OK, I hate doing this. I really do. But I also hate being played and that's just what I think is going on. Most people reading this will remember my post a month ago on the DAZ EULA and how it restricts us merchants. Most people will also remember that Dan Farr himself came in to reassure us all that the EULA isn't all that bad and pointed us at their clarification on their website. Some of those will remember that he also offered those of us still doubtful about the whole issue a written clarification on request. Well, I asked for such a written agreement as offered two days afterward. I needed to repeat this request three times to get an answer (twice through their "official" contact page and once through a PM to Dan Farr). The answer, of course, being a pointer to a thread on their forums with a general clarification in response to the Alexa fiasco. Never mind the fact that the body of my request explicitly stated the fact that I was after the agreement offered by Dan Farr (President of the DAZ corporation) and never mind that the clarification I was pointed at did not answer the questions I explicitly asked to be answered. Ignoring that, I replied (via email) to the person who sent me the email thanking them for their reply (with no remarks as to the time taken or number of requests required to get it) and politely asking again for a written agreement/clarification from DAZ. I mentioned (again) that I was simply following up on an offer made by Dan Farr, that the clarifications provided did not answer my questions, and even took the time to whip up a theoretical situation to shed light on why the clarifications offered by DAZ were too ambiguous/incomplete to be taken "as is". After a few days, I copy+pasted that email into their contact page (again) as I had not recieved any reply (not even a "Thanks, I'll look into it"). It is almost a week since then. I had hoped that by now I would have an agreement/clarification from DAZ (as offered) detailing my rights as a merchant (as opposed to their "end user" EULA explanation). I had hoped that I could start a thread, publically detailing where I was wrong (and where I remain right) in the previous EULA thread and make a freebie offering "in apology" and as proof of my comfort in selling merchandise under the DAZ agreement. Looks like that isn't going to happen. Either Dan Farr misrepresented his intentions of clarifying our additional rights or they are avoiding answering the questions I asked directly (for whatever reasons they might have - I won't speculate). I am not "anti-DAZ" and had hoped to prove otherwise with a public apology, explanation, and freebie. I believe I have given DAZ plenty of time to answer me privately. Perhaps the "nay-sayers" are right, and the only way to get their attention is to cause a fuss. So be it.

cause a fuss over there, more likey to get a response

Possibly. But it's also possible they'll simply move the thread away from sight (after all it is their forum). Last time I mentioned my problems here - Dan Farr himself came on over. Something tells me - unless they think this issue (and/or myself) are of little consequence - I'll get some feedback from this.

Remember, I tried to do this the nice way. And if anyone is interested - I'll post the exact emails/messages (minus the headers stating how many times I have sent it before). I will not post the email I got in return (in respect for the service representative), but my reply to said message is available should people wish to see it. EDIT: Spelling mistakes corrected

Message edited on: 04/11/2005 21:59

can you give a short bullet point list of the content you were looking for in the written clarification?

Easiest if I post the first question - it's primarily bullet point anyway. This email is a request to obtain written clarification of the "exceptions" to your EULA in regards to the allowed uses of your "proprietary information" as offered on the Renderosity forums. I would also like to obtain written clarification of my obligations in regards to the distribution of products containing said proprietary information. If possible, could the written clarification answer the following questions directly either as a part of the main text or as an addendum to it. 1. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related meshes I make and distribute? 2. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related products created using the joint parameters of a figure? 3. Is the use of figure morphs allowed in creating derivative clothing-related products? 4. Am I required to encode a product using derivatives of either the joint parameter data or UV layout of a figure provided the product is not a competing figure (i.e. is clothing or texture related)? I am hoping that this clarification will resolve any of the ambiguities/contradictions that have been brought to my attention recently in regards to what the EULA says and what DAZ has stated publically. I look forward to your contact, Regards, Benjamin Tolputt

can you give a short bullet point list of the content you were looking for in the written clarification?

I am sort of thinking along the same lines.

Without more detail, I can't quite follow what the difficulty is. Other than what you consider to be non-responsiveness.

This kind of looks like an internal DAZ matter to me. Something to continue to take up with them.

If they don't answer -- then you've gotten your answer.

Not the way that you'd like it, of course. But it's an answer.

Bringing it over here probably won't win you any kewpie dolls -- and it might just succeed in creating some......uh......"un-friends".

It's best to stroke people that you wish to do business with. Certain individuals don't like that simple truth: but that doesn't make it any less the truth. Message edited on: 04/11/2005 22:41

OK -- Upon reading your list, I think that I understand what DAZ's problem is. Simple: they don't want to provide you with ammunition to use against them. And that's most likely the blunt truth.

