i find it quite hilarious that daz is so psychotically overprotective of their models - models to whose success each and every one of us contributes when we create an add-on product or post a gallery render - yet they themselves are host to so many trademark 'oversights' its not funny. dont even get me started on that. the shitstorm they started over the CL license, the integration of mike/vicky into the face room, and the dozen others over the years... hypocrisy reigns in the poser community. all they are accomoplishing is that the moment a viable alternative to V3/M3 comes out as a base for the add-on pack creators merchants will flock to those new products and abandon V3/M3 to daz. considering their in-house talent works at a snail-pace and is limited to reselling subdivided zygote meshes this wont look good for them. theyre biting the hand that feeds them... and you know what pisses me off the most? there are so many more customer-convenient methods of distributing characters via CR2s. i could have distributed my entire latest character as one CR2 that loads in a click.. but i couldnt. why? because the distributable 'blank CR2' that daz allows us merchants to distributa has the damn delta channels stripped from it!! what is the point of having a distributable CR2 if all of the mil3 functionality is stripped from it??? what possible purpose are they serving by stripping the otherwise benign and useless delta channels from the distributable CR2 other than to inconvenience and cripple their add-on providers? that alone earns a big 'fuck you daz' from me, and thats biting my tongue. i bust my ass creating products that earn them many sales - my latest pack has made them quite a bit of money on SP3 since a huge portion of my customers said its the only reason they bought the model. the least they can do is not make my job any harder. they should have a license that allows content creators to create content for their figures as long as it doesnt eliminate the requirement to purchase the base Daz figure, and leave it at that. anything beyond that - and especially what ive been reading in this thread - only makes me eagerly await a figure that lets me abandon Daz and their products altogether.

I'm not an attorney but I have a hard time believing that a court of law (jury) would rule in favor of DAZ if Lilin2 did not share any geometry. If she does then I understand their position. I'll ask my brothers in law. One is a patent attorney the other is a state prosecutor. I'm sure they'll have a better grasp of the subtle nuances in the law.

Good point. When cooler advised of DAZ' stance on the AEON line, M3/V3 weren't yet free. The fact that they are now changes the equation, at least the one I'd mentioned.

Found one of the old threads. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=858183 You know it's not like Daz is set in stone either. :P They have changed things to suit people before. Vouchers anyone? ;) Just have to be reasonable about what you expect and how quickly you expect it.

oh - and by trying to protect the V3 body 'shape', ill tell you exactly what they are doing. right now, pretty much 90% of the marketplace as far as clothing and textures are concerned are for the V2/V3 mesh and UV maps. by trying to keep others from creating a shape that will wear vicky clothes, or a figure that accepts V3 textures, they are trying to safeguard against the inevitable that modellers will make a V3/M3 replacement. this is also the reason that V3/M3 is now free. beyond what i think is a hideous default body/face, i think V3 is an excellent model. its a shame that Daz's lust for profit clouds their vision as to who the real enemy is here - its definitely not the content providers and merchants who have been fueling the sales of their models for years now. unfortunately rather than realise this they just keep making it worse. id honestly like to see them protect a body style. they could copyright a mesh, or a morph from a mesh - but a shape? good luck. and if CL wants to play hardball - they own everything that daz has created for poser anyway (beyond the actual .obj) since their license claims ownership of all the poser file formats. id like to see either of these companies actually try to enforce their rediculously oppressive licenses. the content-creation market would dry up so fucking fast they wouldnt know what hit them, theyd both be cutting their own throats.

Sixus did ask a lawyer- remember he's not one to roll over for Daz. :D

'Even injection technology was (if I recall correctly) not discovered by DAZ' INJ/REM technology was discovered by Robert Whisenant, who works for DAZ (and is currently working on Daz Studio). He's the same guy who gave us ERC (along with Charles Taylor aka Nerd). mac

what really shocked me is the recent fiasco at commune. the nesterenko deal with.. damn i forget the characters name. anyways, he looked at screenshots of 'The Girl's mesh, and used that as a reference to create his own model. now naturally a mesh - or part of one - is highly copyrightable... but a mesh CONFIGURATION? im not aware of the full details but this seems silly to me. many tutorials, resources, 3D sites (like 3d.sk has mesh lines drawn on their models) generally recommend a certain style to their subdivision surfaces meshes... ie: a certain flow of mesh lines around areas like the eyes, lips, nose, etc. is modelling STYLE now copyrightable too? when did this happen? now dont get me wrong - i think looking at someone's mesh and making your own version of it - from scratch - is highly immoral (and again, i dont know the full extent of it, i havent seen a mesh comparison). but illegal? whats next? if Daz puts out a 3-piece suit for michael and i make one of a similar cut, ill find myself in court? i thought this was competition - and why you didnt post WIP images unless you were prepared to be beaten to the punch. im probably one of the biggest advocates for copyright enforcement with an iron fist here at rosity -- and someone who steals part of a mesh should have their fucking hands cut off. but a mesh style? id be interested to see a mesh comparison so i can actually understand the extent of this.

