Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 23 9:03 pm)
Subject: Anna-Marie Goddard Digital Clone questions of use...
Every notice how kids these days pester their parents into buying high priced brand names when there are decent equivalents available for 1/4th the price. And, in the name of immediate gratification, the parents fall for the line, "but all my friends have it." So we have people who want the brand name texture. Frankly, if AMG is what your heart desires, then I think you should go for it. But if what you want is a beautiful texture and the brand name doesn't mean anything to you, there are others to be had for less cost and fewer strings. It's all up to the individual and what they want. I don't care. I've got my hot dog eating lizard puppy to keep me company. :)
Well... Sharen/SAMS3D, what a "duh" thing to say. As soon as you become a "public person", some people (unfortunately) are going to screw with you in whatever way they can anyway as which you and I can agree on that; will happen. Does that mean then that I should have regrets about being a public person? Do I have to be so afraid of those few people that will do that to me when I take on something like this? Can I not take any risk like this anymore? And I hate to call it that as in my opinion it really isn't. I think it was a very cool idea and I love people that are creative, so if I can be the first "real" person and the first "celebrity" that a morph is based on, then I like that, and I think others will too (as many of you have already expressed--thank you). I'm not worried at all. Eventhough it's not cool when somebody goes against my wishes and portrays me in a bad way; it's still a morph. It's not an actual photograph or video that I did, so I won't be ruined. I just need to protect myself in a way that I can to a certain extend in case things are getting out of hand, which I doubt will happen. It would be unfortunate, but still I have faith, and you can call me naive if you want, that most of you only have good intentions with this. So, that's why I did it, and I'd do it again. Anna-Marie
"I think it was a very cool idea and I love people that are creative, so if I can be the first "real" person and the first "celebrity" that a morph is based on" hardly. a little high on yourself there - you missed that by at least a couple of decades. one of the problems here is that too many people are in awe that the 'great ms. anna marie goddard' descended from heaven to reply to this post and state their disapproval of the license -- their incessant drooling over you and their excitement of having a 'real live' playboy model here in the forum is obstructing their thinking. theyre missing the point entirely. its a rediculous license agreement. if i created a morph and texture that looked exactly like you, and put it in freestuff tomorrow, theres nothing on earth that you could do about it... even if i named it 'anna-marie'. you cannot copyright a 'likeness' or the way a person looks, nor a common firstname - therefore it makes the entire license issue laughable. seeing as anyone can create a morph and texture that looks like you quite easily, yet NOONE on earth is going to mistake that 3D likeness for you, its a silly license thats very restrictive. and what scares me even more is that a license like this will serve as a precedent for other licenses like it in the future. THATS what disturbs me, and thats why im speaking out here right now. nothing against you personally, anna-marie. and how on earth do you intend to enforce this? i suppose youll want the complicity of the renderosity moderators and administrators to police the galleries and remove any images that you dont find 'pretty' and unoffensive? jesus.. they have their hands full already. there was a huge uproar last year when one of our ex-merchants, after having sold several hundred of a texture, changed her license agreement. any images created with the product had to be visibly credited to her and may only be posted under the username that appears on her buyers list of the product, and noone else. suffice to say she lost a very large amount of her buyers and an equal amount of respect over her stance on that issue, just as you stand to lose a lot of buyers with such a restrictive license (although its nowhere near as bad as hers). if i were in your shoes (which im not, i dont wear high heels), then i would revise the license to VERY strictly limit the use of your NAME - which you have every right to do. as for the model and texture - i wouldnt lose sleep over that. there are people out there who - as im sure you know - can create fake pornography quite easily by editing your photos in photoshop and end up with a far more realistic result.. i doubt theyre going to run out and buy poser and daz's likeness of you to struggle at the same. cheers, -gabriel