I don't think they can easily respond to that, except in some way that notifies everybody, not just you. You can use whatever terms of use came with a specific product you bought from them, provided you read the fine print to see whether you agreed to use the product under their terms, even one of those terms is that they are allowed to modify the terms of use at any time.

First - I'm note trying to win "kewpie dolls". I'm not doing this for popularity or for "kicks". I know next to no-one in the "poser community" nor am I likely to. I simply want re-assurance they are not going to come after me at some point, and the only way I can do that is to either not use their products at all or get the rules for their use clarified.

Now, the "blunt truth" of my predicament is that I am not trying to do business with DAZ anymore than I am dong business with Microsoft when writing software using their tools. I purchase a license to use their tools (with the rights & obligations clearly spelt out) and provided I am not copying their code verbatim or reverse engineering their software - I am fine. I am simply trying to get the same "fire and forget" agreement from DAZ that I get for the rest of the products I use (I develop software for a living, I model for fun and minor profit).

If the "blunt truth" of their side is that answering my questions opens them up for attack - then you are quite right, Xeno. My questions have been answered in a most negative light. If that is the case (and I'm not saying it is - DAZ has yet to determine that, and I try not to look like a fool when I can), shouldn't other merchants know what questions DAZ will not answer in regards to content development.

My request to DAZ was to get things clarified for projects I have in the works or are already ready for distribution. I'm sure if I was trying to "trap them" into saying something incriminating, I would have had someone better at creating such issues do it for me. I too am blunt, and just don't have what it takes to "hide" my intentions in such a way. Have a look at the messages I have written - do I SOUND like a guy who speaks like a politician?!? Oh, and the "terms" that come with the products I have from DAZ (V3/M3 in particular) state that I cannot use ANY of the data (including joint parameters, uv's, etc) from their products. that was what "part 1" of this thread was about a month ago... EDITED: To reply to mateos

Message edited on: 04/11/2005 23:10

A side note: in no way, shape, or form do I claim to speak for DAZ.

But certain things aren't too hard to figure out.

I too am blunt, and just don't have what it takes to "hide" my intentions in such a way. Have a look at the messages I have written - do I SOUND like a guy who speaks like a politician?!?

I certainly agree with you here.

And that's why it's not likely that you'll get much out of them.

You've shown a willingness to start up threads like this one. So, they aren't going to be putting you onto their "friends" list.

If Dan Farr responds to this thread, then he'll probably do it in the same manner as any good businessman. Without getting into a wrangling match.

That's what I'd do, were I in his position.

Or I wouldn't respond at all. That's usually the smart way for a business to handle something like this.

Message edited on: 04/11/2005 23:17

laugh You have got to love a world where doing business with someone who is honest about their intentions is a bad thing. Not disagreeing with you, Xeno - just amused at the irony of it. Oh, and for the record - I am not trying to get Dan Farr or even a DAZ representative to reply to me "in the open". As I mentioned, I tried the whole personal contact thing. If this causes them to send me an email - all well and good. If not, "to be blunt", I think DAZ will need to explain why to the merchants they rely on for the success of their products (that does NOT include me by the way - I have yet to release a DAZ-figure compliant product due to this very problem!). After all, Dan did say we could obtain such a written agreement clarifying their position. These are not "out of the ordinary" questions I am asking. And they are required for anyone concerned about the legal grounds on which they base their Poser-content business (at least if said business involves the DAZ EULA).

E.K., if you didn't do it, maybe you should include a copy of the reply Dan Farr gave you in that other thread. I remember him telling you that DAZ would give those details about their EULA by writing if asked. SO if you were to copy that reply from Dan Farr and paste it in your email, maybe they'll believe you? France

These are not "out of the ordinary" questions I am asking.

There are thousands of third-party products out there that have been created by Poser content developers. These products are made using DAZ's joint parameter information. If they didn't use that same information, the clothing would not work properly on the DAZ figures. DAZ hasn't laid claim to this content, making the answers to your first two questions pretty clear. While the questions don't seem out of the ordinary, the answers seem obvious to me. 8-)

I can also answer a third one. In order to fit a morphed character, you have a couple of solutions. You can use The Tailor, which DAZ sells (so we know that's OK), or you can hand-modify your clothing in a modeling app to fit the morphed model. Either way, you are using the DAZ figure as a reference to modify the clothing you made. However, because the geometry of your clothing is probably different than the geometry that DAZ created, you are not violating a copyright. DAZ has already answered that one in previous threads.