Actually he also used parts of V3 in Alexa like the feet, it wasn't just the GIRL face tracing issue. Plus he had done something similar before.

oh - and by trying to protect the V3 body 'shape', ill tell you exactly what they are doing. It's nothing different than what Mattel does with Barbie. What Disney does with Mickey Mouse. What Weber does with their grills.

I'd find it hard to believe that a person who had V3, for instance, loaded on their PC couldn't make a substantially similar model JUST because they had it loaded on their PC. Courts have ruled it's OK to reverse engineer (how do you think AMD makes an Intel-compatible chip?). Might just be a case of a "bully" EULA that can't be enforced. After all, they don't get penalized for a EULA that is unenforceable...they can only reap benefits from it.

except mattel doesnt depend on 3rd party content creators to drive their sales of barbie. if they did, it would be a very stupid move on their part to further alienate them.

" Actually he also used parts of V3 in Alexa like the feet, it wasn't just the GIRL face tracing issue.
Plus he had done something similar before."

i read something about the feet. thats natural though, they should crucify him for that. the only interesting part of the whole affair to me is the girl mesh tracing.
figure heads, especially, there are pretty much 'standard' ways of modelling them which result in very similar meshes. its a black and white issue that if you use V3's feet in your mesh it is illegal, and his doing it is inexcusible. due to his previous offences it may also be human nature to crucify him for anything else we may dig up on him... but...

when did emulating a mesh style become a crime? and if it isnt a crime then when the hell did daz get enough clout to make it into one?

i would never copy a mesh from a screenshot, id consider it immoral. however i wouldnt be shocked if someone released screenshots of their mesh which were then emulated by a competitor and released before the original creator finished their product. its a common competitive practice - and one that daz is nowhere near innocent of themselves (*edit: putting out their 'versions' of hot selling products, that is).

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 14:56

"Might just be a case of a "bully" EULA that can't be enforced. After all, they don't get penalized for a EULA that is unenforceable...they can only reap benefits from it." my thoughts exactly. such a shitstorm would erupt it would kill the daz figure addon market overnight. merchants would pull their stores and flee from the V3/M3 base models and never create anything for them again. if daz angered CL enough then CL could try and enforce their equally oppressive EULA on daz. i think its all a big bluff. until daz does something stupid im going to tentatively keep creating products for their meshes... but if they dont turn around their merchant/content creator relations soon then i will jump as soon as a viable replacement to V3/M3 comes along - and never look back.

except mattel doesnt depend on 3rd party content creators to drive their sales of barbie. if they did, it would be a very stupid move on their part to further alienate them. Agreed ... but the clothing and accessories aren't the issue here. Using existing joint parameters for a figure is a necessity to clothing creation. Instead, I think it is Vicky's "look" that is the issue. In order for a figure to be able to use Victoria's clothing, it would have to have a very similar shape and very similar joints. So, in that respect, it's the "look" of Barbie that Mattel is protecting, and the "look" of Mickey Mouse that Disney is protecting, and the look of Victoria that DAZ is protecting.

if its the default look.. bleh, they can have it. although i fail to see how they can protect it. the v3 mesh, definitely. but the shape? doubtful. in fact, V2 has a posette body version.. 'p4 vicky'. pot.. kettle.. black. as for the UV? yeah, good luck. my textures dont include their UV information, they are just - coincidentally - of a shape that happens to fit onto their V2/V3 UVs. now theyre going to 'copyright' the UV map shape? they have about as much chance of that as copyrighting a circle, or a square. the whole thing is one big pile of rediculous bullshit. perhaps they should invest the time spent writing up oppressive bully EULAs on finishing Daz|Studio instead - theyve been promising it for what.. going on 3 years now???

in fact, V2 has a posette body version.

