artist, or B) fanart of some trademark-protected property -- forget the obvious (il)legalities for a moment, or C) part of a truly collectible set of unique and rare figures (such as a chess set of customized Hobbits), or D) highly personalized, such as the cake topper I mentioned. I will say G2F is not rquired to make a cake topper. Any old 3D human will do. MakeHuman is fine. There have been print-ready STL files for MakeHuman for several years.
What sells as artwork include trinkets, pieces of unusual geometric art (the captive ball in the cube is an example), fanart pieces (Spock ears or Dr Who TARDIS charms), unique and customized game board pieces, and things of that nature.
Can't find any newer numbers, but in 2013 Thingiverse had over 100,000 models. They have several dozen new submissions per hour, 24-hours a day, or I'd guestimate the number is far higher now. They have a community resource page of people willing to print models for others.
Most of the models are uploaded Creative Commons Share Alike, which (says right in the license) explicitly allows commercial use.
Good to know Tobor!