As for the last question, I reserve comment out of respect for those whose feelings (both sides) were involved the first time around in the thread where your questions were raised. I will not be a part of rehashing that again. Sorry.

Message edited on: 04/12/2005 01:16

There are thousands of third-party products out there that have been created by Poser content developers. These products are made using DAZ's joint parameter information. If they didn't use that same information, the clothing would not work properly on the DAZ figures. DAZ hasn't laid claim to this content, making the answers to your first two questions pretty clear. The emphasised portion is actually not quite true. It just means that DAZ hasn't decided to pursue these people yet (or, at least, "not to our knowledge" for the conspiracy fans grin). Besides which, the problem is that the DAZ clarifications do not specify clearly our "obligations" to DAZ as far as these "derivative" products are concerned. This is something people tend to overlook. Yes, we are allowed to use their data, but under what conditions. I highly doubt it is as simple as "as long as the product is not a figure". I can also answer a third one. In order to fit a morphed character, you have a couple of solutions. You can use The Tailor, which DAZ sells (so we know that's OK), or you can hand-modify your clothing in a modeling app to fit the morphed model. Either way, you are using the DAZ figure as a reference to modify the clothing you made. However, because the geometry of your clothing is probably different than the geometry that DAZ created, you are not violating a copyright. DAZ has already answered that one in previous threads. Actually, not to dig up a dead topic but Lilin2 was "all original" geometry. So the "shape" of a figure (i.e. a morph) is obviously something that they classify as protected under their EULA. The problem I have is not HOW to do something, but under what conditions & obligations am I allowed to do it? As for the last question, I reserve comment out of respect for those whose feelings (both sides) were involved the first time around in the thread where your questions were raised. I will not be a part of rehashing that again. Sorry. No need to be sorry. While I am somewhat ticked at being ignored by them, I am not trying to "re-ignite" a flame-war. Quite the opposite. My aim is to get the clarifications (promised by Dan himself) to quell the ambiguities that start these arguments. In my opinion, the best option for them is to create a new "legalese" document as an extension/addendum to the EULA and have it available for download from their site. Keep the FAQ's and so on for letting people know their rights in "laymen's language", but also have a definitive text from which people can read their EXACT rights & obligations.

It just means that DAZ hasn't decided to pursue these people yet (or, at least, "not to our knowledge" for the conspiracy fans grin).

DAZ has several PA's (published artists) that sell Millenium figure clothing at other sites as well. When they submit content to DAZ, the folks at DAZ put it through QA testing. They have the opportunity to see how the clothing is constructed, and how it works on the figure. They test it in various poses to make sure there is minimal pokethrough. And in order for the clothing to work, it needs to use their joint parameters.

If DAZ allows the clothing to go through, that means they have no problem with it. The clothing made for the other sites is made the same way ... in many cases by many of the same people. Your assumption that DAZ "just hasn't gotten to them yet" is wrong. 8-)

I am not saying this to be confrontational, but you might be reading more into this than there really is. If content developers are concerned about particulars in regards to this, then perhaps it is better to ask DAZ directly instead of looking at a "definitive text" that everyone will interpret differently.

Message edited on: 04/12/2005 02:38

sigh I DID ask DAZ directly. They didn't answer - hence this thread. The idea of a "definitive text" is not unusual either - what do you think an EULA is? Written the right way, the interpretation of them is highly limited otherwise "contracts" wouldn't be possible would they? :) Also, we already know that DAZ makes agreements with people to do things they normally wouldn't allow. Take for example several figures with V2 uv's (without the requirement for encoding). All of which is beside the point really. The point is, DAZ offered a written clarification of the rights granted above and beyond the EULA. They have yet to make good on that offer despite many repeated requests.