Point taken. Then there must be more to the story ... and without hearing both sides I dont think it's fair for me to form an opinion. 8-) EDIT ... Hey, wait a sec ... being that Zygote/DAZ made Posette to begin with that seems to be OK.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 15:08

Blackhearted: in spite of my past jumping your shit g I agree with every dot on every i you've posted.

During the course of reading this thread, one thing entered my mind, and I'm asking this as a side part of a discussion, mostly out of curiosity more than anything.

A lot of folks have made third-party models that are VERY good. Take, for example, Elle, Natalia, and the progress we were seeing on Seraphira (how tragic that she was lost in a hard drive crash!). It's GOOD that the community is trying to make other models. Variety is a good thing.

The biggest problem with them has been lack of support. So to that end, I can see why people think that it would be a good thing to create a model that can use Victoria's clothing. And, being that DAZ made BOTH Posette and Victoria (that is a supposition, figuring that the same people from Zygote are the ones who later formed DAZ), I can also see why they could create a version of Victoria that was P4 compatible.

Sixus probably figured it was OK to create their own model and make it work with Victoria's clothing. That would make a figure that everyone could use as an alternative. But like I said, in order for that to happen, it would HAVE to look and pose very similarly.

It's a dilemma, and the only way past it is to support original characters with original clothing. Lady Littlefox has proven that it can be done quite successfully. Koshini and Ichiro have a fantastic following.

So the big question is, why aren't people doing this now?

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 15:23

mac, though isn't ERC born from what was already present in what we call a "full body morph" and is just applied to other dials rather than morph dials linked to the Body. Seems to be just new ways for an old trick ;) The "body shape" thing depends on how far that goes. I mean, if someone made a figure, gave it a pear-shaped body with a skinny neck, did they steal mickey mouse's body? I haven't looked at Lillin closely, but you could still be reasonably be off the mark shape-wise and fit into V3's (or whomever's clothes), especially if the figure was a little thinner. So how far, exactly, does the deviation need to be? Here are some interesting reads for you, going back towards the beginning (around two years) of this: DAZ Stance on the License Agreement protection thing: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=765731 Some more responses: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=791269 another interesting one (around the time of The Tailor) http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=765077

what i disagree with is how daz wants to have its cake and eat it too. look at the whole 'the tailor' deal. they SELL it, ffs, yet they dont want us using it to transfer morphs to clothing? wtf other purpose does it have? daz support one stance when it benefits it, and then in the next breath turns around 180 degrees when it decides that the opposite stance benefits it more. if theres one thing i cant stand its hypocrisy. they think they have the market by the balls now because the bulk of the clothing out there is created for V2/V3 and now they are trying to claim ownership of their 'shapes' to prevent someone else from stepping in and taking some of the market share. where i come from this is called monopolising. id like to see them try it. i dont think theyd get very far trying to protect such a generic 'body shape'... but even if they somehow did manage it they severely underestimate the weight content creators have in the community. if tomorrow the bulk of them shift to a new model base, then daz is pretty much @%#$ed right there - even if that model had a different body shape. old clothing becomes outdated, and if we wish to use it with a new shape - well, theres always the tailor. ironic that daz sells it. i think theyve been on top for too long with a stranglehold on the figure market with mike/vicky and theyve been getting a little too cocky, a little too pushy and bullying. i also think they take for granted all of the support there is in the community for their base models - and how little their in-house crew actually produces. biting the hand that feeds them is not smart.

...you know? if folks would just build something from scratch and build up some support for it (coughKoshinicough), we really wouldn't have to sit here and put up with whines about how it's so unfair that you can't build a model to use someone else's stuff. Personally, Sixus over-reacted to the whole thing. All DAZ asked was that the thing be RTE/PCF'd for distribution, and V3 is being given out for free fer chrissakes. But no... the drama queens just have to come along and drag out the sackcloth and ashes over something they can barely comprehend (let alone understand), huh? Lookit: as a guy who actually helped re-write the P5 EULA, I can tell you right now that this isn't anything similar. The P5 EULA was basically mis-typed so that CL could (possibly) claim ultimate ownership of all Poser file types and by extension their contents. This case OTOH is one where pieces of somebody else's .cr2 was used to make a UV map. So, for all those who whined so loudly in here today about how DAZ is the Antichrist (or whatnot), does this mean that I can rip out parts of your commercial .cr2 files and do what I will with those parts? I think I'll start with some morphs... I could always find uses for those somewhere else, no? Why not just let me give 'em away, and share the wealth a little? Let other folks get some use out of other stuff they already have? Ah, but suddenly I'm willing to bet that these folks aren't so eager to allow such things, now are they? Didn't think so. /P

