You might concider posting this question in the Mesh Grabber Thread or the thread for the Add on.  You would be more likely to catch ManFriday's attention.  Not that others here wouldn't do all they can. I don't know enough about doing the morphs to save. 

Ok so I decided to run a test after reading the PDF (here) Page nine talks about saving the morph out as a Morph Support Asset.  So after saving the morph in MG then saving the morph asset with the same name, I load a new scene with G8F and the morph is available.

j cade said:

AbyssalEros said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thank you very much. Your insightful post clarified a lot and might, in my opinion, reveal the possible intentions of Tafi/DAZ with NFT.
Still, — I might be too old to see any good in it — I wish there were laws against cryptocurrencies and everything connected with it.

Idk why everyone is acting like it's "young people" driving any of this. Cryptocurrency is largely driven by 50 year old libertarians or generally people with large amounts of money to invest which is, you know, not a demographic that skews young

How is it not being driven by young people?
Ethereum, the cryptocurrency being used to pay for NFTs, was created by Vitalik Buterin is 27 — born in 1994... not exactly old.
And the recent NFT craze was sparked by two men in their 30's...
Vignesh Sundaresan "Metakovan" and Anand Venkateswaran) generated their wealth in the cryptocurrency space in Singapore through the crypto fund Metapurse, and made headlines for NFTs by purchasing the NFT for Beeple's Everydays: The First 5,000 Days (2021) for a whopping $69.3 million (with fees) or around 42,329.45 Ether at Christie's auction... making Beeple's work the third most valuable art ever auctioned by a living artist, after David Hockney and Jeff Koons.
Now, all these misguided people are being driven into this NFT craze, and it's more than a little terrifying to me... I guess I'm too old for all this too — none of it makes any sense... especially for Tafi, an avatar company, to be minting NFTs... and dragging DAZ into it by proxy.

certaintree38 said:

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

Kaleb242 said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thanks for sharing, JStryder!
It's great to see an IP lawyer's perspective on NFTs, blockchain, and the EULA of digital assets — especially those from DAZ.

As with EULA's, they have some, lets say, issues. EULAs are not necessarily binding. E.g. in some EU countries, the Daz EULA is void, as it violates country legislation. E.g. the Daz EULA is NIL in Germany. Nevertheless, I do respect it, as I do repect all intellectual property and copyrights. In my opinion, something that is worth using is worth buying. I make my living as consultant in the "IT industry". I know from personal experience how much work it is to create someting useful on any given IT system. Nevertheless, it is NOT the Daz EULA binding me, it is my personal attitude and conviction. If Daz would have a representation within the EU, that would be different. But then, each and every promo since I joined would not be in accorance with EU law.

What's the issue with Daz's promos in Germany? 

Claims that would be fine in the US, but outright questionable in Germany (and the EU as a whole). E.g. If you promote something as "free" on the main promo page there must not be any strings attachted. So a later claim (i.e. if you click on the promo) like "Free with a purchase of..." is just not legal in the EU, while it is 100% fine elsewhere. In addition, all prices need to be 100% correct before put into the cart (including tax, if applicable, and including all discounts).If Daz would have an EU office, they would have to abide to EU law. As this is not the case, the non-US customer has to give more detail to the fine print. EU law is much more restrictive what is allowed for promotions and what is not. 

certaintree38 said:

Will you be able to blend, say, three different faces from your character library without any faces from the included product, or just one face from your character library plus the faces included with the product? I tried watching the video but I couldn't tell . It looks really cool though. 

What product are you refering to? The Torment bundle?

If so yes. You can blend the faces from the MetaMorpher library with any of the faces from existing bundles. Also if Torment's face will be added to the MetaMorpher library you'll be able to morph for example his eyes alone (or any other face part) for example with any other facial morph from your library.

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

Kaleb242 said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thanks for sharing, JStryder!
It's great to see an IP lawyer's perspective on NFTs, blockchain, and the EULA of digital assets — especially those from DAZ.

As with EULA's, they have some, lets say, issues. EULAs are not necessarily binding. E.g. in some EU countries, the Daz EULA is void, as it violates country legislation. E.g. the Daz EULA is NIL in Germany. Nevertheless, I do respect it, as I do repect all intellectual property and copyrights. In my opinion, something that is worth using is worth buying. I make my living as consultant in the "IT industry". I know from personal experience how much work it is to create someting useful on any given IT system. Nevertheless, it is NOT the Daz EULA binding me, it is my personal attitude and conviction. If Daz would have a representation within the EU, that would be different. But then, each and every promo since I joined would not be in accorance with EU law.

