The EULA - Help Me Grasp This
laststand6522732
Posts: 866
As a "Plain English" guy, I did not find the DAZ EULA blurb to be self-explanatory. I've come here to ask a couple of general questions.
As far as I can see, the EULA is designed to protect the primary business of DAZ, that being the trade of 3D models. That's quite understandable. It would never cross my mind to copy someone else's work and claim it was my own. It is a simple matter of pride. There are other aspects of this implementation of IP law that are not so obvious to me, though. For example:
- I know I can use DAZ to make a video and post it on YT. Can I charge money to watch my video?
- Can I use DAZ to make a demo reel, if it leads to one or more paid assignments?
- Can a nationally syndicated cartoonist use DAZ to generate his cartoon strip?
None of these scenarios involve the trade of 3D models. I do understand that the majority of DAZ users are not animators, so that may be the reason I haven't seen these questions talked about much. I'm not exactly on the brink of doing any of these things myself, as I still have much to learn. However, they may be part of my long term plans. I like the DAZ tools and I like the DAZ community. Should the opportunity to make money in ways such as I have suggested above ever present itself, as unlikely as it may be, I'd like to know I should handle it.
I await your comments and opinions. Thanks.
..............................
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
Siomple answer is Yes, yes and yes
Simple answer to all 3 of those...yes. With a short exception for number 2: As long as you don't need to include the assets used with the demo reel...
I would say yes on all 3 questions. You retain the right to use any "images" and "animations" you create with DS and DAZ content to use as you want.
The only prohibition being the use of the clone of former Playboy Playmate Anna-Marie Goddard. And it says so in the product Notes. http://www.daz3d.com/anna-marie-goddard-digital-clone
Well, this is looking pretty good, and frankly, better than I had feared! Thanks!
It's the furthest thing from my mind!
Most of the demo reels I've seen that had the requirement to include assets were for classes, so for most things you should be safe.
Schools, eh? To tell the truth, I was thinking about lawyers. :-) Seriously. It may be an untapped market.
Renderings and animations for use in court are pretty popular. So, it's not really an "untapped" market. However, your local crop of lawyers might appreciate someone who could whip up 3D animations fairly quickly. BUT, the caveat here is that they have to be accurate, since they're a "legal document" at that point and would normally be considered "evidence", subject to the adversarial legal system, which will have opposing attorney's attempting to discredit such animations as a matter of course.
Measurements and timing are critical (You'll have to be able to measure specific parts of objects inside the app. Poser 11 can do that, natively. I think DS can as well, not sure.) and one must consider that much of the work done may also include custom assets, so some 3D modeling experience would probably be critical. You can't render example testimony in a sexual harrassment case if all you can render is Vicky, naked in a temple, holding a sword. :)
PS - In general, and I'm not an attorney or a DAZ employee, 2D products produced by you using DS or, for that matter, Poser are royalty-free and are considered your work, unless the assets being used specifically state otherwise. (This does not, however, include reproductions of 2D UVMaps or Texture Maps, but only as they are applied "as intended." You can't render a flat plane, in otherwords, with the texture map meant for another product/use so that the render can be used in place of the actual texture map. Yes, people have tried to do this and have gotten sued. :) ) Take note that "freebie" assets that depict intellectual property not owned by the creator should never be considered as available for such use. (ie: You can't render someone's free "fan art" of a 3D Spongebob character and then attempt to sell the render because you have no license to sell/distribute renderings of the Intellectual Property "Spongebob." Even things strongly resembling such third-party IPs can embroil one in litigation.)
Thank you for your reply. Untapped may be less than accurate. Undertapped may be more like it. I have visited certain websites owned by 3D content developers who are making a living in the business. The ones I visited, in addition to selling content here, specialized in serving the marketing profession. I saw lots of new product proposals and packaging concepts and near-photographic renderings. I didn't see anybody serving lawyers, although I know that the lawyer who shows an animation wins the case. I realize it is already being done though.
I can see how accuracy could be an important issue. I often see props that don't look quite right because they were done from a memory rather than by measuring a real one. Recently I brought a bottle into a set and realized it was 5 feet tall! At that point I made a ruler, to scale, and saved it as a prop. A yardstick is next. As for speed, I'm sure everybody wants everything photographic and yesterday. Obviously, the people who are doing this work have found a few shortcuts and workarounds. Generally I find that speed comes only after time. And as for every female looking like Xena, I hear that. :-)
IP law can be a sticky wicket. Like any other idea it can be both taken to an extreme and abused. It has occurred to me to create and sell content as part of my self-tutoring strategy, rather than as a career, as I have considerable admiration for those who have learned to do this work. I would want to do so primarily here, and I would be comfortable complying with the DAZ EULA.