"Personally, Sixus over-reacted to the whole thing. All DAZ asked was that the thing be RTE/PCF'd for distribution, and V3 is being given out for free fer chrissakes." umm.. do you realise what youre saying? asking something like that basically cripples your sales right there. its rediculous. if there are two bags of chips on a store shelf, and one of them requires you to fill out a 5-page questionnaire before you can eat it, which will you buy? its about the same thing. when you are selling products their installation and use must be as simplified and spoon-fed as possible. asking a customer to go hunt around for a utility to 'decode' them, learn how to use it, decode it, save the new object, etc is absolutely rediculous just because the model shares the same shape as vicky. its like daz is now claiming ownership of it. the only reason it gets away with half the shit it does is because sixus is just a guy modelling these things from home and daz is a company with dozens of times the financial and legal resources as he has - so they can push him around. i would have called them on their bluff and told them to shove it where the sun dont shine - you cannot copyright a rough body style.

Oh well, we all have our opinions, don't we. I thought we were talking about joint-parameters not the full cr2 and I DO comprehend that. :D In fact, you may only need the joint centers (only two small x,y,z values per bodypart) and not all the blending zone information.

biting the hand that feeds them is not smart.

Then I repeat my question ... why aren't more people supporting the other figures?

Easy ... the relationship between DAZ and content creators goes both ways. Good content helps the sales and popularity of the DAZ models, and the quality of the DAZ figures is a large factor in the creation of content.

Content creators could just as easily create content for the other figures. But they don't. Why? Because they don't sell. And they don't sell because people don't buy the figures. And people don't buy the figures because no one supports them. Get the picture?

In reading the threads referenced to above, DAZ is trying to protect themselves from people circumventing the need for their figures. I don't see anything wrong with that ... they put hard work into them, why shouldn't they want people to use them? By creating a character that can use Vicky's clothing without needing Vicky, that is of concern to them.

To say that the content creators made Vicky what she is seems a rather strange way of looking at it. By the same token, the content creators can also turn Natalia, Elle, Seraphira, DinaV, and every other third party model out there into the next Vicky. So I repeat my question ... why isn't that being done now?

The answer seems obvious to me. A lot of people like the look of Victoria. THAT is what made her popular. And while a thinner figure could use Victoria's clothing, it wouldn't be 100% "right out of the box." You would have to morph the body, clothing, or both to get into the scantily clad temple-worthy armor. For a figure to be 100% compatible with Vicky's clothing, the body would basically have to look the same and bend the same as Vicky. So then, why not USE Vicky? Doesn't that seem strange? I want a figure that fits into Vicky's clothing, but I don't want it to be Vicky.

It seems to me that taking a proactive stance on this, and DOING something to do away with this perceived "monopoly" that DAZ has would be a more positive way of handling the situation.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 16:24

id be interested to see just how much of the 'original daz' products are reverse-engineered from old metacreations content. such as how much early versions of V1 used of posette's CR2, how much the clothing used, etc. somehow i doubt that daz started at 0 for everything they ever created.. and if they didnt then its yet another case of pot calling the kettle black. i think what infuriates me the most about this whole issue - and why im randint against daz right now - is that they are bullying around the same content creators that help pay their paycheques each month, and help further bloat the sales of their base models. how many sales would V3 have if the only content available for her was the daz diaper bikini and clothing pack? the daz texture?

Blackhearted ... the old Metacreations content was made by Zygote. The same Zygote that DAZ was a spinoff of. It is highly likely that the people who modeled the Metacreations content are the very same people who used it to build up into Victoria.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 16:27

"By creating a character that can use Vicky's clothing without needing Vicky, that is of concern to them. " well, when 99% of the vicky clothing out there hasnt been created by daz but by 3rd party merchants then their draconian stance is a concern to me. with this new EULA they are not just trying to protect their character shapes but ensure that all of the clothing ever created for those shapes never gets used for anything else.

actually zygote still exists. its more likely that daz just licensed the old zygote meshes. this would explain why they have created few items that are totally new meshes and arent simply subdivisions or rehashes of those old original zygote meshes.

with this new EULA they are not just trying to protect their character shapes but ensure that all of the clothing ever created for those shapes never gets used for anything else. And when the content creators made their content for the DAZ models, was there any reason to think that they would ever be used for anything else but that model? I doubt it. So what has changed for the content creator?

