Ruris said:

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

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

Only the vert count matters has verts are the ones which dictate polygons. You can't have a polygon with no verts. Triangulating a mesh will cause the polygon count to double but the vertex count will remain the same. Triangulating a mesh won't prohibit you to import it as a morph.

When importing a morph the vertex count needs to be the same and the vertex order also needs to be the same. In a modelling program each time you modify the geometry like delete, copy, etc the vertex count will get automatically recalculated which will ruin your morph. For the vertex order to remain the same you should only just move polygons and vertices around, never add or subtract anything.

I'm not familiar with 3dsmax but I know some programs have a tough time importing obj's because the developers thought it wise to add a bunch of unwanted features that literally nobody uses.

Here's how you can troubleshoot the situation:

- add Genesis figure to the scene -> Parameters tab -> General -> switch to Base resolution -> export obj

- you'll get a bunch of options which might be relevant to what it is you're trying to do. To just export the geometry as is, use the options in image attached. Note: the scale in exporting and importing have to be consistent.

- test out the exported obj by importing it back as a morph using Morph Loader Pro. Don't modify any of the options, just load the obj and hit Accept. You should get an error saying something like "No deltas found, skipping morph". This is fine, it means the morph is identical to base figure which means it won't do anything which is why Daz Studio skips it.

- import the obj in your 3dsmax -> export the obj -> load the obj back into Daz as a morph to see if importing and exporting it from 3dsmax did some unwanted changes -> throught trial and error figure out what import/export functions you need to set in 3dsmax so it doesn't modify the obj at all

Ok, got it working, thank you everyone!  What did the trick was uninstalling and then reinstalling the Genesis 8 Male Starter Essentials.

I must say, he doesn't look to me quite like he does in the promos, but he has an interesting head morph, so I'll hang on to him for mixing.

Thank you all for your help!

I just installed him through DIM and it broke my smart content as well. But reinstalling G8M starter essentials fixed that. 

Also, if you're thinking of buying it, I want to point out that his face is significantly lighter than his body. Just noticed that now in the viewport. It's a shame because I really like the details of the skin otherwise. Oh well. I guess I will keep him for the morph. His face is pretty unique. 

Does  this product also detect custom ZBrush morphs and combines them into one full character morph?

Karuki said:

Aside from straight up telling them 'No! Don't do it!', do you think there are anyways of doing this responsible right now? Is this a straight up case of everyone should be actively avoiding this?

My advice to any companies that are going to do it is "wait".

Ethereum will be moving over to proof-of-stake in a few months, which will massively reduce the power consumption requirements (the claimed figure is a 99.98% reduction in power consumption) and will mean the network no longer relies on massive amounts of computing hardware, which addresses three of the issues I mentioned.

Waiting until that point also gives more time to assess whether the market is going to be ethical and stable.

In the first point, if NFTs build up a bad reputation for being used as scams or money laundering, it could be a very bad thing to have been associated with the concept. In the second respect, NFTs only really took off recently, and cryptocurrency markets crash pretty hard every now and again. Broader take up of the NFT idea is pretty new, and we don't yet know whether it has long-term stability. It could be the case that in three months we're looking back at NFTs as a "remember those? I pity all those people who bought those and suddenly had them all turn out worthless" - which might be good from a financial point of view for the sellers, but could result in stoking a lot of resentment in some of your most enthusiastic customers. And if I've learned something over the years, if you tick off a dedicated customer, jeebus can they be vindictive.

I know there's the drive to be in right at the start for the biggest returns, but if it's only going to have short term viability, you don't really want to have bought into it, and if it has long-term viability, you'll still make profits in the long run.

I imagine the "gas" for NFTs may also get cheaper after the transfer to proof-of-stake, so less capital will be put on the line and it'll be less of a risk to get involved with.

plasma_ring said:

Torquinox said:

Because the internet provides, here is an article in The Atlantic about the aspirational beginnings of NFTs and what they have become.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/nfts-werent-supposed-end-like/618488/

“Right now NFTs are built on an absolute house of cards constructed by the people selling them,” the software engineer Jonty Wareing...

Wow, this is sure a read. 

I don’t want to let go of the optimistic ideal behind NFTs. McCoy still believes that blockchain technologies can help artists sustain their work. But in my work as a technologist, my optimism has been dashed many times by opportunists who rushed in after a technology took off. In the early days of digital music, the advent of MP3s and new distribution systems was supposed to allow artists to sell directly to fans. In the early days of social media, companies made blogging technologies with the promise that writers would be able to communicate directly with their readers. This pattern played out in industry after industry.

But these changes left creators at the mercy of companies far more powerful, far more ruthless, and far less accountable than the record labels and publishers they’d disrupted. Musicians and writers gained direct access to their audiences, but its cost was a precarity that few could have imagined before their field was disrupted. Artists were the original gig economy.

Bolding above mine, but that's the part troubling me about things like virtual identity shaping becoming a sleek business and why it leaves me bone cold to see the people running it talk about the possibilities for artists and how it's going to take over the world. They're the last people who should be taking over anything.

I don't want to think of Daz as the type of company that views its artists and users as a portfolio of asset creators they can Empower and steer into whatever new channel seems promising. Maybe the one saving grace here is that they don't seem to be very good at this stuff, but it's still embarrassing that they're trying.

