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
just dumb me
but I don't get it
is this 3D print only for the four figures in the shop?
or is it that you pose and model your own figure and sent the information somehow to DAZ who do the printing and sent you the little figure?
I searched at the promo pages and could not get an answer on this.
...there will be a custom 3D printing service offered. Details have not been released yet.
ack, faster access beat me to the punch.
A few years ago, when I was using Poser, I had Toon Aiko printed, through the Cubify (http://www.cubify.com) website. It came out just fine, but eventually broke, after it fell to the ground.
I want to see a 3D printer in person, in action. That will help me decide if I want to purchase one for myself.
Debbie
S..n? Oh my ...
;)
See, I recognize that Daz and the people who sell their models through DAZ want to protect their work. Their 3D models.
That is why they won't let us sell stuff that has the 3d wireframes built into it. No using the stuff in games since other people can strip the models out of that. Unless we get a commercial license which partially reimburses them for that situation.
But I agree with the above poster when it comes to physical objects.
The currently changed EULA that only allows us to print and sell 2D stuff or digital images, but not 3D stuff is....worrisome to me. And as noted is...VERY open to confusion. I would prefer it if they would limit the limitations to what they were before. No stuff that would allow for stripping of the models. AKA...digital games and the like...unless we get a commercial license that allows it...
Allowing some physical objects but not other physical objects is just going to make things complicated for authors.
I mean...I am considered the artist and creator of something I make in DAZ using DAZ or other DAZ-sold stuff. To the point that I can sell it make money and everything. But ONLY if it is 2D? I want to be able to make things that people will buy. That's what I do. I'm always looking for new markets for my creations. And 3D printing is a very new and very interesting market.
It's like this. Or its what it feels like to me anyways. hehehe. I write books. This EULA feels like someone is telling me I can sell pictures of individual pages of my books, but I can't sell the whole book.
There are 3D scanners ... stripping the physical models would be possible with those.
I'm one of the people who received a free 3D print from DAZ. There wasn't any kind of explanation or rules or such, so I'm assuming that they'd like me to talk about it or there wouldn't be much of a point in shipping out free promos :) I received the Victoria in Action figure with the orange/black body suit you see on the main 3D printing page. It doesn't appear to be available for purchase, yet.
The print I got was 15cm tall, so their printer is definitely capable of at least that much. There's definitely some lost definition even at this size, but it's more detailed than what you can see in the promo's for the ones on sale. I would definitely say that the picture of the print they show on the main 3d printing page looks just like what I received.
One of the interesting things about this particular print is that there's a clear varnish on the suit and guns that makes it very glossy and quite a bit smoother to the touch than the bottom of the base and hair are. They've also done some interesting prep work on the model like making the hair hug the face instead of allowing a large gap for the neck and making sure the fingers are tightly integrated with the guns.
I'm a fan of 3D printing and expect to by my own printer once the SLA process comes down in price. I like that we can print figures from these models, but I'm surprised DAZ went into the printing business. You have to deal with quality control, shipping, and returns on broken items. It's a hassle…a whole different set of headaches from the virtual world. But I wish them good luck.
There are 3D scanners ... stripping the physical models would be possible with those.
Not the rigging, weight-mapping, morphs, normal and bump maps, etc. Add in the loss of definition caused by the printing process and the fact that all of the figures and clothing would be in a posed position that would have to be unfolded without benefit of the rigging, weight-mapping, morphs, etc., and there would be as much work involved making it match the original DAZ product as there would be in creating the product from scratch. And, of course, there's the fact that you don't need the electronic files at all to make a copy of a sculpture. That can be done with something as simple as a tub of wet sand, (hence the term sand-cast for bootleg plastic model and resin figures.)
And, of course, what 3D scanners ultimately make possible is bypassing the need for a 3D sculpted figure altogether. Within the next few years it'll be economically feasible for the average manufacturer to simply hire a live model, pose them in a scanning booth and create a product that way. That's essentially how DAZ's Elite series gen 4 product was created, after all. As a parallel, look at what's happened in the world of motion capture. Fifteen years ago Mo-cap require tens of thousands of dollars of very specialized equipment, now anyone can do it on a home system for a few hundred dollars using a Kinnect or a Leap. It would be incredible folly for DAZ to believe that the wording of a EULA will significantly change the course of the development of the 3D print market. Rather, the only likely effect would be to position some other company to become the dominant player in the next phase of the market. After all, anyone can produce a 3D figure, and there are already open source figures out there. If a major Chinese or Taiwanese company decides to jump into the market to fill a perceived hole and establishes a beachhead, there's no way that DAZ can compete with the kind of money and labor pool that those companies can throw at it..