What's the issue with Daz's promos in Germany? 

Matt_Castle said:

outrider42 said:

Rather, what is kind of offensive is the pandering and stereotyping presented in this bundle. But at least they are trying to do some representation, I guess. I don't even know if this is good or bad, LOL.

<snip>

The number of times people want characters to look like brother and sister means that a non-binary character morph is useful on a level *so* far beyond "pandering".

Forget August for a minute. not that valid concerns haven't been raised.

Not all lesbians wear masculine clothes.  And as for the poses, most male homosexuals don't perform in drag shows, and most female homosexuals don't manspread.  They're not the caricatures they're being represented as here.

Kaleb242 said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thanks for sharing, JStryder!
It's great to see an IP lawyer's perspective on NFTs, blockchain, and the EULA of digital assets — especially those from DAZ.

As with EULA's, they have some, lets say, issues. EULAs are not necessarily binding. E.g. in some EU countries, the Daz EULA is void, as it violates country legislation. E.g. the Daz EULA is NIL in Germany. The issue here is: if one singe part of the EULA is void, it affects all the other parts (that would have been binding). as well.

Nevertheless, I do respect it, as I do repect all intellectual property and copyrights. In my opinion, something that is worth using is worth buying. I make my living as consultant in the "IT industry". I know from personal experience how much work it is to create someting useful on any given IT system. Nevertheless, it is NOT the Daz EULA binding me, it is my personal attitude and conviction. If Daz would have a representation within the EU, that would be different. But then, each and every promo since I joined would not be in accorance with EU law.

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thanks for sharing, JStryder!
It's great to see an IP lawyer's perspective on NFTs, blockchain, and the EULA of digital assets — especially those from DAZ.

j cade said:

AbyssalEros said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thank you very much. Your insightful post clarified a lot and might, in my opinion, reveal the possible intentions of Tafi/DAZ with NFT.
Still, — I might be too old to see any good in it — I wish there were laws against cryptocurrencies and everything connected with it.

Idk why everyone is acting like it's "young people" driving any of this. Cryptocurrency is largely driven by 50 year old libertarians or generally people with large amounts of money to invest which is, you know, not a demographic that skews young

I have to admit that you are correct. Whenever we (i.e. me as a consultant in the company I work for) have a presentation of anything involving block chain, the young people ask "how can we do something good for the comunity with it". The older guys (yes, mainly white males, older women are more sensible with that stuff) ask "how can we make a profit with it".

I am more with the young ones. Yes, you CAN use blockchain for something useful. And it is no rocket science to implement a proof-of-stake blockchain. We use our blockchain (proof of stake) for only healthcare and pharma applications. It does make a difference if you can distinguish real medictation from some falsified pharma products. And the oldest person in the team that came up with that idea was 27.

In my opinion, NFT's are for either "adventurers", but more likely for older, greedy persons.

outrider42 said:

Rather, what is kind of offensive is the pandering and stereotyping presented in this bundle. But at least they are trying to do some representation, I guess. I don't even know if this is good or bad, LOL.

It has for a long time been "the thing" for Daz bundles to have something at least something of a direction. Mabel was a witch, Edward was a secret agent, Tasha was a vampire, Landon was a werewolf, Zelara was a space alien.

Heaven forbid that direction should be people who exist in the real world, or that artists might want to include even if they're not actually part of that group. (I have never been a female AI super soldier, but it doesn't stop me having one as a character).

In all cases, these themes have been something that the end user can either acknowledge or ignore; and, in this case, even if you're not using August as a non-binary character, that theme is actually something that could be very useful, on a level far beyond aliens or vampires...

Male and female character morphs/skins with a family resemblance.

... I am actually staggered at how many people are missing that really fundamental thing. The number of times people want characters to look like brother and sister means that a non-binary character morph is useful on a level *so* far beyond "pandering".

AbyssalEros said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thank you very much. Your insightful post clarified a lot and might, in my opinion, reveal the possible intentions of Tafi/DAZ with NFT.
Still, — I might be too old to see any good in it — I wish there were laws against cryptocurrencies and everything connected with it.