Deecey, I'll be happy to look into working with alternative figures very shortly - I probably can make a firmer decision close to Monday. Though I do have my sight set on my own figure line as a strong possibility too. If I get past aliens, monsters and robots first. :D

8-) Good deal, Netherworks. 8-) I'm just playing devil's advocate here. A lot of people cry "monopoly" but we haven't seen much support for anything else but the DAZ figures. And that is not DAZ's fault.

I am put in mind of a thread from several years ago....the thread header was something like "The Endless Story That Never Ends".

At the time, someone pointed out that the title was redundant.

Well, that "endless story" ended.

I suppose that this one will, too. Eventually.

I'm looking forward to enjoying P6.

Me too, Xenophonz. :) Maybe it will end because of action that levels the playing field - that would be right nifty.

"I'm just playing devil's advocate here. A lot of people cry "monopoly" but we haven't seen much support for anything else but the DAZ figures. And that is not DAZ's fault." oh, they have nothing to do with it? im sure they released V3, M3 and A3 for free solely as a 'gift' to the community they love so much, and not as part of a marketing/business strategy at all.

There is nothing stopping any content creator from creating clothing for other figures. That was my point.

Xeno and Netherworks, I am also anxious about P6 .. and intend on supporting the P6 figures. I'm downright excited about them.

But that doesn't mean I will stop creating stuff for the DAZ figures, because I like them as well. To me, it is more variety. I'm psyched about it!

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 17:03

Big time catchup required here. Firstly, some people are assuming that the mesh has elements of unimesh in there. That is not the case. The mesh is 100% original. The problem DAZ has is two-fold. First, the JP's (by the very nature of V3-compatibilty) are very close on V3 original. Second it is a "substantially similar" figure to V3. The first issue is the scary one for me. See, DAZ can claim EULA infringement based on use of the same JP's. Which means that any set of clothing (bar the "dynamic" stuff) created for V3 can be pulled from distribution at DAZ's request. Now I read the "clarifying" statement DAZ made in regards to their EULA over at PoserPros. But guess what, having asked a lawyer about that - he said their "intentions" mean nothing when I agree to the EULA. See, DAZ is not required to keep the same intentions over time, only to keep to the same terms of an agreed upon contract. In other words, they can come after anyone they damn well please on the strictest terms of the EULA. The "substantially similar" part of the agreement is obviously a stranglehold maintainer as they know that 90% of all content is for their figures. Can't have the virtual monopoly falling apart because someone made a better figure that is compatible can we? Note that I'm not saying what DAZ can (& are) doing is wrong "legally". They are well within their rights to do that as whoever has installed V3/M3/etc has agreed to those conditions (knowingly or not). I'm simply making it known that there is an issue as I had intended to jump into the whole V3 clothing thing head first. However, the clothing content I have made will now sit on the digital shelf as I will not rely on the goodwill of a company for the continued existence of my products. some people mention that I shouldn't mention the CL EULA. shrug Well, I've only seen it's latest incarnation and it is pretty reasonable as far as "content" goes. The rest of it is typical for software packages. Hell, Microsoft makes any other license (software or otherwise) seem like a gift. Thing is, it doesn't matter what OLD contracts might or might not have been like. What matters is the terms in the contrats YOU agree to. DAZ's contract legally stops one from using their joint parameters for anything. It makes no provision for supporting content, no provision for compatible textures, zip, nada, zilch. It states that one cannot copy any part of their "3D Model" (by which they also mean the rigging, i.e. joint params) for distribution. Simple, if completely draconian. As for the textures issue, one CAN actually classify them as derivative products where the use of the mesh or a derivative UV map image (such as SnowSultan's seam maps) was REQUIRED for it's creation. The example of "leather textures" I will acknowledge are not really covered by this, but anything where you need to place the eyebrow textures correctly, the lipstick within the right region, etc ,uses the UV's for this purpose. As such, they can be classified as derivative products. If this were NOT the case, why would CL make an explicit mention of this exact practice as something they allow as an EXCEPTION to the standard rule? I work in the software industry for a living and so I am kind of used to crappy EULA's. But what really takes me back is their provision that one cannot create a "substantially similar" creation. That would be like Microsoft stating in their EULA that acceptance of it means one cannot work on developing "window-based user interfaces". Oh, and no offence Pengy - but as mentioned, what WAS in CL's license isn't the problem. The problem is what IS in the DAZ EULA. And your "they can barely comprehend (let alone understand)" is so typically arrogant as to be laughable! Only people such as yourself can grasp the fundamentals of a license agreement? Give me a break! What does all of this mean to me? Well, it means that (given the figures are as ood as they look) I will be developing for Jessi & James. The agreement under which I can create content for them does not give CL the right to have it pulled at a moment's notice or "encoded" against their figures. Simply put, they allow me to create clothing, textures, etc for their stuff - no strings attached. DAZ do not