LOL....I understand AnnaMarie that you have to protect yourself, and I understand what lengths you have to take to protect yourself, just like all us modelers, texture makers, etc. Being a modeler and a vendor I know the law and how others will use it and abuse it. Taking risks of others abuse is here. I will always and only speak for myself, if I create a model, I won't put restrictions on its use. I only ask that no one else takes credit for my work and does not sell it. I have to disagree with the restrictions that are placed on your digital clone. I understand why the restrictions are there, but I do not agree with them. Because of that I don't know why someone would do this? When we create models, I do not put restrictions on it's use, for 2 reasons, one I doubt very much we could police it, second why make it available only to hobbist. I do not debate wrong and rights because that is personal opionion to each. And I never stated it was wrong, I only had one question, why release this if you were the least bit concerned of it's use, and if you are not concerned why the EULA? I tried to state this before with dignity and respect and maybe you miss understood, for that I appologize for any disrespect you might have taken. Sharen
im not being rude. im just trying to make my point - if im coming off as rude then you have my apologies, i have a straightforward way of speaking which tends to come off as harsh to many. i say whats on my mind and try not to let word games or 'political correctness' get in the way. i would like to see the poser marketplace progress -- in quality, ethics, value to the customer, breadth of usability and accessibility to a larger market. im afraid of what sortof precedent this EULA will set for the community - its a definite step backwards rather than forwards. i LIKE the fact that if i purchase something from the marketplace i dont have to read the EULA every time - since its a standard license agreement that has been in place for a long time, and everyone agrees with. if merchants start trying to slip in new EULAs unnoticed (and dont tell me that the one at daz is highly conspicuos and no customers have bought the product only to be unpleasantly suprised to find out its restrictions, because thats highly unlikely) and add new restrictions and clauses to their licenses, it will become a growing trend that will take away the trust and faith of customers. instead of looking for what marketing ploys to use, what new restrictions to impose on the customer, and how to raise profits, we should be concentrating on giving more VALUE to the customer for their money... not increasingly less and less. cheers, -gabriel
Good points blackhearted and you're probably right about the "strictly limit the use of my name" (which DAZ is working on as we speak--they're in the process of revising the EULA). I cannot police everything, and believe me I won't. I have said that I don't want my name to be used with something that I wouldn't agree with, but if my name is not used, I realize I cannot do much about it and I won't. Life is too short to worry about stuff like this and I think you all take it way too seriously. Believe me, I've never sued anybody, never been sued (knock on wood) and I want to keep it that way. We're only "worried" about the possible few people, who will use my image, my name and then endorse a product(--either I agree with that product or I don't). Or make something very explicit and then use my name with it; my full name. It's stuff like that I think everybody in their right mind will agree upon with me that is just not right and not fair. Anything else, go right ahead, I won't stop you. No need to have an attitude with me though. Absolutely not necessary. AnnaMarie p.s. I only wear high heels when I have to. I prefer sandals too ;-)
"No need to have an attitude with me though. Absolutely not necessary." thats just the way i am - as anyone in the forum will attest, its in my nature. dont take it personal - im like this with everyone. with regards to the EULA, my gripe is with daz - not you. they should know better than to have tried to pull that in the first place, theyve been in this business for a long time.
It just occurred to me to remember that, whatever her celebrity, AnneMarie is a human being and a guest in our forums. And many of the issues and concerns on her side have as much validity as those of having issues and conerns on the other. Points well taken on both sides, and I think this topic will continue to linger here. In another year, we'll be amazed at what we are being offered in the way of realistic figures for the hobbyist and professional alike. And the issues of copyright and trademark, both for the celebrity and for the artists, will continue to be problems, as will the cost of replicating real celebrities...what does it cost, what is it worth, and how many rights do we have to someone else's appearance even when it is offered to us for sale? I personally think we're just all going through growing pains. I'm just glad to hear Anna Marie prefers sandals (I hope ones with low heels). Thank makes me (and my feet) feel much better. :) Take care all. And thank you, AnnaMarie, for having the courage to state your case. It's not an easy crowd. But usually something good comes out of all the agonizing. Not always. But usually.
