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
scifi, fantasy and horror are always tricky areas to navigate and come up with something that is 100% totally original unique as every creature, robot, spacesip, scifi suite and so on is going to show some resemblance and compared to thought of being copies of existing creations whether they were inspired by something else or not though at the time of their release in Star Trek the original phasors guns for example think were original in that they were shaped like remote controls and didn't look like guns and Doctor Who had in one story where they had small shields that shot lasers instead of guns that looked like guns as well as a few other things that got creative with. Star Wars had light sabers but that concept got copied reproduced in a lot of sci fi media. Then you have cyborgs/robots and humanoid looking robots which will be compared to most well known shows/movies even if they weren't based on them. Oh and Transformers type robots no one has made anything like that here for awhile but you can bet if anyone did they would be compared to them even if they do not look like an existing character it is the idea of a robot changing into something else again Transformers wasn't the first or only one machine men/gobots, gundam wing, roboteck/macros, and several others.
so I just watched an interesting video on the history of the original game Doom and how the creators have licenced so that is free for anyone/everyone to copy it redo it with no restrictions and noone can claim ownership of the rights to it so I'm thinking any creator here maybe able create characters/items/clothing/props/enviroments based on ispired by the game at least the original one without worry of restrictions and or having the editorial license attatched to it
Patents, trademarks (and trade dress), and copyright are all very different, legally, even if they're commonly grouped together as "intellectual property". Nothing here would be covered by patents. Trademarks absolutely can be applied retroactively. Copyright can't be applied retroactivelybecause you can't copy something that didn't exist yet unless you've got a really tricked out deLorean.
oh you definitely can with patents
Ugg boots an Australian icon are a very good example
existed long before trademarked in the US by a US company
we can however sell them by that name here still, it's was something every leatherworker and their dog sold at Sunday markets then a big business made their move
the thing is, I an Australian cannot even call a pair I 3D render Ugg boots in my story thanks to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots
and yes, I wore them in the 80s and we called them that, it's just crazy
As someone who was trapped into creating a permanent fixture in a state university building, I was tasked with making sure checking if my self created logo was unique (which I hated and we are stuck with for the next 250 years by law), whether the fonts were ones that the state had licenced to use, if the materials are ones from an authorized vendor and on and on. I think this is very true of other fields. We have a strange concentration of people in show business in my family. One of their rules is that names are generally required to be unique so Michael Keaton was actually born Michael Douglas but had to change it because another actor, Kirk Douglas's and Catherine Zeta Jones's husband had the name registered already. It has always been an expectation that, if you do any business anything, you do the research to make sure you don't step on someone else's IP. I can see how it is convenient for Daz3d to label stuff but most people aren't rendering as a business and it is 100% the responsibility of the person rendering to do the appropriate research to understand their own market even if it isn't their own personal taste. Every asset should be looked at critically if it is going to be in a commercial product. There are people here who look into the writing on products in languages they don't know just to make sure they don't step on any toes. It would be silly to require that every piece of text in every language be translated so that customers don't have to google it. I saw in a bit of social media a discussion about the Christopher Nolan's Odyssey where someone was discussing a plot point and some one complained about spoilers for a 3000 year old story. There is a minimum amount of cultural literacy that is required to be successful in a marketplace. Finally, "Rosebud" is his sled.
There is a registry for that. It's not like Kirk Douglas somehow concealed his own son's name or the fact that he was also a working actor.
This isn't just about commercial work. Of course you have to do due diligence if you're making commercial work, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that asset creators don't actively hamstring that! And if you're making non-commercial work, it's still annoying to find that the funny little guy you used in a tavern scene in your fantasy comic is actually an Elden Ring character named Mightzor the Infinite Hurtifier who you only encounter in that game after grinding 24/7 for 30 straight weeks. Like, how would you even find out if the asset creator just calls him Green Man G8M and doesn't mention the game at all? Does due diligence mean combing through every wiki on fandom dot com looking for possible lookalikes?