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

You're talking about the digital equivalent of reselling your old paperbacks once you've read them.  Authors and publishers don't make a dime off those transactions, and Daz wouldn't either, unless they got paid everytime the item changed hands.  Now that's possible with NFTs, but also reduces the value of the item purchased.  There's also the thing that people rarely buy items at full price, but rather discounted between 30 and 90 percent.  How would the resale value be calculated?  Who would pay 50% of the value of an item when it will eventually get discounted below that by Daz where it can be purchased without having to cover the gas.  Any attempt at standardization would lead to a change in the promotions Daz offers, likely disadvantaging Daz customers ultimately reducing their revenue.  We've been buying stuff for USD 2.99 all month.  Who's gonna spend time trying to resell that stuff?

Daz could already accept returns for store credit if they wanted to, and even charge a restocking fee without involving the blockchain.  Blockchain is a fab and shiny hammer and all, but not every problem is a nail.

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

The digital item itself is NEVER stored in the NFT blockchain. That would be too costly. A block in a blockchain has a given size. Once the block is "full", it is sent of for mining. With NFT's you can pack multiple transfers in one block, limiting mining cost a bit. If you pack in the asset itself, the transaction would span many blocks, making it horribly expensive to mine those.

I got it. I rerun the test with a combined mesh.

The morph pro dont concern with the vert , only polygon count i believe. 

AbyssalEros said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thank you very much. Your insightful post clarified a lot and might, in my opinion, reveal the possible intentions of Tafi/DAZ with NFT.
Still, — I might be too old to see any good in it — I wish there were laws against cryptocurrencies and everything connected with it.

I think from what I have read, Bitcoin is stored solely on the blockchain, but NFTs are split between servers, the record of the sale being stored on the blockchain and the asset (in this case the GIF or whatever) is stored on a separate server entirely, pointed to by the record of the sale. This means that NFTs are not as secure as Bitcoin in my opinion.

Loose the server where the GIF, PNG, JPEG are stored and the NFT is now worthless. Buyer beware!

Hi,

I saw some guide for example http://www.laylo3d.com/creating-characters-and-morphs-for-daz-3d-figures-import-obj-with-morph-loader-pro/

Only difference is I'm trying to load into 3dsmax to create the morph. Please review my workflow and see whats wrong with it.

1. Download and prepare the Gen8 female for developer.

2. Set the resolution to base. Use the OBJ script to export. (this will bypass the usual export with a bunch of parameters)

3. Open 3dsmax, import. Question

  a) do I import as a combined mesh (if I combine it, 3dsmax will add additional vert/poly due to the welding I think)

b) or leave it as independent mesh

Note: The count for the vert/poly is 17, 786 and 32, 736. My assumption is that, when I export out, this number need to maintain the same.

4. choose a body part and make a simple change, (modified = Edit Mesh). I'm not adding geometry. 

5. Export, same vert/poly count as screenshot. Note: I disabled the optimize option so that it doesnt mess with the OBJ.

6. Open Daz, Morph Loader pro. As screenshot.

7. Hit geometry error. 

Thanks for checking.

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

The digital item itself is NEVER stored in the NFT blockchain. That would be too costly. A block in a blockchain has a given size. Once the block is "full", it is sent of for mining. With NFT's you can pack multiple transfers in one block, limiting mining cost a bit. If you pack in the asset itself, the transaction would span many blocks, making it horribly expensive to mine those.

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thank you very much. Your insightful post clarified a lot and might, in my opinion, reveal the possible intentions of Tafi/DAZ with NFT.
Still, — I might be too old to see any good in it — I wish there were laws against cryptocurrencies and everything connected with it.

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Padone said:

@DAZ_sam Thank you for your reply, I'm not sure to understand though. Are you saying that the forearm jcms are not supported, so there's no way to get them working ? If so then 1.9.9 may be a better option for the time being, where jcms do work. I mean, jcms are very basic features if they don't work then honestly I don't see any "benefit with this new approach". It's a bug to fix, not a benefit.

So may be I miss something or I didn't understand correctly what you mean.

Sorry if I am unclear. I agree it's a bug that needs to be fixed and we are working on it. The approach that was created before was just an estimate in 1.9.9. Since the skeleton was incorrect and had to be fixed it broke the hard-coded drivers that were created before. 
The new approach unfortunately still has a type of driver in Daz that isn't supported but, the benefit when we do get it fixed you can use any morph you like in Daz and won't be limited to just the morphs we preset up beforehand.
The state of Daz To Blender before we started working on it was, it works as long as nothing changes so unfortunately, we have a lot to fix as we fix other problems. Just want to make sure it's clear though that we aren't saying morph fix is complete. We just fixed a bunch of problems and it's in a better state than before.