Well AnnaMarie, thank you for at least addressing this in person, most would not do that. Alot of us may have felt different right from the start if the EULA was not attached to this product, many of us might have probably bought it right away if not for that EULA. Blackhearted and I are involved in this kind of work on a daily basis, and I for one do take it seriously, just as I take our customers happiness seriously. I for one agree with his statement that it sets a presidence, and it will effect us probably more then it will ever effect you. There are no hard feelings here, I don't believe anyone was ever rude, just truthful. It is not meant to be rude. Most of us are professionals and we try to keep our statements as professional as possible in a public forum. Thank you again for taking time to address this personally. Sharen
Theres many texture/morph/character packs made from/of "real" people (and celebrities too) we do it all the time, its the best reference. Not everyone does celebrities due to uncertain copyright restrictions (off the top of my head i know for certain theres a really good and very recognizable Angelina Jolie morph here at Renderosity tho) but its been done. DAZ's V3, the 3d model for your texture was made from a professional model, morphed from her, texture as well. so hes got a point there. but skin is skin is skin, whether its you or anyone for that matter, so why all the restrictions? you feel that harm would come out of certain types of renders, so I guess what we are all really just curious about is WHY you may feel rendered pictures of your texture, morph or no, would cause you any harm to person or reputation. the commercial aspect i can see clearly, if someone intends to make money of your own skin i can see why youd want a restriction, or shoot at least a cut right ;) but for personal use, esp from the hobbyists that make up this community, thats hard to swallow because we are so accustomed to buying our textures and morphs and knowing we can use them to all our creative extents, no harm ever intended. So dont take all these posts the wrong way, or take them personally against you, when someone makes such restrictions to a EULA (you dont know about the ragings that went on about the Poser 5 EULA..whew..), the artists here take things liek that really seriously..no one lieks being told what they can and cant do, and even more so if they dont understand or agree to why they cant do these things. that (ugh dont even get me started) singer Shakira, apparently painted a picture of Monica Lewinsky suckin a carrot, or somethin of the sort, and sold it to one of her record execs, or someone of the sort. Im sure if monica saw that painting she wouldnt be thrilled about it either, monica isnt sueing shakira. and im not sure bout copyrights or rights to the person being painted, celebrity or no.. i mean if someone paints a pic of me naked bangin a tree (for the worst example possible..memories of Evil Dead..ahhh...)w/o my consent would i even be able to sue? if not who gives a fuck, just because they see someones painting, doesnt mean they think omfg Rio is a tree-fucker! or that everyone would assume some bad impression of me by seeing someons else painting... and if i WAS able to sue, why would i need to have restrictions telling people they cant make these pics of me, when i know they cant and i can bust their asses for it anyway? this changes i know for public personalities, as they become a sort of copyrighted trademark. which is why many art sites wont let anyone post pics of celebrities no matter how tasteful or well done. so this a lot of us know. and speaking of which id liek to know flat out is it compeltely illegal to paint a celebrity w/o their consent for that reason? either way that changes by your aadding your additions to the EULA, then whther its legal or not, by buyin that texture you MUST consent to the agreement, so if you say no, that means no, and if we dont liek it, we wont buy it. and a lot of people arent gonna like it, and tons of sales will be lost because of it. its nothin personal against you, im sure we can understand the reason for these additions, but as i said before, we take our EULA's very seriously, if we cant post what we wanna post, let alone post at all.... i think what we are lookin from from you since youve decided to join us, is maybe you can give us your perspective as a celebrity as to why you feel you need protection from these possible lude sorts of renders, or even just a naked render of the texture (a pic im pretty sure would hardly be recognizeable as you in our collective opinions, by comparing the promos to your photos, i dont see a resemblance at all, no offense), how you feel they would affect you as a person. We know now from you why the restrictions were made, maybe you could tell us why you feel they needed to be made, what this protection is for, and how harm to you as person or reputation could come from a 3d render of your product. we'd finally hear it from a direct celebrity source, as im sure we all really appreciate you taking part in this conversation, that was awesome of you to do so. ;)