Alexa/Girl face supposedly the guy actually traced over the wireframe that Goosens had posted online. I don't know how much difference that makes. Ok, am amused Blackhearted. 2 words for you. Lara Croft. or how about. Tomb Raider. I can see why you might be a bit defensive about styles being protected. ;) Really it's all a matter of personal moral outrage and laws. Where is your line drawn, where is mine... and how do the lawyers look at it. We can all think what we want, as long as the stuff is done legally there's not much to be done.

But that doesn't mean I will stop creating stuff for the DAZ figures, because I like them as well. To me, it is more variety.

Variety, as they say, is the spice of life.

I can think of no reason not to take advantage of all of the good figures that we've got available to us.

"Ok, am amused Blackhearted. 2 words for you. Lara Croft. or how about. Tomb Raider." what i find amusing is how you pick me out of everyone in the MP to direct that at, ignoring the thousands of such characters in the marketplace - especially daz - at this moment. mine is actually quite stylized and nowhere at all do i mention any affiliation. where were you when daz was doing the lord of the rings thing? they had 'LORD OF THE RINGS' text, logos, pic snippets, etc plastered all over the site. they sold a dozen products that were direct copies of the character, weapons, outfits, actors, creatures, etc in the movie - with LORD OF THE RINGS pasted on them. i nearly fell out of my chair when i saw it. im sure they had the full permission of the tolkien estate to do that too. and you point fingers at me? hah, what a joke.

Quite simple. Because you're the one here going on about it. I personally have your Irina stuff on my wish list. ;) Relax and enjoy the weekend. ^^

As to the question of why there's no support for alternative (to DAZ's) figures I'd like to open my mouth again. Although it seems to have died down some recently there was, initially, a lot of ridicule directed at alternative figures. Whether one considered DinaV ugly or not, the point is, that nobody did anything with her (except Handspan). At that point the market wasn't as big as it is now and my perception (right or wrong) was that nobody was going to do anything for her because everyone knew which side their bread was buttered on. And the victorias aren't that hot out of the box anyway but everyone worked their asses of making them the femme fatales they're considered to be. Has anyone ever responded to the repeated requests for a tutorial on remapping so they could remap DinaV to take any of the V's skins? No. I never saw one and I've seen repeated requests. This does not speak well of the community. Bread-butter? I still like DinaV, I wish there was a DinaV 3. Until you vendors unite and become an entity to be reckoned with this crap will only escalate. The lure of DAZ money is pretty strong when you're trying to make a living out of it I know but it's backfiring.

I tried to do a tutorial, AND I tried to do the remapping of Elle to V3. It's not easy. In fact, it's downright hard. I applaud those who have the patience to go through it. And, yeah, I realize the reason that people have neglected support for the other figures is because of the lure of the "bright lights." Heck, I've done it myself ... I tried some P5 support and when it didn't fly I changed direction again. But to put all the blame on DAZ for being a "monopoly" is wrong. The only thing stopping other figures from reaching popularity is content ... and until you see some content providers make a commitment to other figures we will see the same "DAZ is (insert favorite putdown here)" threads that we have been seeing over and over again. Don't put all of the blame on DAZ. We are just as much to blame for what some perceive as a "monopoly." I don't see it as a monopoly, I see it as giving the community what it appears they want the most.