This, this, this! Many content-creators start out this way. The one thing I'd recommend is that you get a couple of knowledgeable Beta Testers that can give you tips on how to make your product/item better or what issues you need to fix. It takes a limited time, with feedback, to learn what you absolutely need/want to do with any particular item. After that, experiment, get feedback, polish, get it reviewed for sale, etc..
Making freebies is a time-honored 3D tradition that goes back thousands of years! Well.. hundreds. Uh... yeah. Well, it goes back a long time. This is where most people start out and you should consider it, as well. Host where you wish, but ShareCG is probably the most used website for Poser/DS users as well as many general texture-hunters and the like.
One thing you might notice, if you've fed your freebie-addiction for long enough - People progress in their ability and expertise. IOW, there's direct evidence all over the place of people staring out creating simple, often flawed, freebies and then graduating in skill to producing saleable quality content.
PS - If you're serious about producing custom products/animations for courtroom use, search for courtroom animations on youtube and/or visit some professional 3D sites like CGSociety, Polycount or Mograph and ask around for some tips from 3D professionals who do that sort of work.
Thousands and hundreds of years ago they were called sculptures...and they were given away at all the great tourist attractions, like the Pyramids, the Parthenon...you know, THOSE places.
Simulations tend to be intentionally simplistic in their look, to prevent them ffrom influencing the perception of the evidence presented. Texturing and shading is almost never photo-realistic, and when it is, you can count on an objection from opposing counsel it as being unduly prejudicial. The simulation only has to be realistic in its representation of the physical evidence -- the trajectory of a bullet, for example, or the size and position of cars at the time of an accident.
Given this, you certainly don't need Daz assets to carry this off. There are numerous open source projects for human characters, such as MakeHuman. Things like cars can be made of simple blocks. Unless the evidence depends on it, they don't need glass for windshields, rotating tires, chrome trim, and so on.
Real-time animation is frequently not allowed, as it can be surreptitiously changed in subtle ways beyond what the judge and counsel have agreed to in the terms of admissible evidence. It's typical recorded, and entered into evidence in that specific form. This varies by jurisdiction, and even within certain courts, where judges are known to allow/disallow on very specific rationale.
The above is not legal advise.
Some of the products are available as merchant resources and limit the ways that the product may be used even though you may not be distributing them as assets. Those restrictions are usually specified in the product readmes and may be applicable in addition to the provisions of the EULA.
These look like good suggestions, I will keep them in mind. I hope to have something to show in the coming year. When I have outgrown purchased content, I will learn how to make it. I am already beginning to see workmanship variations between models. As for making stuff to give away, there is a sense to it. After all, if I can't even give the stuff away, I would hardly have the nerve to ask money for it. :-)
I knew I would need to have a look at some courtroom animations eventually, but honestly I didn't even know what they were called. Thanks.
Most of them put limits on what is needed and how to be able to redistribute (like the ever popular, "no freebie" clause). Most of them don't restrict using them as 'end user products' if have no intention of distribution. But as was said, the details are usually spelled out in the literature.
We studied the UCMJ for a day in basic training. We were taught, "You commit a courtmartial offense every day." It means, the UCMJ is so hugely complex, there is no way anyone can possibly be 100% compliant at all times no matter how hard they try. IOW, if they want to get you, they'll get you. I'm not going to worry about the EULA. I am encouraged by what I've read here in this thread, and I will comply as best I can. That's all I can do.
Thanks.
This is very interesting. Working with gray primitives would certainly speed up the project. After that, relative physical size and location of objects would be important. Not very artistically engaging, but on the other hand, not long and drawn out either. One day I may give it a try. After all, we're not running short on lawyers, so there should be plenty of opportunities. :-)
I can understand why judges might be a bit reserved about the use of media tech in the courtroom. Recently, Adobe demo'd software that could record you reading a sentence, analyze your voice, simulate your voice convincingly, then read anything that was typed and speak it in your voice. Will the human voice now become IP? Adobe is well aware of the potential for misuse this tool has.
It's a bit more involved than this. If you're working on your own, you'll need to be a subject matter expert in the *evidence* that's being presented. When the simulation is shown to the court, you'll have to take the stand, where you'll need to defend your expert status. You need to be an expert in the underlying facts the simulation is showing, not the technicalities of the animation.
Instead, you'd probably work for an expert witness (e.g. a consult specializing in a certain area of law), and then your simulation is merely a technical service to them. The more common of these are personal injury and accident reconstruction. The larger firms are doing this already, typically using existing simulation software, so you'd need to find a way to introduce your services to them. You might be able to find some smaller litigation consultants that need a demonstration of an incident not easily reconstructed using the standard software.
On the contrary, this kind of reconstruction is extraordinarily drawn out, and is far from quick, because of the technical accuracy that is required in the depiction.
The above is not legal advice.
Well, that's it. I'm scared off. I wish I could say I was surprised. Thanks.
