Selling Characters. morphed to a face shape and body -
daveso
Posts: 7,798
in The Commons
there are merchant resources that allow selling of the results ... skinn, eyes, etc etc...maybe nmorphs too..haven't searched yet for that... BUT
Can you sell characters that you morphed via the DAZ morphs, or evenother PA morphs ? Wouldn;t the character maintain the shape even though the buyer might not own those partivular morphs?
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
Any morphs that are not specifically merchant resources will need to be handled as part of a preset and have those morph packages as prerequisites. They may not be baked into the overall shape.
I think most of characters are created via the DAZ morphs and a little part created with Zbrush (I saw "created with Zbrush" in description sometimes). But you should export morphed figure and inport it back as a morph.
Merchant resource is a merchant resource: you can make commercial products based on them (with some modifications or even without).
You would need to make your product only work if the other customers had the exact same morphs as you were using, as Matt Castle has said.
And you don't need other customers had the exact same morphs as you were using if you export figure and then load it as morph. As I said
Which is why that is not a permissible way to work for distribution. It's a bad idea for your own use too as it loses any corective moprhs or joint adjustments linked to the component morphs.
Can you use the free morphs that come with G8 as a small part of a character?
Really? I didn't know that. Why it should lose corrective morphs? I need to check this, because I doubt...
Imagine that you have a morph which has a specific corrective morph linked to it. When you use that morph as part of your character mix, then the corrective morph will be applied automatically when needed since it's linked to one of morphs used.
However if you export the resulting shape and create a new morph from it, then the corrective morph won't be applied in the cases where it would be needed since it doesn't see the morph it's linked to as used.
May be I understand wrong what is "corrective morph". Give me some examples, please.
Well take George HD for example: the character includes a ton of specific JCM to correct the way the character bends when George shape is applied, as it's very different from the default shape.
If you create a character based on George by using the "George" morph at some value and other morphs, when you pose him then George JCM will be used automatically since they detect that the George morph is used.
But if you export the result of "mix some George and other morphs" and reimport it as a new morph, then when you use the new morph the George JCM won't kick in, and it won't bend as well.
The same thing as for clothing, right? So, after you load the figure morph, you should make some JCMs... no criminal here, just more work a little bit. If needed. Because most figures based on standard Genesis 8 male or female figures and I guess uses standard JCMs for G8, isn't it?
Why not just use the DAZ Originals head, body & expressions as included presets but not actually required and instead release characters based on detailed skin material sets done in lie layers like Maxx HD for example but sans morphs?
Each skin material set would need to be unique and detailed though, to garner interest to buy. Its the skin material set that is the deciding factor in 90%+ of the human 3D model purchases in the DAZ Store.
As long as the adjustments are on the base figue (and are set to AutoFollow, which they usually will be) then they will be projected into fitted items (as long as those don't have Rigidity maps that get in the way).
Well, of course there needs to be new skin materials. What I meant was can a few Daz morphs that come free with G8 be used in addition to original morphs... Like I notice a lot of PA items have the eyelashes already at full length and/or curl...
To be clear. I'm not created any custom figure yet and may be I'm wrong, but I think I don't need to make custom JCMs if default JCMs works well with my custom figure. And the second thing: nobody never knows if I used DAZ morphs or sculpted face by hands in Zbrush or Blender if I loaded it as a morph. That's it. So I can use any tools I know and any merchants resources I have to make figures for sell. End of story.
Just note that there's a lot more into making characters for sale, and from this conversation I'm reading, some should get ready for their characters to be rejected at submission. As far as getting characters to pass QA here, potential PAs will need to learn how to do correctives for poses and expressions, not only for the base morph, but you're going to do eyelashes or anything the crushes the mesh in testing. If you're just trying to skate by with baking other's morphs in and you don't know how to fix them into a solution that passes QA, the submitter is going to get called on that product. And that will stop your career right in its tracks.
I would suggest people learn how to make stuff from scratch and see how that goes before you try to sell anything,
Any character that deviates quite a bit larger or quite a bit smaller than the default figure shapes will need JCMs. I had to make about 25 JCMs for my Lori Younger character.
Also not, "end of story" - you are not allowed to use other people's morphs or other morphs that aren't Merchant Resources "baked in" with figures you sell. To imply that you would is not only unethical but that's theft of other people's work. It's REALLY not cool to imply that you would do that.