hi anna thanx for trying to address some of the concerns of the people who want the texture/morph. I wanted it..still want it, but I won't touch it until the eula is fixed or stated in such a way as to allow me to do the very simple things I want to. the reason I want it (and the only reason) is to give the images I make of v3 modeling the latest "whatever I make" to show to people in the various marketplaces...or for freebees. Rest assured, no images of distaste would be made (I dont do virtual porn..or the like), but by the wording of the current eula using it for such simple promo purposes isnt allowed. btw, dont let the outcry or dissatifaction with the eula upset you or put you off. This community is a very versatile lot with a lot of different personalities. This gives it a lot of the strength it has. There are always "nay-sayers" and always those who will say "oh wow" and of course the whole grayscale in between. Some individuals always complain, some always praise, and some dont give a damm :P. I read all their posts because it makes me think and helps me see a situation from all angles. I hope you can look at this whole thing that way as well. when the new eula is up, someone say so and let us see what the new one says so I can go get this texture already! :P BT
You know, I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. Are we all panicking and paranoid because we're not allowed to make weird, perverted pictures with this new AMG figure, and then sell them for huge amounts of money? I mean.... come on, people! It's her face and her body. She can put whatever restrictions she likes on their use. And any one of us who makes a figure/prop/whatever can do the same thing. Now, most of us don't add ridiculous restrictions, because the market dictates that certain clauses in the EULA eventually kill sales. But that DAZ's business. You don't like it? Don't bother buying it. And, as for this crap about 'a dangerous precendent'. My Aunt Fanny! What dangerous precendent is it setting? Does anyone seriously think that the next public figure to agree to digital cloning would have a different EULA? Bollocks! Anyone who has a public image to protect is going to do exactly what AMG did. And a lot of people would want to make it even more restrictive. Read her posts again. She's not threatening anyone with lawsuits, not trying to act the primadonna. She just wants to cut the ground out from under the clowns that would. no doubt, try to make a buck of her, if this stuff wasn't in the EULA. In fact, if there are any primadonnas here, it's the ones shouting about our 'rights as artists'. "Don't you DARE put any restrictions on my creativity". Bullshit! mac
"Are we all panicking and paranoid because we're not allowed to make weird, perverted pictures with this new AMG figure, and then sell them for huge amounts of money?" no. the EULA is so vague and all-encompassing (it could be twisted to include ANY image) that it pretty much gives the buyer NO rights at all to use a product they paid through the nose for. "harmful to the overall psychological well-being Anna-Marie Goddard, her assigns, successors or agents, or her immediate relatives" ??? jesus @#$*&! christ, have you read this? so, for example, if i post an image of anna-marie's 3d likeness holding a pair of scissors, and one of anna-marie's relatives is traumatised by that because when they were little they had an accident running with scissors, then i can be sued? "It's her face and her body" want to bet? how on earth can you 'copyright' a body style, or the 'look' of a person. noone else on earth looks like her? "And any one of us who makes a figure/prop/whatever can do the same thing." yes. have fun selling it. "Does anyone seriously think that the next public figure to agree to digital cloning would have a different EULA? Bollocks! Anyone who has a public image to protect is going to do exactly what AMG did. And a lot of people would want to make it even more restrictive." see above
nor shall i - im very selective with what i buy these days. only thing rio and i have bought this month are some of levius' photo reference pics and the temple ruins. "And, as for this crap about 'a dangerous precendent'. My Aunt Fanny! " unfortunately, i know better. if noone says anything about restrictive nonstandard licenses it WILL impact the community quite severely. if you dont see that, youre even more shortsighted than you seem.
Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
i have noticed something pretty amusing though... ..if you paid attention to my posts im NOT attacking anna-marie in any way -- i have nothing against her, and im actually glad she did this because it will create some more publicity for the poser community, and things like this create growth. my posts arent directed towards her, but towards daz. but i wonder how many people would be 'championing her cause' if she were an overweight, middle-aged housewife or a hairy biker named jed.
noone else on earth looks like her? nor does this "digital clone" (which i also adressed here: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1259173) and shown by Caly's post... is till think it looks more like Vicki. Maclean: of course, we get that drift. Most of us are so accustomed to normal EULA's that we wouldnt think to have to read this particular one for any special notes of use or restrictions, so some people have bought this w/o knowing these restrictions, and are in general more confused than upset. we dont have to buy it to read it, nor do we have to buy it to disagree with it or think that its a bit over the top. we have a right to this opinion, esp in the prospect of, liek gabe has said, more people putting out more EULA's like this. we just wanna know our rights. DAZ obviously compeletely understands these concerns as well, or else they would not be revising it. they want us to like it. They want us to buy it. They see now changes are needed for the good of all. to clear the air and put an end to all this confusion.