Although the manner in which E_K is pursuing the issue may be questionable (and you should consider raising a fuss over there, even if they do move the thread -- crusades are not popular, but they are always most effective when taken to the source), he is correct. The fact that DAZ has not yet exercised rights does not indicate that they cannot. However, there is a factor that is important for you to consider, E_K. That factor is that you have asked for these conditions, and then expected them to be immediately available. Such is not the case nor the implication. It might take six months for you to recieve a response. THat response may require examination by an attorney. That response may, as noted earlier, be something that they feel is better suited to a full, public disclosure. Lastly, keep in mind the reality of the situation. DAZ does not, under any circumstances, want a fuss raised about this. It is bad publicity, and the standard method for dealing with bad publicity is to ignore it. Lastly, and, truly, most importantly, if the issue is of so great a concern to you, then your best bet is to NOT support DAZ. And make no mistake. Buying their goods is only part of the support for them. Buying anything made for any of their goods -- and now, buying from Poser pros -- is support for them. Making stuff for them or for their products is support for them. There is no need to be negative about them, either, when supporting other products. Aside from generating ill will (which, in this business, will kill you quicker than you can imagine), it makes you look whiney to the greater population of non-posting members to this site. Incidentally, if you do morphing/shaping of characters, email me, lol. The more productive use of your time in the longest run will most likely to work on supporting and underserved figure or market. Short term, yes, the money is in the daz figures, and if money is your sole motiviation, then the business at this time is not for you.

It's certainly an interesting question but I agree it might take some time. Just to note...Daz also went after posermatics Aiko_Man over the same JP Issue.

I do think your analogy with compilers for programming languages, while a bit strained, is appropriate. Perhaps the Joint Paremeters are better compared to a library than to the actual compiler: actual chunks of code which let you do useful stuff. In that light, Poser itself is closer to the compiler. And why is this important: I don't know the history of the business, and I'm not all that well up on the history of software licences in general. but there's a quarter century of history on personal computer software in general, and what the various rights mean. I don't know of the same solid history surrounding 3D graphics models. And if the arguments get serious both sides have to explain things to a judge. Now, I can see Daz thinking very seriously about this, and checking with lawyers, and maybe having to explain some things to lawyers. They might not be able to easily give the answer that was promised. Fair enough. I don't, myself, see why they couldn't have told you that. Interesting thought: is the Poser Setup Room legal under the DCMA? It lets you take data from a figure and apply it to a clothing item...

Thanks for the input, ynsaen.

First, I have started a thread over at DAZ. I am not expecting much from it, but I took xenophonz's advice and wewnt to the source. Worst comes to worst, they 'll remove it and I'll have to "crusade" here grin

Secondly, you summed up the primary issue quite well. Just because I haven't done something doesn't mean I can't. Same goes for DAZ. Hence the reason for requesting written clarification.

I disagree that I should be patient about the whole thing (six months! No way!). DAZ implied that their clarifications on the EULA should be enough for everyone. If they were "clear enough" already - it logically follows that writing them down is no big hassle. To quote Dan Farr:
"Concerning the DAZ EULA. I want to mention once again. If any developer is personally concerned with the terms of our EULA reaching beyond what we have made very clear that our intentions are, please contact us directly and we will put in writing privately, what we have put in writing publicly here and in our FAQ's and other forum posts."

In essence, I read the above as being somewhat incredulous that we would require such a written clarification but DAZ will be nice and give it to us anyway. It would "appear" that this is just PR bull to calm the natives given that no such written confirmation or message to say that they're working on one has been forthcoming in a month of polite repeated requests.

Now they can of course ignore me. Seems like they already are. And like ynsaen mentioned, I can support other companies (something I already do). What about those people that take the word of big companies (and let's be frank - in Poserom, DAZ is big) only to find out after weeks of work that DAZ has reserved the right to stop them distributing/selling it. I can't stand-by and wath that happen when a simple clarification can resolve things one way or the other.

Say what you like about my methods - but I am not out to "bring down DAZ", nor could I. I am simply trying to get clarification on a few legal loose-ends from a company that implies they have answered the issues already. Ignoring me (in my mind) validates the arguments of those that say DAZ cannot agree to things on paper as they don't really mean what they say shrug Side note: is the Poser Setup Room legal under the DCMA I'd say it IS because the data is available for everyne anyway. One of the things the DMCA was designed to do was stop people reverse engineering "protection", I don't think it applies to something unprotected by code/encryption. I am, however, not a lawyer

Message edited on: 04/12/2005 07:51

I would be suprised if you were to get a definitive answer from DAZ describing the situation regarding all possible models you might create in the future, which contain some element of their products. I think such an answer would need to be either be so restrictive that it might unnecessarily stop people developing DAZ compatible products, or so relaxed that it might damage their position if they decided to take action in future on something they saw as infringing their EULA. You might be able to get a definitive answer if you were to ask about a specific example of a model you have made, or intend to make. I get the impression that DAZ reserve the right to refuse permission for elements of their products to be used in derivative works, but only excercise that right if the derivative work is considered to be in competition with their own products. So if you use joint parameters of a figure to make clothing that's probably OK, but if you use them to make another figure that's probably not (at their discretion). Having said that, if you were to use DAZ joint parameters to make a clothing item very very similar to an existing DAZ product they might well complain. This is just an opinion from a non lawyer, non merchant though. Ian