Yeah, especially since DAZ had to stop printing backup discs on CD and DVD because it was too much specialized labor for them to handle.
Of course, they may actually be farming the actual printing out and shipping out to outside companies but the customer service involved is what's ultimately going to be the real back breaker. It's one thing to trouble shoot problems with software and payments, it's another thing entirely to have to deal with breakages due to shipping and requests for redos on physical items. Given how frequently DAZ has major problems coping with things as simple as their store, I'm rather skeptical about their existing infrastructure being able to handle the stress of becoming a service bureau as well.
Your examples made me rethink how to look at this. My head started then to spin a bit trying to figure out what exactly may be the underlying cause why 3d printing is treated so differently than 2d prints.
I will try a summary of different perception of physical objects and intangible ones. Then we will have a look at markets and negotiation positions. Finally I will point out some specific suggestions how a future EULA could concentrate on intended USEAGE indpendent of the FORM of the 3D model as a 2d rendering, a 3d print or even a 3d rendering:
- - -
Many civilizations still value physical objects more than intangible ones.
Examples:
- A 100$ in cash is prefered to 100$ on a bank account.
- Random encounters with people met in an online playing world are valued less than random encounters with people met in a bar.
Images and Videos are not perceived as valuable as physical objects.
Maybe because of that 3d printing now gets more special treatment as it should.
But as we will see the real issue is that 3d printing now adds more possible USEAGE forms that may warrent special consideration.
- - -
One time payment for all kind of uses VS repeated payment for specific uses
Any business can come up with any kind of licensing system they want.
Nevertheless a business in most cases is bound by the rules of the market.
If new players on the market offer more favorable terms customers most likely will choose the option that puts them in the better position.
In different types of markets different types of licensing and payment systems are custom:
- commodity products: You pay once, you use them as often as you want for any purpose you want.
The vendors of commodity products are simply not in any place to negotiate any type of limited usage because they risk to loose customers to the competition.
Nevertheless in markets that deal with products or services that are limited and exclusive you will find other kind of licensing and payment systems.
That is why I brought up the book and movie example in a previous post.
- An established talented writer is in the position to negotiate exclusive deals granting only the right for a limited first edition of 100'000 copies.
- An unknown writer my sell all the rights on his book to a publisher for a one time fee.
- A high profile model agency will limit all photographs taken during a sesssion with an A - list model to be only used for a specific advertisment set run in one magazine. If the producer later wants to use the same photograph for a billboard ad on timesquare he has to renegotiate a contract and pay extra.
- A run-of-the-mill model agency will grant the production company the right to use all photographs made during that session in any kind of media for an unlimited time after the payment of a one time fee for the hours the model spent on set.
What is a common element in both cases is that highly talented individuals that are almost non replaceable by other "actors" are in the position to negoatiate limited useage.
So the question allways is:
Are you in the position to negotiate special and limited usage terms or not?
- - -
Back to the case in question:
The current EULA is mixing FORM and USEAGE in an unfortunate way that may offer more restrictions than intended.
For 2d images and animations there is no distinction made between different type of useage.
The current market of selling 3D content with the intended useage of creating images and videos and creating art is in that way similar to the market of royalty free music.
If you purchase loops and samples you pay a one time license fee and you can use those sound files on any kind of project.
It does not matter if the sound is used on a youtube video for personal use, a commercial or a feature film.
The artists gets the same amount of money each time.
- - -
My suggestions:
Stop making destinctions based on the transformed FORM of the 3D model
It should not matter if the 3d model is transformed into a 2d rendering, a 3d print or a 3d rendering.
The important and only limiting form factor should be that the original 3d polygon form including rigging, weight mapping etc cannot be replicated based on the distributed product.
Sidenote: A 3D rendering is a hologram or augmented reality file. The assumption is that it will be possible to distribute 3d holograms or augmented reality files without giving access to the 3d mesh as we know it right now.
What matters is the intended and agreed USEAGE
The EULA could be adjusted to declare the intended and accepted uses:
- Creating any kind of images and animations for any purpose
This means the 3d model can be in 2d image or video, 3d print or even 3d rendering form in the distributed images and videos.
The user can create a 2d rendering or make a photograph or video showing the 3d print or 3d rendering.
- Creating Art or Novelty Items
The 3d model can be used to create any type of art or novelty items.
This includes the common form of 2d prints and videos and also 3d prints and 3d renderings.
