"I was surprised to see a copyright myth being promulgated here - that a cr2 file can't be copyrighted. Feel free to try telling that to Daz or any other distributor of cr2 files containing proprietary morph data. Any document can be copyrighted, regardless of mythology to the contrary."

Incorrect.

Not any document can be copyrighted. It must have sufficient originality.

Precedent has already established that program settings cannot be copyrighted, as effectively explained by EK. Precendent which has been tested several times internationally as well as within the US, and stood up every time.

They can, however contain copyrighted information (in this case, morphs and geometry).

Anything which determine the basic functionality of an item within a program is absent that copyright. This would include, within a cr2, any sort of functionality information (bending, twisting moving, postioning -- in short, rigging).

for the purpose of simplicity: you create a morph, and that morph is stored in the cr2; that morph is copyrighted material. The Cr2 itself is not.

A cr2, stripped of all copyrightable information, is nothing more than a file contianing postioning information for the program to function effectively on the object -- program settings. The object itself and derivations there of are subject to copyright, but the program settings -- no matter how creatively the settings are used, or how originally they are put together -- are not subject to such.

DAZ knows this. DAZ's Lawyers know this. This is why they have created a contractual agreement that expressly forbids the use of their settings from their figures by the purchaser.

However, DAZ is also aware that since these are program settings, it is entirely possible for those exact same settings to be arrived at independently of using their figure, strictly on the basis of form and shape.

To further reduce the likelihood of such happening, they have trademarked the specific shape of Victoria and Michael, as well -- so a variance is required, which prevents, once again, actual duplication of the exact space points uniformly throughout the figure. (Renda was not exact, therefore was not subject to the trademark).

However, because they are program settings, and they can be duplicated independently and with certainty and are wholly dependent on the application itself, they are not sufficiently capable of being original works under the USCO code and the effective treaties and agreements thereby associated.

It is not a myth. It is an established precedent. It is also an invovled aspect of IP law that affects far more than just poser.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)