DAZ has basically said in previous posts that they put a lot of time and money into the development of their figures, and if they see a product that circumvents the need for it, it raises concern to them. There is nothing wrong with that. If you create a human figure that is shaped the same as a DAZ figure and uses the same joint parameters, you no longer need the DAZ figure to wear all of the clothing. It circumvents the need for the DAZ figures. That raises a concern to them. If you use DAZ's joint parameters to make a piece of clothing for a DAZ figure, that is not a concern. You need the DAZ figure to use the clothing. That is not a concern. DAZ has already addressed these things in public, though I may have paraphrased it a bit. As Ian has pointed out, giving a specific example may lend better results to the questions you ask. If DAZ responds with the blanket statement that you seek, it could STILL raise questions and misinterpretations (a good case in point of that is Renderosity's TOS ... everyone sees it differently!). That is why it is best to take specifics directly to DAZ.

Ian Porter, the idea of something being similar to a DAZ product sounds likely to be covered by a lot of IP law anyway. Think "counterfeiting" in such areas as clothing. As I said earlier, I wonder if mass-market CGI is still awkwardly new.

Posted to your thread at DAZ. Glad to see Dan is on the ball. mac

Just a quick update: 1. I am not trying to get clarifications for anything other than use in the development of clothing and texture related products. If I need to go to DAZ for clarification on every clothing/texture related product I create - that is unacceptable (and I assume DAZ would feel the same way). 2. I do not want to us the DAZ meshes for anything other than sculpting non-figure products around (clothing needs to fit the body after all), and using the uv information contained in the mesh for use in texture related products. 3. Dan Farr has replied to me in the DAZ forums. He states that he will reply publically in the thread over there to answer the questions (for those interested in the answers). While it sucks to say it, it proves that the squeaky wheel gets the attention. If I HADN'T complained publically - I doubt I would suddenly be getting the response now shrug

"we will put in writing privately, what we have put in writing publicly here and in our FAQ's and other forum posts." Doesn't sound like they were going to tell you anything really new anyway. It makes sense for them to be as non-specific as possible. We're not talking about a hammer here. It's all just data. People here have already figured out a lot of clever ways to do things that the creators probably never envisioned. They don't want to end up in the position of having ok'ed something only to find that someone's figured out a way to take money off the table that they think should be theirs. From their point of view, that's just good business sense.

Yes, but the "good business sense" you are talking about is completely one-sided. It is NOT good business sense for merchants to base a business (and in some cases, a living) on ambiguous "clarifications". In fact, it's just plain "bad business sense" to do so. Hence the reason I asked specific questions (i.e. outline your rights over content created given said conditions and outline my obligations when distributing said content). Do you think DAZ buys content to be sold in their store under ambiguous conditions? No, of course not - and niether should we. As you said - it's just "good business sense" :) Again, this is not DAZ specific. This applies to any contract entered into, regardless of whether it is for Poser content or buy a house.

I agree completely. Usually though, "good" becomes "bad" only when it negatively impacts the bottom line enough for them to overrule the lawyers :-)

laugh I would assume that is what the current delay is about. Dan knows that avoiding my questions now is going to cause problems in the PR department and I'm betting the lawyers are trying to find a way to keep as much control as possible without sounding like it. I am assuming that Dan Farr will make good on his word and answer my questions properly (i.e. addressing the specifics). If not, well - the PR hit is something they'll have to deal with. shrug I make no apologies for my desire to have specifics and as noted at the start of this thread - I did give them the opportunity to give them to me in private.

just watching

For those that are interested: Dan Farr has replied to me over in the DAZ Forums. And, as per my suggestions (though they probably didn't do it because of them!), they are creatinig a "developers agreement" and will be placing it up on their site. This of course will take a while due to the fact that it will be a "legal document" and as such, will have lawyeres crawling all over it before it is released evil grin Dan has said, however, that in the short-term he will answer my questions directly in the thread over there. For the convenience of and as a courtesy to those reading this thread - I will copy his answers here when I get them (hopefully tomorrow) EK

Eternal_Knight, for the sake of clarity it's probably best if you can keep the discussions all in one place. Therefore could I ask you to post the link to the thread at the Daz forums where Dan Farr has replied, and I will then lock this thread. Thanks Karen Poser Moderator

" Eternal_Knight, for the sake of clarity it's probably best if you can keep the discussions all in one place." ??? how about Here where it started?? sorry, you make no sense since there are ppl that will not / cannot use the Daz site. (mainly that bloody java).