Depends on the restrictions, if any, in the merchant resource. Most don't allow for free characters, some are figure specific, etc.
Those character presets are only referencing the Daz morphs, not including them with the character for distribution. So, yes, you can include references to Daz morphs with a character preset. You just can't bake them into the character morphs.
That's why I suggested doing skin materials as too many forum going members have said they often buy just for the skin materials and nothing else. Not that doing skin materials that 'wow' is any easier than doing all that sculpting, morphing, JCM, & MCMs stuff but it should be a good start to her or other interested folk.
I guess they could to the morphs and skip the skin texture materials but several PAs already do that.
First of all, I'm talking only about Daz morphs - morphs, that were created by Daz team, like Genesis 8 Male Head Morphs or Growing Up for Genesis 8 Male(s). It's not a merchant resources and created by "other people"... So, I can't mix them to create custom character for sell on Daz Store and give 50% of earnings to these "other people"? Really? I'll show you dozens figures that uses and requires Growing Up for Genesis 8 Male(s). Why they're doing this? It's so "unethical"!.
The second. According to what you said all figures that are on sell are hand sculpted in Zbrush or somewhere else. But I pretty mush sure that is not true.
End of story.
Growing Up is a @Zev0 product, not created by "Daz team". You CAN use Growing Up to create your characters but you can't BAKE THEM into your character morph. If you want to use Growing Up or any other non-Merchant Resource morph in a character that you sell, you have to set the character up with shaping presets that dial in those morphs (setting it up so that the non-MR is a required product). That's completely ok - again you just can't BAKE those morphs in.
There is nothing unethical about using other people's morphs to create characters to sell as long as those morphs are needed by the customer for the use of the character -setting it up so the morphs are a required product. The Unethical part would be to bake those morphs other people have created into your figure and selling that.
If you want a single slider for your character you can do that with ERC Freeze. Set up the shape, with everythign else zeroed (I would recommend not having the navel set, even if you expect to use it, and certainly not the nipples). Right-click in the parametrs pane and set edit Mode on. Right-click in the group you want to have th slider and Create New proeprty. set the new property to 1. Right-click on the new property>ERC Freeze, make sure the rightt hings are selected as Sub Components, click Accept. Now you can use File>Save As>Support Assets>Morph Asset to save just your new property, which you can share with others as it doesn't embed the morphs but simply sets them if theya re present.
I know that this is a sensitive subject, but it seems to me that there is certain degree of mixing the apples with the oranges in this discussion. When people refer to "morphs", they seem to be lumping morphs represented by complete character morphs, such as Mei Lin 8 for example, in with morphing packages such as the Genesis 8 Female Head Morphs. Are those not two fundamentally different things?
Take the first example. Everyone should know and understand that copying and distributing a "work", in whole or in part, without expressed permission is, by definition, copyright infringement. We are all expected to know that, since ingnorance of the law is not a defense, and I believe that most people do. One cannot copy a section of a book or a painting, for example, and distribute it as your own work without permission. A chracter morph is a completed work. It is possible to use it either in whole or in part to create something else, but that is still copying the original work.
The morph packages, such as the Genesis 8 Female Head Morphs are also a completed work. Distributing that, in whole or in part without permission, would also constitute copyright infringement, and I don't believe anyone would have any misunderstanding about that. But there is a fundamental difference here in that the morph package is a set of tools. Those tools themselves, collectively or individually, may be protected by copyright, legally and ethically, but what about the product of the use of those tools? The resulting product does not contain the tools themselves. Does that not then represent a new work? Consider this: if all the developers of the popular modelling programs that many content creators use to produce their products were to suddenly introduce a restriction in their EULAs that prohibited the distribution of anything created using their tools, what would the reaction be in the user community? Would it be acceptable for those software developers to insist any content created must only be distributed if measures were taken to ensure that those obtaining copies of those works must themselves possess a licenced copy of the program in order to use them? For example, if a character morph produced using ZBrush were distributed, then should the character be packaged to require the user to themselves have a licenced copy of ZBrush in order to use it? Would that be acceptable to the community? Or should we be making a clear distinction between the tools and the products produced using them, as the developers of the major modelling programs currently do? Anyone can stick anything that they like in a EULA, of course, but at the very least it would seem to make what constitutes ethical behaviour somewhat less clearly defined.
