Opera

In the scenario that you have mentioned DAZ would not have issues with the new model. No matter how good of a memory an artist may have, in my opinion, it would be impossible to get into what could be considered substantially similar without using the original mesh to get there. The human figure is much more difficult to claim substantially similar than it would be for a character like Micky Mouse. Because a figure has a nose, eyes ears all in humanoid proportions does not mean that a figure is substantially similar. We could make no such assertions.

I believe that the substantially similar clause is there to help us with issues around a model being a derivative of another model. It is to prevent a model (or images of that model) from being taken into a modeling application and used as a template or guide upon which an entirely new wireframe mesh is created or shrunk wrapped to either all or part of it. Even though this method could produce a completely different looking wireframe mesh it would not make it any less of a derivative product. You could potentially have two wireframe meshes that don't share any of the same points or segments but in topology (how it looks shaded) they could be nearly identical. The question that could be asked is, could Shape A have in any way be created without using shape B? If the answer is yes, then it would be difficult to prove that the meshes were substantially similar. Based on this explanation, the probability of someone creating a substantially similar model to another model without using that other model to get there in likely impossible.

I am not an attorney and my opinions are based on my limited understanding of these issues (I have to say that). With that being said, I would encourage people to please not make derivative figures unless they are fine encoding them to the figure from which they were derived.

I sincerely hope that this has clarified our position. :)

Dan Farr
President, DAZ Productions