Karen, There are some of us who will not comment over there. On anything. Whether we are merchants or our friends are merchants this does concern all of us. Even people who give away free stuff need to know where the lines are drawn. And, as Khai pointed out, the topic started over here. Carolly

I see no reason to close the thread. It wouldn't be the first thread that links with another one. And it's definitely a topic of interest to renderosity users. mac

Eternal_Knight and I have been in contact by IM and discussed this. My concern is that I have seen this before where information is posted all over different forums and sites and the message becomes very incoherent. However as Khai, Carolly and mac have said and E_K also pointed out to me, some of you don't wish to go to Daz, so I have agreed to leave this thread open so that Dan's expected clarification can be reposted here too. Hope that suits everyone :-)

Thanks, karen. That's a good deal. Actually, I spend most of my time at DAZ and have no problems going there. But I don't see why other people should be forced to if they don't want to. I respect their right to surf wherever they feel comfortable. mac

Yep, sounds fine! Thanks, Karen.

Dan has replied in the DAZ thread in regards to my questions. His post is in italics below. Benjamin, I will attempt to clarify our position and respond to your questions. First of all I think it is worthwhile to state our intentions with our copyright and EULA. Generally speaking, our intention is to prevent people from using our products to create derivative products that are competitive to our own (we do not consider an article of clothing to be a competitive product for a figure even if its a derivative.) A specific example would be if someone used the Victoria mesh to create another human figure mesh product. It doesnt matter to what extent they use Victoria in the process. It doesnt matter whether they use it as a guide or template for shrink wrapping or if it contains pieces of actual geometry, it is still considered derivative of Victoria. In cases like that, we do not claim ownership of the new geometry, but we because it is a derivative, it cannot be distributed without the use of encoding to the product(s) from which it was derived. Some people think that because they use shrink wrapping technology (or other methods) to fit a new mesh to an existing mesh that they are fine. But effectively what they are doing is stealing the shape of the mesh they are shrink wrapping to. Although in some cases clothing for Victoria may technically be considered derivative, it is not always a competitive derivative. If it is made to support Victoria and enhance her capabilities and usefulness, then it may be deemed to be a derivative that is allowed to be distributed. For example, you could use the Victoria model as a shape template to create a skirt that would fit her and we would not claim rights or ownership of that new skirt model. At the same time, you couldnt just use an existing skirt model to create a new skirt model without being under the distribution restrictions of the EULA. We often see situations where people try to circumvent our agreements or attempt to look for loopholes so that they can do things contrary to the intentions of our EULA. So, in order to boil this down before I address your questions specifically let me say this. The single best thing to do is contact DAZ about your specific situation. Due to the fact that we simply cannot foresee every possible infraction of our EULA, we cannot thoroughly outline exactly what is allowed and what is not. It varies on a product by product (or mesh by mesh) basis. When you have a specific product that you are going to begin, and you know that you are going to be using an existing model in your creative process, you need to contact the creator of the existing model first, be it DAZ or someone else, and get specific permission from that creator first. As far as DAZ is concerned, we will happily let you know whether or not it will be seen as an infringement of our EULA or not. 1. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related meshes I make and distribute? If you have not used an existing DAZ product in your creative process, then DAZ will not make any claims (this is not intended to cover second-generation derivatives). If you have used an existing DAZ product in some part of your creative process, then it will depend on the type of clothing item you make and whether your new product in some way is competitive to the existing DAZ product you used to create your new mesh. 2. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related products created using the joint parameters of a figure? So long as the joint parameters are not copied from any existing DAZ joint parameters, then DAZ will make no claims. We do allow for the perpetual redistribution of those parameters for the purpose of fitting and using clothing. (We still retain technical ownership of the joint data, so that no one can simply create a competitive figure based on the DAZ-created joint parameters in your clothing item.) 3. Is the use of figure morphs allowed in creating derivative clothing-related products? Absolutely, if the intention is to fit the clothing to the additive morphs of that figure. 4. Am I required to encode a product using derivatives of either the joint parameter data or UV layout of a figure provided the product is not a competing figure (i.e. is clothing or texture related)? As long as it is not a competing figure you are not required to use encoding for the distribution of the joint parameters associated with the product. As for the UV layout, I dont understand where that would apply to an add-on clothing item. I sincerely hope that this addresses your questions sufficiently. Hopefully, our intentions are clearer to you now. Id like to encourage you to develop new items for our products and discourage copying of them to use as competitive products. Sincerely, Dan Farr