I guess if you see some kind of potential to sell 3d print figures you may see that people would probably find it even more cool to project a 3dimensional figure or environment in their living room that can be toggled on and off with the push of a button.
- - -
From my point of view Creating images and videos and creating art and Novelty Items are the USEAGES all current users, artists and DAZ agreed upon.
For those purposes it should really not matter at all if we achieve that useage with a 2d rendering, a 3d print or a 3d rendering.
:exclaim:
- - -
DAZ then also has the choice to limit certain types of USEAGE to special kind of additional licenses.
Example:
Gaming license: 3D Models used in games
Manufacturing license: 3D Models used to mass produce commodity items
Architectural license: 3D Models used as template for real life building
Engineering license: 3D Models used as template for real life vehicles or industry or Electronic devices.
- - -
To summarize this:
I suggest to update the EULA in a way that does not mix the FORM of the 3d model and its USEAGE.
The EULA should only list different types of USEAGE.
It should be up to the user to deceide which type of FORM of the 3d model fits best his needs for the intended USEAGE.
- - -
To phrase this different:
There is no need for a 3d printing license that is based on FORM. What may be needed is to add Manufacturing, Architectural and Engineering licenses that are based on intended USEAGE.
...the more I think about this, it also makes me a bit concerned on how this will impact their software development. Daz is not a large company, and it's resources in this department already seem rather strained in that two of it's products (Bryce and Hexagon) are pretty much at a dead standstill while Carrara is getting a little attention with the current beta. It even seems that development of it's flagship has slowed as I would have expected to see a beta for it by now.
Perhaps this could also explain the price increase on the Gen6 figures and other recent/new content, as well as making the basic poses add on content instead of including them with from the base figures as they have done previously. I do find it odd, especially as mentioned above, they are offering such a costly and labour intensive service like this after ceasing to offer backups CDs/DVDs.
That's pretty much how I think the majority of industries are going to end up handling it, though I think that there'll be a need for quantity related licenses as well. DAZ is sort of dipping their toe in that by allowing products made for personal use, but there really needs to be a provision for the small crafter to make one-off products or extremely limited production runs. This is already how the collectible figure market works, where a manufacturer makes a license of an existing Intellectual Property (like a Marvel Character or Godzilla) for a set number of units. Not only does that allow the original IP holder to issue more licenses without fear of the market being cluttered, but it also drives up the value of the final product by limiting the number of units that will ever exist. Ideally, we're going to eventually be looking at a system where a company like DAZ runs a store in which artists place both their virtual figures and their physical ones, with the company making money not just by selling the product, but by tracking direct royalty payments from artist to artist.
Let me know when we can print 3d animations.
Er... a couple of years ago, actually. I've seen a number of demos at SIGRAPH involving 3D animation using a variety of physical mediums, ranging from bas relief animations using pinboards to full motion 3D sculptures created from thousands of small particles of polyfoam suspended by computer controlled airjets. Unfortunately I missed last year's show as the schedule for it and Comicon ran a bit too close together for me to do both of those and still get any work done. :(
http://www.daz3d.com/3d-print?utm_source=bronto&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Image+-+We+are+proud+to+present+3D+printing.&utm_content=Introducing+3D+Printing!&utm;_campaign=(2/2/15)+Introducing+3D+Printing!
All that says is that the Genesis 2 models are 3D Print ready, ie they have been upgraded to make them watertight so that they can be used directly on a 3D printer if you use the 3D print ready version. Any other figures you have to make 3D print ready yourself.
Sorry to resurrect a zombie thread, but I just want to point out that with at least two (the more the better) renders, stripping the physical models is possible with *those* too. Allow me to point out that it's 2016 now (although this is hardly new, it's been going on for several years and was certainly the case in 2015).
http://www.agisoft.com <-- See? That can make a 3d model from a few 2D renderings.
Ths renders need to be overlapping, or stereo images. Two renders will only produce the 3D data of the areas that can be clearly seen by both images. If trying to get 3D data from rendered images, you will need the figures to be in exactly the same position. I'm quite familiar with Agisoft Photoscanner, and to get a high quality 3D model from rendered images, you would need a lot more than 2 images, probably in the range of 15-30 images, but probably many more to get reasonably defined details. You would also probably need special textures to ensure there are no areas where the software would have problems resolving regions of homogenous textures (i.e. smooth surfaces on armor would fail to generate good 3D data). It would be possible to generate a decent model from a series of renders done in a "turntable" environment from several different vantage points, but just pulling random images from say Victoria 7 on the web to create the model wouldn't work.