Well, think again — and replace the name Daz with Tafi.
TAFI is the one minting all of these NFTs — and now minting partnership NFTs like the one for HanesBrands' Champion brand — not Daz 3D.
Every single one of these NFTs on OpenSea show Created > From: NullAddress To: Tafi — not Daz 3D.
https://opensea.io/accounts/Tafi
Yet, the first batch was branded as "DAZ NFT" and launched on the Daz 3D website instead of Tafi's website, and then they added Tafi-specific NFT partner brand content into the Daz 3D website and cross-promoting Tafi NFT content to Daz 3D customers. Why? because the traffic is higher here? The user base is larger, more trusting, and more loyal to Daz 3D than Tafi?
https://www.daz3d.com/daz-nft
And Tafi is marketing Daz 3D as a subsidiary of Tafi... 
https://www.maketafi.com/daz3d
Which begs the question — is there any difference between Daz 3D and Tafi anymore?
Same address. Same upper management (with the exception of Dan Farr, Founder and Board Member of Daz 3D, who exited in May 2013).
Making matters worse, its very difficult to find any source of truth with Tafi...
Tafi claims to be founded in 2019 on LinkedIn... https://www.linkedin.com/company/maketafi/
Tafi also claims to be founded in 2015 in its own Download Fact Sheet PDF on their About Us page... https://www.maketafi.com/about-us
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've already been burned once by one of these failed pursuits: Morph 3D MCS on the Unity platform — it seems like Tafi was behind that side project all along too, as Morph 3D's website just redirects to Tafi now including all of its original press releases that just vanished up in smoke: http://www.morph3d.com/
If you never heard of Morph 3D before it disappeared, this is what it was... https://venturebeat.com/2016/11/03/morph-3d-launches-customizable-3d-animated-avatars-for-virtual-reality/
How many more spin-offs are we going to get from Tafi that uses special privilege to circumvent Daz 3D's EULAs in pursuit of its own short term gains at the expense of Daz 3D's user base? At least now its putting its own name on these NFTs... sort of — the Powered by Tafi label and owner flag on OpenSea at least.
The business model of Daz 3D / Daz Productions has been marketed to its user base that our money spent on content for Daz Studio (made free) funds its development (back in 2012)...
http://www.cgchannel.com/2012/02/daz-3d-why-we-gave-our-software-away-for-free/
...it seems like development resources are spread mighty thin these days given how many issues there are with the website, store experience, product read me files, documentation, and quality control... and none of these Tafi products are serving the Daz 3D user base and helping its core ecosystem.
This whole "DAZ NFT Powered by Tafi" spin-off immediately sent chills down my spine. Please don't drag Daz 3D into Tafi's monetary pursuits and potential failures. Instead, focus on improving Daz Studio and Daz 3D's  product ecosystem, and don't undermine it with all this Tafi-induced nonsense that just pulls money out of Daz 3D development and clouds its mission.
If anyone wants to step into the brave new world of NFTs, the standard Daz 3D EULA is all anyone needs to mint their own 2D art and motion graphics animations for sale on NFT platforms. The risk of entry shouldn't be on Tafi (or Daz 3D) — stick to providing artists the tools they need to succeed in making 3D art, and you will be rewarded with continued sales from that community of both aspiring and professional artists.

hey guys i've designed my nexgen graphic game with daz and blender with the help of photoshop and Materialize for better texturing .i have used custom shaders for hair and clothes, and made smal edit to the iray base skin shader to match our need and with the help of hd subdivision 1 of daz to unreal plugin,i had less pain with the mesh in comperison to other morph based character designer.honestly working with g8 base characters is almost easy and i've so much fun working with it.
this is a shot inside unreal running smooth with about 120 fps using nvidia rtx 2060s

As the topic says, I'm having problems with the morph for 'Posey and Petunia For Genesis 8 Female':

https://www.daz3d.com/posey-and-petunia-for-genesis-8-female

For some reason I can't determine, when I apply the morph, they eyes turn out like that! 0_0

Is there some other product I don't have, or is it perhaps conflicting with some other morph pack I picked up, I'm just not certain?

Anyyone who can help, it would be appreciated.

You will not necessarily lose the ability to pose the character if you do not move things away too far.

In essence, if your new character at the default pose closely fits the G8 character template you can just fit your character on the G8 like some kind of clothing and all rigging will transfer perfectly. This way you can make HD characters as well. 

Also, you can make legs as geograft if you do not change the upper half at all.

We are told

It is possible for the morph(s) applied to result in shapes that cannot be measured easily. If the morph(s) applied modify the shape of the mesh such that it causes tailor tape nodes (or the mesh) to drift beyond the point where the associated plane can intersect completely within the selection of polygons that limit where the measurement is taken (as highlighted when the plane is selected), then the measurement will be incorrect. If this happens, you may be able to adjust the position/orientation of the plane to cause it to completely intersect completely within the limiting polygons... but it is highly dependent on how the morph(s) accomplish the shape.
 

Kaleb242 said:

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.

The younger generations have the least capital to drive this, this is primarily driven by folks who are looking for more options to increase their yields as NTFs have more options for the derivatives than bitcoin. This is not a generational thing, but more a result of limitless money printing for years now and the people who got a surplus capital because of this looking for better yields than bonds. I am just wondering what will happen when the circulation of money increases after covid, inflation kicks in and interest increases. Not looking forward to it.

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.