I have some problems with the text as written as I find it is just as unclear as previous "clarifications". Basically, the text Dan has written is useless as a "fire & forget" agreement. I replied to him in regards to this. My post is in italics below. Feel free to nit-pick my response as much as I did his. With all due respect Dan (and I do have respect for someone who can build a business like DAZ - I am not being sarcastic), your clarifications are not what I (or other developers who have contacted me since the start of this situation) are after. Let me state for the record that I am VERY sensitive to language in these "clarifications". After all, I am trying to get a somewhat "fire & forget" agreement here and as such these words are all I have to back up any work I do until the "developer's agreement" is finalised. Firstly, I do understand your position and am not trying to "steal" DAZ intellectual property. However, the paragraph that talks about how others have tried using loopholes boils down to "We have the right to veto a product should we deem it competitive". This is no better than before as I STILL need to come to you with every product to determine if it is OK. Your line "we cannot thoroughly outline exactly what is allowed and what is not" basically invalidates the use of this statement as any kind of defence in a court of law as you can simply state "Well, this situation was one of those we couldn't 'outline exactly'". Secondly, it is next to impossible to create clothing without using a DAZ product in the creative process. That is, I NEED to use the V3 figure mesh somewhere in the creative process to fit clothing meshes around! As such, the answer to the first question is also useless (unless one happens to have a 3D photographic memory). Perhaps you meant "'provided only the [i]form[/i] of the content is used and not the content data". If so, could the wording of the answer be changed to reflect that and you have my apologies. Next, I assume by the answer to question two that you mean I can use the joint parameters for the use of fitting and using clothing, but when redistributing the clothing I need to state in the license that the joint parameters used in said content are to be used in accordance with the DAZ EuLA? If this is the case, could DAZ provide us with the legal language for us to include in our licenses, as they too are subject to misinterpretation. There is also the issue that there is a significant amount of content out there with licenses making no mention of this requirement. As such, a person using such an article of clothing is not "legally subject" to it. This is something DAZ will need to deal with as I cannot find reference to this continued ownership anywhere else (though I personoally am quite fine with the clause). The third question is answered quite clearly and I thank you for the clarification. The last question is answered quite clearly as far as the joint parameters are concerned (as long as one ignores the "right to veto" paragraph at the start of the message). There was no UV data answer though due to the fact you didn't see it as necessary to my creation of clothing content. As I mentioned in my initial message, this is in regards to "clothing or texture related" products. As such, I wanted the clarification in regards to "texture related" products for the figures themselves. Given that you have the UV templates available on the products page, it is quite possible that using them as a basis of texture products is acceptable "fari use" under copyright, but I was asking to be clear on the issue. In summary, while I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this - the answers leave us no better off than before in terms of clarity because of two reasons - you have reserved the right to veto any products you classify as competitive (in other words - the above agreement can be read that I cannot create a better catsuit, as an example) and the use of figure meshes are required in the creative process, otherwise one could not fit the clothing to the mesh. I am not trying to cause a public hassle with all of this (as mentioned - I tried to do this in private), however as you have stated your wish to have this dealt with in this thread - I am raising my concerns here. Regards, B.J.Tolputt

Well, I can see your point, but I sincerely doubt if any company in the world would give a blanket reply in a public forum to questions of that nature. DAZ can't come out and say 'Yeah, it's fine' when they don't know what the product is, haven't seen it and don't know how much of their own work has been used to make it. To me, Dan's reply seemed pretty fair, and could be boiled down to 'You can use our products to create other products which enhance them, but you can't use them to create products which will be in direct competition with them'. I doubt you'd get anywhere near that much out of Bill Gates. mac

I see your point maclean. However, agreements are MEANT to be specific. Otherwise they are pretty much useless. Besides which, I don't think anyone should use Bill Gates as an example supporting their business practices!!!