Dangit - missed her first post by an hour. :( Perhaps the question in my title should be the start of a new thread, but I think it might help to shed some light on the issue of "intent," as well as to give us more of a feel for AMG as a person, as a professional, and as a potential Poser user. So, Ms. Goddard ... please tell us a bit about the project as a whole - from your perspective as the "live model" and as the "end result." Did DAZ come to you, or did you go to them? How long did it take to be scanned? Aside from the technology used, how did this "shoot" differ from your other projects? What kind of poses did you hold to allow the scans to cover enough? Would you consider allowing some of our works featuring you to be posted on your OWN website? Such as in a "Fan Art" section? Please feel free to address these and/or other aspects as you so desire. (,,,)><^..^><(,,,)
Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
yeah but if its supposed to be a clone, we shouldnt HAVE to spin dials to make it look like her. And by plastic Barbie i was refering to the AMG texture, not V3, we all know we can make V3 look anyway we want, that was the purpose of making her. look at the diff in the 2 pics you posted. one looks more like skin, one looks more like shiny plastic. they BOTH still look like Vicki to me. and of course they are different, i would never think DAZ would be so silly as to put out the same thing twice. and again is till say the default Vicki text is better, comparing your 2 images the default tex has more detail it seems to me, the only major diff in res or detail being the lips of the AMG tex which had a lot more detail and thus are the best part of the AMG tex imo, the only thing the default tex lacked. Both look like very similar textures, yet from 2 diff people. thats not implying the same material was used for both, if it was the same artist(s) making the AMG tex as the default tex then i wouldnt see any reason why there wouldnt be similarities, style is a factor of course. Just like you can see any tex here and generally automatically know which artist made it just by looking at it. My whole point being, theres nothing that stounds out to me to say that this AMG tex is so special. Its not very realistic, ive said it looks plasticated, it lack a lot of detail, no very hi-res, ESP when you compare it to their previous textures as you have. Im complainig about the product description DAZ gave this product. i dont think it lives up to it. it looks nothing like AMG, airbrushed photos or not, that wont change the shape of her face and features, if its gonna be called a clone i would think the morphs would out weigh the impt of the texture. Even tho any avid poser user knows you can drastically change a look of a charcter morph by changing the texture,even still ANYONE can see the fact that in those two pics you posted the AMG character STILL looks a lot more like Vicki. i still see no resemblence. i still see nothing that makes this package any more special than any other ive seen, other than having AMG's name on it. DAZ has done better textures, so have some of you here at Rosity. With access to a super model for reference and the resoureces DAZ has, I would think this product would have come out a lot better, a lot sharper, a lot more detailed, a lot more realistic, and look a lot more like her as it says its supposed to.
just got to say Blackhearted is the only person making sense here. while the idea of a "digital clone" is interesting, I think DAZ has misrepresented themselves. for starters, this doesn't even look that much like her. its a passing likeness, but if someone showed you a render of this character I highly doubt you would scream "OMG its Anna Marie Goddard!"...not like anyone has heard of her before this. I'm sure anyone using the right textures and props could render a likeness of any famous person, including Anna Marie. in fact, I think quagnon did a far superior job with his Britney Spears character, if we're going to throw around the word "clone". IMHO, the poser community is a well-heeled, savvy crowd. there is surely no shortage of high quality, photorealistic textures available here on rosity and elsewhere. so what is the selling point? Daz is marketing this all wrong. They need to find all the Anna Marie fans (starting in the netherlands I presume?) and let them know that they're favorite star is available for purchase.