There are a lot of other things you can simulate though that aren't subject to such a stringent adversarial system. For example, you could work with a trainer to set up videos on how to develop certain muscle groups, or a chiropractor in demonstrating at-home followup exercises. There are some older V4/M4 musculature content packages that are pretty accurate.
Thanks for the encouragement Tobor. I am an old man. If this is to be a career for me, and that's a big if, it would be my last one, and my third. I've had a lifetime of ordinary work, the kind of things we do to pay the bills. Now I'm going to do something that gives me pleasure first, money second. I've had enough grimacing. I won't go back. I guess I need a little splash of water in my face now and then to stay on the path.
I have a good deal further to go before monetizing this passtime becomes realistic in any way. I asked what I asked because, if the EULA prevents me from even the possibility of making money in any other way than making models of space ships, monsters and Xena, I would want to know it now, not later. I see that is not the case. I wasn't really sure.
Advertising and marketing materials are always a growth market. There's not as much "art" involved (though that depends on how you look at it), but it's good at paying the bills. The downside is that there's lots of competition, with users of systems much more advanced (in rendering realistic) than D|S and Iray. So it comes down to developing a unique style and niche that fits your system, resources, and interests. For example, maybe toonish kid characters for ads/marketing aimed at children and parents. Or adults in athletic gear for a health fitness site. Or 3D simulations of product packaging. Whatever it is, the specialization tends to help reach a paying audience.
Yes too all above. in fact i do it all the time.
A country music writer hired me to created a simple animation to go along with a children Christmas song he wrote. & gave me permission to post the video on here.
the song is is called Festus the christmas crab.. you can buy the song as a single mp3 here.
the film is silly, cute and creepy all in one..lol
I also created and sell ads on my youtube to try to earn revenu for my animations https://www.youtube.com/c/IvySummers . so far its only been a hundred bucks in the last 3 year..lol its hard to make any money on youtube partnership program.
Hi Ivy! I watched Festus. Silly, yes. Then I watched Epic Street Race. More Interesting. Not entirely unlike what I wish to do myself. The crash at 4:40 is what I thought lawyers were looking for before learning otherwise from Tobor!
Your credits were quite comprehensive. And $100 in three years! Bwa ha ha! No, I wouldn't expect YT to be a big income source. I mentioned it only to illustrate the principle. I would prefer to end up in a place like this, or even on my own site.
As a teenager I had a friend whose dad was a syndicated cartoonist. He did Mrs. Fitz's Flats. He worked in his home office before it was called a home office. He worked a couple of days a week and drove a new Thunderbird, and was at the golf course half the time. I knew then that was the life for me! I have a vague recollection Dilbert started out publishing his work for free, then was discovered and became a syndicated artist. I think there have been others too. I know, these were all hand drawn, not 3D animations. Still, I think the idea applies.
I see you use Adobe stuff. I have some Adobe software but I don't make much use of it, I'm a Corel and Vegas guy. If either of them get the idea to charge a subscription fee, I'll move to Linux in the blink of an eye. I also see you did some of the voice work. Love the scream at 4:45! I studied commercial voiceover, and with a little fiddling in Audacity I can do a woman's voice. This is my first DAZ lipsync success. The voice is me imitating my grandmother.
I wish there was an animator's group on this forum.
I've subscribed to your YT channel, so your stuff will start showing up on my YT landing page.
............................................
Tobor, these are excellent suggestions, practical and realistic. Thanks.
I don't expect ever to be able to compete with professionally trained 3D artists. I am learning these tools as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. My end goal is to tell stories. I do love the tools, both hardware and software, but I am focused on the hole rather than the shovel.
"There is nothing sadder than a young cynic. Except an old idealist." ~ Mark Twain
I was basically just answering your question..) But the only reason I even signed up for the YouTube partnership program is because i had a stalker and a few trolls that would visit and harrass my animation or other posted videos. so I figure with all that trolling i thought i mise will try to make some money off it..lol
I am a illustrator by trade for frontend web site designs , I usually use daz studio for illustration work for book covers and t-shirts. and I have done a few web ads using Daz & 72 Assorted cartoon animations. But the art work I post on my web site and on social media are all for free and are use to sell my modest talents. and daz is just one piece to that puzzle in my arsenal of tools .
Thanks for the sub I subbed you back so i can follow your progress :)
They may not be better trained, per se, but the professional-level software they use, such as 3DS Max, gives them a decided edge. Autodesk basically gives it away to students, who aren't supposed to use it for commercial purposes, but many do. That's your competition for a lot of this stuff.
Now, D|S with Iray can certainly produce output on equal par to 3DS Max, but it's not a cakewalk, and mad skillz are required. D|S is consumer software, so it takes more effort to produce the same result you get with software that costs $1,500 a year to rent. I've used both, and personally find the challenge of pushing D|S to its limits to be a gratifying exercise. It's certainly less expensive!