I don't know what that has to do with this at all.
Is that minimum amount of cultural literacy infinite?
In pieces,
There is a registry for that. It's not like Kirk Douglas somehow concealed his own son's name or the fact that he was also a working actor.
Any registry is not directly accessible by an actor is not directly accessible by the given actor. They generally have to do a name change when they enter some organization like SAG and are told by their employer who pays a pretty penny for their credentials.
Does due diligence mean combing through every wiki on fandom dot com looking for possible lookalikes?
No, of course not, however, Game of Thrones or Marvel, or Disney are some of the best known IP in the world. Generally, when people point out lookalikes, it is because the product is recognizable by a lot of people. Even in the Daz3d world, this doesn't happen with most products and people comment when they look familiar. So the cautious purchaser can wait a few days or longer if they wish to purchase it as a greatly discounted product. My question is "should West Side Story need to be a disclosure that it is based on Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare"? Should a PA who uses a visual reference like Toyen who created a beautiful Dutch Renaissance outfit that references Vermeer have to say explicitly that it resembles something from Vermeer. There is a vast number of Daz figures who sort of resemble famous people but aren't similar enough to trigger legal issues. For example, Thomas 9 looks a lot like actor Alan Ritchson. The bundle suggests his career playing superheroes but doesn't resemble explicitly any role he has played. There was a literal Batman suit that had the editorial license but it was a literal identical suit but everything else just suggested. I guess I am suggesting that the labeling is going to be complicated.
...so what about certain charactersm like Joey and Donny 9? While only sold under the first names, we all know who they are supposd to represent (ther was even the "appropriate" hair content). They are not perfect "doppelgangers" of the real life individuals but a little ceatie morphing sould turn them into mirror images.
I have several characters I picked up here, like one who is pretty much a dead ringer for Sigourney Weaver and another who out of the box, and with a certain hair product (also available here) makes for an uncanny "twin" of Senator Nancy Pelosi.
A number of years ago there was a member here who created very accurate 3D renditions of several classic Disney processes. As part of a challenge I recreated Merida From Brave and when he saw the result, he seriously asked if I somehow got my hands on the actual Pixar mesh.(I used Yong Teen Julie 5 as the base for the character combind with a couple G1 toon characters and a lot of "creative" morphing),
Granded this was all for fun and we never inteded to market them or even post them as freebies so they came under the umbrella of "fan art"..
There was a product released a bit ago that I assumed was based on Fallout, but someone pointed out it was directly taken from a different show that I'd never heard of.
That's a non sequitur. When West Side Story was being written, the writers presumably knew they were referencing Romeo and Juliet. Ten Things I Hate About You is a remake of the Taming of the Shrew, and so on. The concern described above is of an artist including something in their render that they don't know is from existing IP, and there is so much more content available now than at any previous time in history that it would be impossible to know what every given item is from, or if it's even based on anything at all. Twilight was huge, and although I know a fair amount of information about it through cultural osmosis, if someone made a product based on anything in Twilight other than the three lead actors (or that Godforsaken baby), I'd have no way of knowing.
We're talking about visual trademarks and copyrighted visuals. What visual trademark did West Side Story borrow from R&J (assuming Shakespeare filed for those trademarks :) )? Likewise, I don't think Vermeer holds any trademarks.
These two droids are available for sale in the Daz Shop: https://www.daz3d.com/sci-fi-western-rebel-droids
How does someone who sees that asset in the shop find out that using it is probably going to get them a cease and desist letter if they are unaware of the design origin of the two robots? Now, most everyone here knows these are Star Wars characters. But what about other IP? Most IP is not ubiquitous like Star Wars. The editorial license used to give you a clue there was danger here.