I like the Lightwave promo shot, though the product is for poser, go figure. I'm one of the 'artists rights' people, or person shrug If I cannot use a bought product for doing my art and selling it using poser, I might as well just through out the computer and go back to oil painting. I have no desire to promot myself by using another persons name, but the current EULA doesn't even let me NOT mention the name and sell a picture I do, call the render 'untitled 1' and use the 'clone' package and your in violation of the EULA. that's a HUGE problem, aparently Daz is revising. Seems not so long ago that Curious Labs had the same problem with their EULA that was limiting and changed their EULA. Even a minority needs to be heard. I want to do professional level fine art renderings and prints, I started this thread because the 'clone' package seemed to be taking daz in a higher level character/texture product and I am completly interested in a package that is higher end. The EULA seemed so limiting that even hobbiests would have a problem complying with the EULA. I'm glad that AnnaMarie posted and commented, however the writing is in the EULA, and I don't take someones word for that they won't sue, someone wouldn't even way down the road. That's why EULA are important, they GIVE the buyer of a product their useage rights, hence my rights as an artist to use a specific product. "You know, I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. Are we all panicking and paranoid because we're not allowed to make weird, perverted pictures with this new AMG figure, and then sell them for huge amounts of money? I mean.... come on, people!" it's not about perversion, and the fuss is about not being able to use a bought product. Daz aparently 'gets it' since they are revising the EULA. I don't want to sell images of AMG, I want to sell my images, and if I use the 'clone' package, currently nobody can the way the EULA is written. THAT is what the fuss is about. Now, Daz and AMG have every right to do what they want, it's their product, but I have my right to voice my concerns and be direct about specifically what I want to do with the package. BTW which has not been addressed in any my posts yet. If I make a 50's calander with Vicki3 and sell it, the world is my oyster to play in no problems, but right now with the 'clone' package without using AMG name or even with the AMG name, I have to ask permission currently under the EULA. I'm rambling and ranting now, so I'll stop that. 'The Fuss' is real, and it is important to some, very important to my work, if it is not to yours, I'm glad for you but please do not bash on me for asking and stating my opinons and questions. Peace Out.
good point Red_Baron, that Britney morph was certainly more recognizeable as far as a resemblance comparison from ths on to the real AMG, as was the Angelina Jolie morph, and as for DAZ stuff goes who can possibly contest the perfect resemblence of Mike and Dan? THAT was a clone. ;) lol very well done, completely recognizeable ;) if Daz could do that then, why cant they do that now? Im with Gremalkyn in that this may have been a rushed product. and i only say that cuz i wubs DAZ and ive seen them do better, whereas the way they are marketing this, this should be their best product ever. Find me one person who thinks it is. I would thank that each product a merchant releases should be much better than the last. always progressing. always getting better. and certainly never rushing anything and sacrificing that quality and reputation. and i realy hate sayin poo about this product, because i always have such respect for DAZ and for that i know for a bloody fact this could have been a lot better.