Howdy Folks, I wanted to wait to post until Sixus1 had a chance to clarify their original statement but I have an appointment that can't wait any longer, so here you go. Since I've been involved with the whole Vicki/Lilin thing since the get-go I convinced DAZ that I should be the one post since I can answer most if not all of the questions & concerns raised so far. Now here's the skinny. 1) There was no reason that Lilin had to be pulled. In fact before the Sixus1 statement was released last night DAZ, and I, were under the impression that we were all still working toward an acceptible solution that would keep the model available. Instead Sixus1 released a statement that was originally a rought draft and was supposed to be reworked. 2) The joint parameters, falloff zones, ect weren't just "kinda close" or "almost the same". Every joint that was checked was an EXACT duplicate... as in copied, out to 3 decimal points. 3) You can take a look at the attached gif to see the "rough body shape" Take the heads off & there's not a whole lot of difference. Bear in mind that Vicki is not only copyrighted but also a trademarked property of DAZ. 4)As I said I've got some real world things to attend to for the next couple of hours but after Les releases the clarifications, I'll be back to answer any addditional questions & deal with some of the misinformation that's been handed out in this thread.

"As to the question of why there's no support for alternative (to DAZ's) figures I'd like to open my mouth again. Although it seems to have died down some recently there was, initially, a lot of ridicule directed at alternative figures." recent incidents like the alexa deal do little to strengthen the support for alternate figures. if i ever risked backing an alternative figure id want to make damn sure it was 100% legit, otherwise i could be wasting my time and effort entirely. i know very little about the alexa thing, and i rarely visit commune, but i can only imagine the merchants' grief who provided addon content for such a figure. id probably hunt down the creator and strangle him for betraying me like that. the problem with most of the alternative figures out there is that they lack the financial backing that daz has. daz can afford to endlessly market their products and projects an aura of professionality. ill tell you right now - besides the aesthetic consideration a large consideration on the part of a merchant considering to create add-ons for a figure is how confident they are that that figure will succeed, and will be strongly marketed. so many times ive hesitated before jumping in with support for a figure and have seen it fade out of existence a month later. this is a big problem. perhaps by hesitating we merchants also contribute to the problem. what daz is doing right now is incredibly foolish. they are messing with the formerly unshakeable confidence their add-on creators have had in their products. mess with it too much and it will crumble and they will seek other products to support. if they underestimate the amount V3/M3/etc are dependant on content creator support than they are even more foolish than i can imagine. "Relax and enjoy the weekend. ^^" :) its the weekend? ah crap, this is what i get for living in the frozen wastes and being self-employed :( cheers, -gabriel

Wow, cooler, it's really clear now. Thanks, that clears up a lot.

cooler: wow ok, ill stfu now. my apologies to daz. before i jump into these discussions i should research them a bit more - taking what the original posters said as fact i assumed we were just talking about a similar shape and not a near-duplicate. if someone released something like that of one of my characters id skin them alive. but since you are very influential when it comes to EULAs at daz perhaps you can convey to them the fact that some of the things in their EULA make content-creators want to run away screaming. everything i said about being terrified creating things for daz (or CL) figures when i read these threads still very much applies. i dont understand why they cant just have an EULA that states that add-on content is OK as long as you are not redistributing part of the mesh or morphs and as long as the add-on does not eliminate the need to purchase the original daz product. why all the rest of the scary legal stuff?

In all fairness to Sixus, I believe he thought he was doing a good thing for the community by making a figure that would have lots of clothing automatically. He deserves credit for that. EDIT: And in all fairness to the people at DAZ, who in my experience are extremely good people, they don't deserve all of the bad rap that they get either.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 18:36

i guess you are right. i mean im speculating on their intentions based on lines in their EULA that they havent actually enforced yet. if they actually do enforce them, then its a massive backstab for content-creators. but if they never intend to enforce them, then why not make a friendlier EULA? even though the Daz crew have very rarely given me reason to be upset at them the fact that this stuff exists in their EULA makes me extremely uneasy... regardless of their 'intentions'. i think its extremely unfair to content creators. its like working in a house rigged all over with C4. no matter how nicely you decorate the place or how cozy you get it to be, or how low the rent is, you still know it can blow at any moment so you can never quite relax and just do your work.... even if the guy holding the remote detonator never intends to use it, the fact that its in his hands is enough to encourage you to move elsewhere :)

'mac, though isn't ERC born from what was already present in what we call a "full body morph" and is just applied to other dials rather than morph dials linked to the Body. Seems to be just new ways for an old trick ;)' Joseph, It's an unimportant issue, given the general topic of this thread, but yes, ERC was already present in poser. Rob and Charles just developed it into something incredibly useful. Just like INJ/REM, which started out in life as the humble readscript command to load the default figure. It's true that Rob didn't 'invent' these things, but he sure as hell took them way beyond anything CL ever imagined. mac