That's a shame, I'd love to have a collection of Disney Princesses. Or "Processes" if you prefer ;)
I have been watching a lot of those Jfashion Vlogger videos on YouTube
the young ladies are so enthusiastic
I never see anyone in real life dressing like that, in boring old Adelaide at least
the young ones honestly are quite daggy down here
I was wondering if people made 3D versions of the popular stuff whether it would be considered too inspired or actually OK because lots of them wear dupes anyway
for example LizLisa, so cute
lets face it 64yo me can't wear it but my 3D people can,
It's up to the folk who own the IP to protect that IP. Some protect it more vigorously than others (some infamously so).
If you produce something that receives a takedown order you - or your client - have two choices (if you can afford both of them). For commercial work, your client is also responsible for what it purchases (their own due diligence). That put, if you produce something commercial, my experience is that you are asked, by the client, to affirm that 'the creation is yours'. To an extent, if you use items from the Daz-Store - or any other store - then it makes it that much harder to provide that affirmation.
(At least one of) The 'droids pictured above are from a very very well known IP and you'd expect many/most folk to know that (your client included). As others have put, some character from a game with 1000 downloads on Steam much less so but then a company owning a game with only 1000 copies sold is less likely to be able to afford to vigorously defend their IP.
If your customer is a digital-item store, none of that alters (afaik)
It took me a little while to figure out that there are two overlapping trains of thought here which were confusing me. There is a group who would like labels or some sort of explicit description for products that are trademarked or copywritten. For clarity, copyright: Safeguards books, music, art, photos, videos, and software code once fixed in a tangible medium and trademark: Protects words, phrases, symbols, and designs that identify the source of goods or services in commerce. These cover countries that were part of the Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol but don't cover every country in the world. The Berne Convention covers copyright and covers most countries. Before I forget, any product, including copywritten or trademarked, can be used legally in a parody under a doctorine of fair use even in commercial ventures. The second train of thought is about creativity. This group of peeople would like labels for products that suggest recognizable IP without being an exact copy. An example would be https://www.daz3d.com/black-magic-queen-bundle-by-mousso-and-linday which suggest Angelina Jolie and Malificent without being literal. I have spoken to a few artists here and know the names of people who inspired their characters and realize that it is had for me to disconnect the character from the source: Lucky Blue Smith and Torment 8.1, Tara 9 HD and Lilith of the Diablo game series etc. As a youngling, I was a massive fan of the movie, Legend, and even met and spoke to Tim Curry so I gobble up every Daz3d demon figure with those characteristic giant horns and unique skull attachment.
So, would a suggestion on specific product pages saying: we recommend this character only be used unmodified for personal or parody renderings be enough? Should this apply to products like the droids above which edge into trademarked and copywritten IP or should it apply to something more amorphous like Torment 8.1? How do we protect customers who actually want to buy product that they find recognizable?
Please avoid making specific claims about products, at least those that lack an Editorial License. We understand the concerns, I hate finding a product is clearly inspired by an external source so that any use of it is likely to be "fan art" without significant work, but when people submit products to daz theya re required to state that they own the rights (much like kpr's comment on commisioners and the artists they hire) so saying "This is from X" is accusing them of misrepresenting the product, and we do not allow accusations in general.
I overstepped. It is tricky to show how deep the reach of pop culture is and harder to explain how one could create a figure, for example, that is a 50's and 60's style blonde bombshell with a distinctive hairstyle and gown without suggestig gently that it is not affected by a certain late actress. The world of celebrity impersonation points out that it is possible to look like someone without suggesting that you are the real item legally. It may be next to impossible to create a system that is fair to everyone that has the granularity to achieve an accurate labeling.