'the images on Anna's site seem to be air-brushed. Especially the Playboy covers' And that surprises you? On average, it takes 2 weeks to shoot the playboy centerfold pic. They do innumerable tests before they decide who it will be, then they do several shoots, pick one nice shot and RESHOOT it.... then the computers boys start retouching.... And if you want a reason for all this hullaballoo over a cover, playboy has the highest advertising page rate in the US. That's BIG bucks. I know. I worked several times for playboy when I was an assistant photographer (and they're incredibly nice people). 'If I cannot use a bought product for doing my art and selling it using poser, I might as well just through out the computer and go back to oil painting' Yeah, but if you tried to promote a product using an oil painting of AMG, you would still likely be a target for a court case. One thing people in this forum don't seem to comprehend is that they don't have any more rights than the rest of the world. You pay $15 for a CD. That doesn't give you the right to sample the music and put out a disc of your own. So, if you pay $40 for a clone, should you have the right to modify it and make it sell your own product? I doubt it. We''re all so used to 'anonymous' creatures like posette, vicki, et al, and using them for anything under the sun, so maybe it comes as a shock to some of us to find that you can't do the same when you're dealing with a clone of someone who actually exists. Anyway, I'm all for open discussion and disagreement. It's healthy, and usually leads to enlightenment. And I do admire people for fighting for their rights to the bitter end. I just think that in this case, a human being's rights are slightly more important than poser art. mac
Two more things. There's an enormous amount of truth in the idea that this 'clone's' big selling point is that it's of a semi-known nude model. If it was some anonymous bimbo, no one would give a hoot. Secondly, I think there's a big case for DAZ to find some unknown nude model, do the full body scan, and put out a 'human clone' with no restrictions whatsoever. That would keep everyone happy..... maybe.... mac
I do not get the music CD analogy within this discussion. Poser Items that are bought for the most part you can modeify, put out new textures to clothing and sell renders of images that you do. That's the market as it is right now. you can't resell and item that you did not create I agree. my complaint all along with this EULA and 'clone' product is the selling of images that I create using the package. Just like I would V3, V2, Mike, another content providers Morph pack for one of those models. I can not think of any package that I have bought for use in poser that wouldn't let me use the product that I purchased in my images and let me NOT sell my images that I create. That is my contention, that this is different, and I'm not sure I understand so much WHY it is different. I understand that AMG sells her own image, her site is a pay site, she makes money off her image. WHERE does this put this product if I cannot sell an image that I create using it, that's what I'm getting at. if it's a hobbiest package and no resaleable renders fine, clearer understanding is what I'm getting at. I'm not trying to make money off AMG or her name, rather, making money off a art peice that I create using a texture and a morph that happens to be AMG, if you follow the distinction. I think it's new terratory that hasnt been explored much, new field. Another thing, the DAZ promo text SAYS... "Buy this figure and recreate all your favorite photos and calendars featuring Anna-Marie Goddard. Replace the actress in your latest projects with this replica human being to give them all a fresh new feel" Implying that I can make movies and and calanders and images, and I can sell them or do what ever, but the EULA specifically says that is not true. this distinction is where my hand goes up, I jump up and down, etc. haha. lot of posts keep asking why I would assume that I could make money off AMG's image with this package and I say, well, with all my other bought poser stuff I can, WHY and specifically is this going to be different. revised EULA will let me know I guess. goin out to smell the roses :)
Fair enough point, MC. The reselling of images of a clone is obviously something that's never been dealt with up until now. I'm not suggesting that everyone who buys AMG intends to somehow make money out of her. But it seems to me that as sar as she's concerned, it's the attachment of her name to the product that's offensive. But I agree that what she says in posts is not the law. The EULA is the 'law' at this point (always assuming it's enforcable). I reckon when DAZ approached her for this project and worked out the legal details, they weren't expecting such an uproar. Not good on their part. They should know the market by now. On the other hand, it's difficult to see who they could have gotten to do this with a less restrictive EULA. I still maintain that any public figure would have insisted on similar rights. Well, they're talking it over, so maybe something will change. Common sense would say something like 'You can't post or sell degrading images and tell people it's AMG' Um.... something like that. mac PS Kudos for having brought it up in the first place. To me, the biggest mistake DAZ made was not making this EULA extremely public information for anyone planning on buying it.
MachineClaw, I think what people are having a tough time understanding is that the largest problem with this product is the name Anna-Marie Goddard. You can make whatever image you want with the package and sell it wherever you like as long as you don't attach her name to the image in any way. The only potential wrinkle at that point is if the image you create looks so much like the real Anna-Marie that everyone would know it is her, and the image is in some way objectionable, you might have an issue. So... As long as you don't use her name and the image is not easily identifiable as her (and several people here are suggesting that even out of the box it doesn't look so much like her anyway), you're fine to do whatever you like with the product and even sell the images you create. It's all about the name. Frank
I bought her and I don't give a flying **** about the EULA. If I make an image (non-porn because I don't do porn) using her and someone wants to buy it, guess what? I'm selling it. And I do have clients who I do renders for which are published in magazine and newspaper ads. I just won't use the name "Anna-Marie Goddard" on them. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And for christ sake stop whining about it! Someone really needs to hand out the chill pills around here shakes head And my judgement isn't being clouded by the arrival of a Playboy centerfold. Until this thread I had no idea who AMG was, and as much as I have respect for another individual, I really don't care who she is now.
