I do graphic work for the US government. We have been modeling vehicles that we can purchase from various sites. I have suggested we purchase the 3D models to save time and money. I was told that our company (and the government) does not like to do this because they like to own the total rights to everything and there was a concern that the vendor could withdraw permission to use their models. Our company does renders for animations and still graphics for educational purposes. We do nothing that could be thought of as "improper or illegal" with our graphics. Any modifications to the models would be minimal and would not be shared or sold.

I have suggested we use Poser or Daz Studio for some of our work. They are concerned that the software can also have its permission to use be withdrawn. We do all of our modeling and animation in Studio Max. They do not understand the concept of "licensing the model" and "owning the renders".

Has anyone had permission to use a 3D model or modeling/posing software be withdrawn if they were legal purchases and no illegal use or copyright infringement was done?

I think Sanctum Arts HAS pulled that on people they suspected of pirating, even if those accused parties were not a party topirating their products.

Anton might also have changed the license use for Apollo at one point in time, but its hard to find an exact instance of this, I think.

I'm no lawyer, but I think this is quite unheard of in Poserland.
But anyway, no need to rely on opinions, just download the DAZ and Renderosity licenses, and show them to your lawyers; It's the license you sign when buying an item.

Quote - I think Sanctum Arts HAS pulled that on people they suspected of pirating, even if those accused parties were not a party topirating their products.

Anton might also have changed the license use for Apollo at one point in time, but its hard to find an exact instance of this, I think.

Once again, I'm not a lawyer, but the license binding you is the one valid at the moment you buy something. All later modifications don't affect you, much like new laws don't apply on things which happened before they were released.
If the government all of a sudden releases a law that you can't wear white shirts, you can't be thrown into prison because you wore one last year; Only if you wear one after the law was published.

yup- it's the licenses in the SPECIFIC zip file. Not the product itself. Even when sold at different brokers with different licenses it is the license in the specific zip that you bought that applies. Nothing else. No other brokers or venders license or restrictions can apply.
And brokered licenses can not be changed retroactively by the vender, ever. All they can do is release a different zip combination.
Even the brokers license can not be changed within the previous purchases. Only on future purchases.

To be charitable to the OP's sponsor -- much of the software used by the government is paid for via annual licenses, which may be changed when they expire.

geoegress: Isn't there an issue with multiple users on one machine? For instance, a member here buys a product from the marketplace, lets say a V4 corset (wow, we have those here). now he is sitting at home with his son and the son makes a picture using this model and lets say the son is sixteen because, hey... there's a corset involved ;)

Now the kid uploads his new picture to here or at commune. Isn't that a violation of the EULA? If I remember right there is an exclusivity clause in the R'osity EULA prohibiting others from using said product. I don't remember there being any exclusion to that dialog either. If this is the case in a home environment wouldn't that be more problematic in a company environment?

Yep, especially if files were accessible on a company network.

 Hm... So are you saying my kid, who is underage and has no means of buying her own stuff, can't play with MY Poser on MY computer and upload a pic she made?!

No, AFAIK, someone else using your computer can use your Renderosity stuff (and your Poser itself). You just can't give them a copy. But they can use your copy. And Daz allows their content to be installed on all the computers at the purchaser's address.

Good morning Doran :)

I'm not talking about the 'content' of any specific EULA. That is up to the buyer to understand and use. You know most of these are writen by non lawyers. Even the one's that get reviewed by lawyers often have legal flaws that could negate them in a court.

***"Never ask a barber if you need a hair cut"

*Company lawyers are some of the most agreeable people, especially to there own boss's when a fee is involved. lol

Here is an example. The EULA says you may have ONLY one copy on your machine. But if you unzip it  you end up with 2 copies. And if you unzip to a dummy folder first (like all of us old timers do) and copy it into your runtime, you end up with 3 copies.

Are you then required to delete the zip?

Now, you know what they mean, and I know what they mean---but in the law it's a very unclear requirement that all  judges would toss as a violation of the 'fair use doctrine'.

This would also apply to TrekkieGrrrl's question.  Under fair use you can not be restricted on who may or may not use your computer or it's content.

For the most part a merchant can put in almost any restriction they want. And the courts will follow the 'contract' involved.
But even contracts have legal limits and generalized rules that they must follow or be declared invaled.

It's up to you to understand the EULA.

Or challenge.

Here's another example that I've done myself.
I've had products that have run there life cycle in the MP. Later on I've decided to give them away in free stuff. I'f you bought it the license in the zip applies. If you got the free one the other license applies. Same content- different rules. But the newest can never over rule the original and the original can not over rule the free license.
Any more then a license from here can be over ruled by the license from DAZ.

There is data analysis software on computers at my old job that I left 12 years back that is hard-registered to me (my name shows up on the start-up screen of the install disk, IIRC), but I bought it as an agent of the company, and they have the only copies, so its theirs.

Quote - Once again, I'm not a lawyer, but the license binding you is the one valid at the moment you buy something. All later modifications don't affect you, much like new laws don't apply on things which happened before they were released.

That should be correct. That license is the contract that was purchased and is a legally binding agreement made at the time of purchase. The license owner cannot retroactively change that agreement without the consent of the other party.

The one problem area that does exist with digital content is the question of whether the content is legitimately owned by the person selling it. If someone is selling stolen goods, then the buyer may be unwittingly buying content that the seller cannot legally license. It would seem that the legal owner of the content ought to be willing to accept a new purchase of their product or may even graciously allow their content to be used in a cirucumstance where people purchased a product in good faith.  I'm not sure what kind of policies the different stores have in that situation. It's a relatively rare occurrence and, even if a model has to be purchased again, it's probably still cheaper than building it from scratch since a person has to be paid an hourly wage to produce it for a single user.

FWIW, sever CECOM PEO's have used DAZ models in presentations.

Quote -

The one problem area that does exist with digital content is the question of whether the content is legitimately owned by the person selling it. If someone is selling stolen goods, then the buyer may be unwittingly buying content that the seller cannot legally license. It would seem that the legal owner of the content ought to be willing to accept a new purchase of their product or may even graciously allow their content to be used in a cirucumstance where people purchased a product in good faith.  I'm not sure what kind of policies the different stores have in that situation. It's a relatively rare occurrence and, even if a model has to be purchased again, it's probably still cheaper than building it from scratch since a person has to be paid an hourly wage to produce it for a single user.

Actually (in the US)  under Section 2-403 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the purchaser does have title and the merchant bears the responsibility in the case where stolen goods are purchased in good faith.  This was one of the objections to Amazon's recent deletion of the improperly licensed copies of the George Orwell books from customer's Kindles

An unresolved legal question is whether or not dowloaded 3D models are actually 'goods' under the UCC. My guess would be that they are as the licenses are not of limited duration, and are transfered by way of  'sales ' and 'purchases', but I'm neither a judge nor lawyer.  Physical disks obviously would be goods, so if there were for instance improperly licensed content in a boxed computer program, the purchaser would be protected.

Edited to fix typo in UCC section number. W&W

Yup- what WandW said.

If Someone rips off a texture- it is NOT the responsibility of the buyer to stop useing it or to compensate the legal copyright holder.

It is up to the legal copyright holder to address there complaint directly to the seller for compensation of any lost business or monies.

I've seen stuff for sale on Turbo Squid that DAZ gives away for free. I assume that it's not worth chasing the pirates since there is no financial damage. Either that or DAZ doesn't know about it.

Maybe it's DAZ selling it on TurboSquid...