A PA might earnestly believe they own the rights to their product, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're correct. If a PA creates a morph that is their own original work but is based on an existing person or character, where does that lie? They legitimately created the morph themself, and would own the right to their creation, but whether they actually have the right to distribute it is a little trickier.
sort of off topic on topic question about a character creature it's been a few years now roughly around the early days of the editorial license but there was a hint from one maybe more artists to create a new version of the Eye Of The Beholder creature was just wondering if it was made released would it have gotten the EL treatment? I know it's appeared in Dungeons And Dragons and Big Trouble In Little China and other stuff but was wondering if it was based off some mythological creature ledgend making it available for use. I did have an idea for an alernative version that would be cool but complex to create if and creator was interested instead of the extra eyes each tentacle stalk thing could have a humanoid head even better if the each head was posable with expressions
I am honestly sick and tired of all that franchise related content.
The Poser/DAZ marketplaces get overflooded with Fairy-Fantasy and Tolkin-ish content items for almost 30 years now.
NudeVickyInATemplewithASword or PixieOnAMushroomInTheMiddleOfAForrest, or everything, that looks like Lord Of The rings
I believe the D&D one is trademarked, but the Big Trouble in Little China one was just different enough to not be a copy (2 main eyes in front instead of one, smaller, no obvious spells from its tentacle eyes, etc). I don't know of any precise mythology on which the beholder is based (it apparently not being inspired by the 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' idiom) - https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/208558/what-is-the-origin-of-the-beholder has more info including a Q&A extract with the creator further down.
Right, this gets back to my original post. Making accusations against a PA for copying an existing IP may not be allowed in the forum, but the copying is absolutely being done and it's often not even that subtle. I just went looking in the store for a dress (which I own) that was released with Kaede 9, and now I can't find it. It was an obvious replica of an outfit from a game, but one that was likely very popular for cosplay and fanart. If it is gone, why couldn't it have remained with the no-commercial usage clause?
DAZ should consider allowing customers the option to provide images that prove that a product is a reasonable copy of an existing item, and if it is, all that needs to be done is for a little note to be added to the product that says "Inspired by popular media". Doesn't mean it isn't good, doesn't necessarily mean you can't use it in commercial renders, it just means that if you do use it, someone may recognize it even if you don't.
And I'm honestly sick of pirate and cyberpunk stuff, but it sells and I would not deny anyone else the opportunity to buy what they like. 90% of what I've bought here since the day this store opened has been fantasy stuff and I'm basically one of the founders of the whole 3D NVIATWAS thing. Let them sell what sells.
that was an interesting read thank you mentioned heard of a scifi creature heard of but never saw so think that concept I thought might work and add a pair little arms or even legs
very obviously inspired by snails with their eye stalks though
and Biblically accurate Angels
This happened with the Star Trek inspired content.
It's possible the owner of the IP asked for it to be removed. This isn't only a 'useage' question. Daz sells 3rd-party 3D-Gear. A couple of days ago, Richard confirmed that as part of an item being listed PAs are asked to affirm that 'the creation is theirs' - if it appears to be a copy of existing IP (intentionally or not) then it isn't 'wholly theirs'. If Daz were notified of that (not necessarily by the owner of the IP), they might decide to discontinue selling it - and it's possible your 'warning system' might encourage them to do so.
There were ructions when Daz did change the license type to editorial on a product after it had already been released, so I don't think they will do that again (and of course it isn't clear that a liense terms can be changed without the consent of both parties).
.,.tired of what passes fr "cyberpunk" here. I've not only been involved with the two min role play games in the genre (Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun) but am also a fan of William Gibson's work. Much of what I see here is far too gaudy for the grungy dark dystopic depiction of the future as portrayed. There are some good sets and props as well as some really outlandish ones (like most cyberpunk vehicles). I also find the almost obligtory use of neon to be somewhat overdone.
I actually have and prefer many of the models by Conflek Gnorg over on Rendo as they fit the genre so much better,
not to mention all the fireflies from neon everything emission
continuing on my different ideas for an eye of the beholder inspired creature saw this on temu there is some pretty cool alternitives for many known creatures, characters extra as well as original?
and another
I already spent too much on Temu this month
have a catico I haven't even unboxed that was delivered last week