"If I make an image (non-porn because I don't do porn) using her and someone wants to buy it, guess what? I'm selling it. And I do have clients who I do renders for which are published in magazine and newspaper ads." you cant. thats exactly my point, and the point others are trying to make here. "If you don't like it, don't buy it. And for christ sake stop whining about it!" if you took a minute to read the EULA thoroughly you would understand that youre sadly mistaken and you might start 'whining' about it as well.
Attached Link: http://www.daz3d.com
After talking further with Anna-Marie, the End User License Agreement has been revised to put in much more precise terms exactly what type of work requires written consent and what does not. Because Ms. Goddard has been so cooperative and willing to work with this community, we have now rewritten the new EULA included with this product (the new installers will be uploaded sometime this evening I'm told).The further clarification of this EULA means that the only restriction attached to this product is the use of Anna-Marie Goddard's name itself. Anything that is commercial in nature or is used as an endorsement of any type CANNOT include Ms. Goddard's name without her written permission. Likewise, any pornographic or otherwise degrading and/or demeaning material created using this product, along with her name, cannot be distributed without her written permission as well.
If you are uncertain as to which side of the line your work falls, please feel free to contact her directly (her contact information can be found via her website www.annamariegoddard.com). She has told us she is quite willing to handle all such inquiries.
Thank you, Anna-Marie, for being willing to work with this community. And thank you, everyone, for listening to her and respecting her decisions.
Steve Kondris
DAZ Productions, Inc.
Well, thank goodness that's sorted out. So the name was the main problem. Oh well.... what can we argue about now? LOL. Illusions, I stand corrected on the public-ness of the EULA. I was going by comments earlier in this thread from people who seemed to have been surprised when they read it AFTER purchase. mac
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Ok maybe im missin the big picture here guys but whats the big deal? DAZ has made a texture from a celebrity. this pack has an insanely restrictive EULA thats makin ya'll think twice about buying..... ummm im lookin at the promos here and i dont whats so special. Judging by these promos this is not a texture i would buy, ive seen better from DAZ...shoot honestly i liked the default V3 one they put out a lot better. For that matter, ive seen much better here at rosity (esp by a ahem a person we all know and love but i get to cuddle evil grin)and for much better prices. Thats no offense to Ms Goddard, she could have the best skin on the planet, but that doesnt mean DAZ will make the best texture on the planet from her. shoot i think Halle Berry is the most drop dead gorgeous woman alive, but if they used her and the promos were similar to these, i wouldnt buy it either. again im only judging by these promos, but i really just dont think this is such a good tex. Just cuz you have access to hi-res photos, let alone ones of a celebrity, doesnt mean you'll create the most photo-realistic texture from them. creating a good hi-res texture is more than just pasting together pieces of skin. even if it is celebrity skin. This is like goin out and seein this pair of Gucci pumps that will match perfectly with your new cocktail dress...and they're Gucci!...but they are a bit expensive and your husband will prolly kill ya... but they're Gucci!... so you HAVE to have them anyway no matter what.. Cuz they're Gucci!...but then you get them home and realize you will never be able to wear them because they crunch the hell out of your toes and give you mad blisters, etc.. oh but they are Gucci! So what, this texture is so special and worth frettin because it has a brand name on it? is it really worth it? just cuz its covered in glitter dont mean its gold folks. go look at the promos again...then go look at other hi-res texture promos DAZ has. go to our MP and look at some promos here. block out the brand name and take a second look. I mean guys you can go to Walmart and pick up a pair of pumps that will not only match your entire wardrobe, but feel like your bedroom slippers, no blisters, and look great in jeans, and even better naked in a temple holdin your sword. (and still have enough $ left over to take your girlfriends out to lunch.)