I just find the whole approach, as it currently exists, to be somewhat muddled. Sorry if I have disturbed the elephant in the room.
To keep this simple, there are two ways to make a character morph.
One is to export the base figure into a program like zbrush and create your morph there. Then you would import this morph back in through morph loader and save it as a custom morph.
The second way is to dial in a bunch of preexisting morphs to make a character. This you do not export out and bring in. To save a morph like this you use the ERC function to link all the morphs together under one name. This way the character can be dialed in with one dial, but it will require that the customer has all the other morphs used already in their system.
You cannot export out dialed in morphs from other sources, even daz's own. That is a clear violation of the EULA.
...and JCM's are built to specific body shapes, there are no generic JCM's that work for all characters. A JCM will fix the bend issues that relate to that specific character. If the arms are thicker, they will need a JCM. If the shoulders are wider, they will need a JCM. If they have more muscles, or that heavier set figure, or more curves, if they are taller or shorter they will all require their own unique JCM's. You cannot really deviate from the base shape and expect things to work the same as they do with the base shape. That is why we make JCM's.
I understand the restrictions that currently exist in the EULAs, RawArt, and I certainly can understand the reason why the creator of morphing tools would want to promote the sale of their products by including such restrictions. My post was not intended to suggest that anyone should violate those EULAs, but simply pose the question of whether such restrictions should exist relative to products designed to produce content which themselves were, in all probability, created using other tools that did not attempt to impose such restrictions. It is not a question of legality, but philosophy. And perhaps ethics.
It is simply a matter of using the tools properly in the way they were designed.
Dialed in characters are designed to be distributed using ERC to link them together
It really has nothing to do with ethics or philosophy. There is a proper way to use them and that is how they should be used.
......and ALL PA's are required to either create their own unique morphs off the base figure, or to erc any existing dials. There is no other way that products are allowed in the store. Those are the rules we all follow.
Understood. Nevertheless, those rules are applicable not only to PAs or products sold through the DAZ3D store, but are also imposed on ordinary users who have purchased licences for those tools and are applicable beyond the confines of the DAZ store, using the EULA created as a vehicle under the copyright laws. Those restrictions exist purely because someone decided to impose them, and using that mechanism, for whatever reasons they may have had.
So let me try once again to explain or clarify what I am saying. Why do we have copyright laws? I believe that everyone can agree that copyright laws exist to protect the rights of the creator of a work against unauthorized copying and distribution. What we commonly refer to as a EULA is a vehicle under those laws that defines the terms and conditions which apply to rights conferred to someone to use a copy of the work, if such has been granted. All designed to protect the creator's copyright. Anyone may hold a copyright to a work that they have created, and anyone may create a EULA governing the use of such a work, including any restrictions that they like. If I, for example, were to create a custom character morph using Modo, and distribute it, I could include a EULA stating, amongst other restrictions, that stated the work could only be used every second Thursday of the month, outside of normal business hours. I wouldn't actually do that, not simply because it would be fundamentally ridiculous, but because it would not protect my rights in respect to the work in any meaningful way. But nothing would prevent me from including it if I wished. Perhaps I had some other agenda beyond protecting my copyright in mind that I was advancing through imposing that condition in the EULA.
So what if I did have some other agenda in mind beyond simply protecting my copyright? What if I decided that I could use the EULA, not to protect my rights, but to market my product? Would including such a marketing strategy in the terms and conditions of the EULA be an appropriate use of such a vehicle under the copyright laws? Probably not. Not illegal. Not prohibited, perhaps. But appropriate? The expectation that everyone will obey the letter and the spirit of copyright law, including any vehicles associated with such laws, would require that rights holders display the same respect for those laws and their intent, wouldn't you agree? So the question is, if one attempts to use a EULA as a vehicle under the copyright laws to advance a marketing strategy by including a condition designed to do just that, is that not gaming the system and displaying a certain contempt for the spirit of those laws?
From my own perspective I would, in crafting a EULA under the copyright laws, tend to be very careful to include only those terms and conditions that were necessary to protect my rights in respect of my work, and be very careful indeed about avoiding anything beyond that that did not belong there, lest I, in so doing, fostered contempt for the entire system. Anyway, I have spoken my piece. Just something to consider.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but in any event - as mentioned above - in many cases baking a selection of morphs to make a character simply won't work reliably.
The exception being Merchant Resource Morphs that are allowed to be baked in, of course. :)