LOL. I take your meaning. Bill Gates is a terrible example! I withdraw that comment. But Dan did say this. 'When you have a specific product that you are going to begin, and you know that you are going to be using an existing model in your creative process, you need to contact the creator of the existing model first, be it DAZ or someone else, and get specific permission from that creator first' Which I take to mean that he's answering the best he can, but for a specific model, you'd need to discuss it with them directly, basing an agreement only on that model. (I know you tried contacting him directly, but you know what I mean). I dunno. Let's see what he says in reply. mac

"I doubt you'd get anywhere near that much out of Bill Gates." try reading a M$ EULA sometime. thats watertight and very very very clear.... so far I still can't see a clear answer in the answers being given... I can read english very well and pride myself on reading some very complex matters and understanding them (try Physics texts like A Brief History of Time and Universe in a Nutshell etc) yet that did not read clearly at all for me and did'nt actually explain anything.

Unfortuntely, given your interpretation of Dan's statement (which coincides with my interpretation) - anyone making products for the DAZ figures needs to contact them BEFORE releasing them, regardless of the product. That is, to use your analogy, like Microsoft stating one can create applications for Windows as long as you ask them first (with the details of the product) whether it is OK. Much as I loathe the EuLA's M$ comes out with - not even they would dream of doing that! EK

WOTC had this game called Magic: the Gathering. They made a ton of money on it. Several tons. They noticed that other card games were coming out which were similar: collect cards, build decks, play at war with bits of cardstock. So they copyrighted the game-playing mechanisms in such broad terms that it could have covered canasta! THEN they insisted that they were not going to dry up the market for card games and they weren't being anti-competitive, BUT everybody designing a card game had to bring it to them FIRST (no matter how unrelated) and they would either allow it or squash it. And, if they allowed it, royalties would need to be paid... even if it wasn't derivative. Otherwise, their lawyers would visit. A field which should have flourished dried to a dusty weedpatch full of thorns. I used to respect Richard Garfield for not only creating a game, but a genre... but then I loathed him for strangling his own child. Greed. It wasn't the first time that greed dictated a move which ended up hurting them. If it is a choice between running to a company and asking permission for each and every item you wish to make BEFORE you make it... or making something else? And what if they gave permission but you had to change it mid-process... do you have to go ask permission again? Sorry, but I don't want to live with fear that my product idea will be usurped, or that it will be made obsolete or redundant before getting out the door, or that I have inadvertantly trespassed despite all due precaution... or even that some other figure has to sell well in order to lift my boat, too. If I make anything and put it into this market, it will be stand-alone. It might not be the best marketing decision, but it is better than depending upon a competitor's grace. Carolly

...but it is better than depending upon a competitor's grace. Exactly the point I am trying to get clarified. Currently, ALL of DAZ's clarifications to date have this exact problem, and that is we depend on their good grace to create and distribute our products and not be sued for it. They need to nail down the requirements clearly, concisely, and (more importantly) completely so we don't need to go to them for everything. If it is their desire that merchants go to them for an OK on everything, so be it, but they need to say that clearly so we don't have ambiguity. I am not saying that DAZ intend for us to do that - there is still PLENTY of room in what they said for clarification so that is not the case. Monitoring and reporting on events as they occur :) EK

E_K: but that's the point. It is in their best interests, when you really think about it, to perpetuate exactly what you describe -- doing otherwise would cost them marketshare that they cannot afford to give up. In short, it makes sense for that to hover over the community. It provides considerable leverage for a company seeking to create a large market for a new program. It doesn't even need to be used, that leverage. It just need to sit there.

They need to nail down the requirements clearly, concisely, and (more importantly) completely so we don't need to go to them for everything. Where did the idea that we have to go to them for everything come from? I've been creating Poser content for five years, and I don't have to ask DAZ's permission or blessing for any of it.

Because as Dan has stated in his latest post (which will be copied shortly along with my reply) - without asking, DAZ does not guarantee that they will not have an issue with it and hence can request it to be withdrawn from distribution/sale. As someone has mentioned before - just because DAZ has not exercised their rights does not mean they won't or can't.

Perhaps, but it seems to me that the biggest concern is over human figures, not the clothing that they wear. And there are a very limited number of people that are able to create believable human figures. As for clothing and textures, there are over a hundred PA's over at DAZ whose products are put through QA. Many of these PA's make content elsewhere, using the same procedures they do for DAZ - and they are the same procedures that pretty much every clothing creator uses. That is, they use the same joint parameters as the underlying figures to make the clothing work correctly in Poser. If there was ANY reason for DAZ to raise issues about the way that all Millenium clothing has been made for the last five years (is that about how long since V1 was released?), they would have had plenty of opportunity to state so by now. If they had, you can bet that everyone in the community would have made it known throughout the known universe. 8-)