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
It could definitely become a problem for the Daz user base, it just depends on how they're used. There's a huge disparity in the quality of the lookalikes, even compared to the same generations, but even a poor quality celebrity model is still a celebrity model.
But like I said, as long as people don't do inappropriate things with them across the internet, there won't be a problem.
Another thing to keep in mind is whether fanart falls under the bill. Most lookalikes are created in order to create fanart of certain characters, like Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, or Henry Cavill as Superman. The problematic language is what would constitute an "intimate visual depiction". Wonder Woman doing a split kick against two enemies might be considered too "intimate" depending on the angle of the shot.
I imagine fanart would be okay as long as it isn't sexualized. But if a celebrity has a good enough lawyer (which money can buy) then who knows how far it can go. We live in such unprecedented times.
My HID3D <3 wishlist:
- Sharon Stone (circa "Basic Instinct")
- Ali Larter (circa "Heroes")
- Gisele Bündchen (at the top of her modeling career)
... and maybe also possibly:
- Amy Adams (circa "Enchanted")
would be nice if G8F, too ^^
While we apprecaite that this iis a significant topic, as far as we know no one here is a lawyer and certainly no-one here is acting in an official capacity. Legal interpretations should therefore not be offerd.
If this "deepfake" issue ends up not effecting 3-d models, then this may cause a big upsurge in 3-D work... Possible upside...
I'd love these models, too! I'll add Florence Pugh to the list.
... and where is Agnetha Faltskog 1975?
Jim Hopper by Marigold at RenderHub - David Harbour
And Daveigh Chase in all age stages.
I second that..
True if one wants a full legal opinion, though should never remember that lawyers never take responsibility, they give advice, what you do is still your responsibility.
At the same time "when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual" and depicting an "intimate" context, which is a politically correct way to refer to situations afferent to the situation linked to the word that starts with "s" and ends with "x".
There are so-called "AI" system, where using a model with a face structure close enough to the real person, they can superimpose the person face to the model and make it difficult to see the difference (though honestly, I think I saw some even with the label saying it was fake video, and in general even when the face was very good, the body and some other element gave it out, the ones really really good, are an exception) - that law is clearly made thinking about those, although it uses general wording to try to be +/- "technology agnostic".
Without offence to any asset made for DAZ Studio, and any artist using it, I have only a couple of times seen images when one could think the image was a real photography, and even in those that was only with the face. The moment you put in other elements (like would be the case in any "intimate" depiction), it becomes even more visible they may be very good, but cannot be exchanged for a real picture of the real person engaging in that type of activity.
Once I exchange with a content creator that did a lot of look-alike, some even very good, but does not say who they are meant to represent, when I told him I guessed he could be afraid, he told me that was not reason. He said he had cleared it with a lawyer before starting to make them, who said making the assets and selling them he was basically like a someone selling colours, the one buying them can use them to do something illegal (e..g defacing a monument), or do something legal, but the problem is of the one using the colour, not of the one making the colour.
The love for Agnetha is strong in this thread!
The Take it Down Act is all about NCII(Non Consensual Intimate Imagery). So in that context it also prohibits people from doing something like, say, using Face Transfer, on an individual and putting them in said intimate situations. AI is the bigger target, but it applies to anything, really. Someone could just use Photoshop on an image and that could be a problem.
As far as lookalike models, there are some that have a passing resemblence, or are inspired by a celebrity, and then others that are very well done, and undeniably a 3D depiction of that person. I would hope this law doesn't affect us here because these prodicts should have always been used responsibly.
Two days ago Civitai pulled the pin on celebs.
https://civitai.com/articles/15022
Again, AI duplicates using photo references, not 3D models. As Richard said earlier this is not really the place for this discussion. Set up a new thread maybe?
Yes, stop discussing legality here. Let's keep this thread for what it is meant for, finding lookalikes.
I have been running a 3D lookalike directory for something like 15-years, and it is still there, never one single issue.
Let's move on....
Sadly, the creator, Syltermermaid, passed away several years ago...
Is there a good Daryl Hannah model anywhere?
Ah yeah, Poser vintage model.
HID Dahlia for Genesis 9 is Jennifer Lawrence
She was my first thought, too, but I wasn't fully convinced until I got to the promo with the red hair and the smile.
She's pretty close, a pretty decent Jennifer Lawrence lookalike.
Another Jennifer Lawrence. Now I'm idly curious what a census would reveal, which celebrities have the most clones? Jennifer Lawrence? Gal Gadot? Katy Perry? Bruce Lee?
Hallelujah!
Disciple