Attached Link: http://www.daz3d.com/pages/faq/answers/license/licenseagreement.html

Hello, DAZ is concerned about the issues of copyright infringement, especially copyright laws dealing with texture maps. Copyright infringement occurs with texture maps when an artist paints over DAZ maps. It is illegal to do this and to distribute the copied model. DAZ officially encourages artists to make things for Michael and Victoria. However, DAZ must protect and enforce their intellectual property if we are to retain our copyright license to our models. We would hope that as a community of artists that everyone would understand this concern. An artist may not modify a map and claim it as their own work, an artist must start from his own original work. It poses a problem when other artists use this pirated model. DAZ would ask that you as artists be very careful who's work you are using. Even if you are not intentionally violating copyright, the person who's work you are using may be, and you are still in violation of DAZ Copyright Laws. We have recently have had BIG problems with uninformed artists. We have appreciated the cooperation thus showed to DAZ from artists that have used pirated work and thank them for their honesty and help in this matter. We also appreciate the help and assistance by the community in making DAZ aware of these infringements to DAZ's Copyright Laws. So we would warn anyone that has based work off a pirated map as well as the Odyssey map, please review it and make sure you are not using parts of Victoria 1 map or any other artists work. Below (next post) are side by side comparisons of DAZ's Victoria 1, on the left, and Odyssey on the right. The Victoria 1 map has been reduced in resolution so that it will be unusable if taken from this post. We do want to post this to show people that DAZ is not attacking other artists but protecting our own proprietary property. After viewing the Victoria 1 vs. Odyssey it was obvious to DAZ that they are the same map with a few color changes and smudges made. Details that DAZ worked hard to make are the same on both maps. This pattern continues over the whole map. For further information on DAZ's copyright policy link here, http://www.daz3d.com/pages/faq/answers/license/licenseagreement.html Thanks, AnneMarie White DAZ Productions www.daz3d.com

Here is one of the images.

Here are the hands.

I am no expert, but the body looks different enough to me?

well, the hands look exactly the same to me... but hard to tell from the other picture...

Hi, Well I have to say that while the hand image looks the same, the body at the supplied res looks like a different map to me. So are we being asked to screen images for parts of "pirated" maps or what? later jb

Hi ! An intresting question crossed my mind: What if I own the DAZ textures. Am I still violating copyrights if I would use the modified ones ? Just a thought... Bye, Arthur.

If you own a DAZ texture, you could modify one yourself and use it, but it would be a copyright violation if someone else supplied you with a modified version.

Hi, Thank you to those who have responded to my original message so far, and to AnneMarie for the links and comparison images above. I have not yet e-mailed DAZ about this issue, but I plan to a bit later today. In looking through my Victoria textures, I found the one pictured above, called "Lina". Aside from the rose tattoo, this texture appears to be identical to the DAZ one shown above. I don't have a readme for this file, nor is there any artist information on the texture itself, but this is something DAZ might want to look into. I can send it directly to DAZ staff if necessary. I agree that the hands do look identical, and although I don't remember taking them from the "Lina" texture, they are most likely originally from the DAZ texture. The original Odyssey texture also uses elements of these hands (although much less defined), so if you feel the need to remove that texture from Free Stuff as well, I understand. Surprisingly though, I have seen that Uppermouth texture being used on several other free Victoria textures. Again, I honestly had no knowledge of the similarities between my textures and the DAZ one, and I will be happy to do what I can to clear this up and to avoid any further copyright issues. Take care. SnowS

heyas; can you post an image of the odyssey map overlain with the original map on a new layer, that is set to 'difference'? obviously, the hue shift will cause some difference between the two, but i would be curious to see the results. the hand looks re-coloured/combined with the original, though at this size, the body looks fully repainted. it is difficult to see details.

I found three textures already that look like the Daz one, too, all of them were free.

While the hands do look similar, I will say that the BODY texture looks radically different. So to say that "it was obvious to DAZ that they are the same map with a few color changes and smudges" is to weaken your case and credability significanlty. Simply say that portions of the map look the same, but that much of it is different.

As requested here is an overlay of the maps. Anything dark is not different, the lighter color is different.

I think DAZ should be careful when using the phrase "it is obvious...". It's hard to tell anything from the size of the images that are posted. Moreover, can't this be handled privately? DAZ has every right to protect its copyrighted material, but I would hate to see this turn into another witch hunt.

Maybe it's just me, but that overlay makes it look like I stole the entire texture and made virtually no changes at all. I did agree that the hands were probably DAZ creations, but I put a lot of original work into the body. Even the rear end, which is obviously different in the full thumbnails, hardly shows being different in the overlay. I don't mind you wanting to show the similarities, but I feel like this almost makes me look like a thief who just fiddled with the Hue/Saturation dials and claimed this texture as my own. Regardless, I have spoken with Betsy Schow at DAZ, and it looks like this issue will be handled with no further incident. Thank you for your time, take care. SnowS

I posted a thoughtful reply as rebuttal to DAZ's claim, but it was INSTANTLY deleted. It was rational and clear, but basically suggested that in some cases DAZ is a little heavy-handed with their claims. If this forum is not free from censorship by biased parties, then I see no need to post in the future here.

Find below the read me for the Lina texture, i did have this texture on my system, but if it is a copy of the Daz Vicy 1 then i will not be using it in the future. I hope this is of some help. David Lina Head and Body Textures for Vicky www.geocities.com/nestua/aleknest.html www.geocities.com/nestua/index.html aleknest@yahoo.com

sorry, forgot to say i have the whole zip file for Lina body, face thumbnail and readme, if Daz would like me to send it to them then just let me know and they can compare the face.

Thanks for your interest and feedback on this issue, everyone. This is clearly a touchy subject, with ample room for confusion. We at DAZ certainly do not want to create a "witch hunt" type of atmosphere concerning the piracy of our products whether maps, models, etc.), especially towards those who may have inadvertantly done so. We also do not wish to accuse anyone publically. As always, we prefer to deal with these types of issues privately whenever possible. The specific map we have shown in this thread was chosen because it was already being publically discussed: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=351276. We do not intend to bring any additional attention to the artist but to use this map for illustrational purposes only. We have also seen several posts in the recently discussing specifically the use of DAZ texture maps in creating other maps that people are posting, either for free or for sale. Because this community is made up of artists, we feel that there is a greater understanding and empathy towards copyright violations and plagarism. We have appreciated the tremendous community support in encouraging each other to follow the agreements made on artists' products (i.e. the discussions on Traveller's morphs and Morph World). This type of support is what makes it feasible for businesses and other entities to run effective enterprises in developing for the Poser community (i.e. Renderosity, Curious Labs, LipSinc, DAZ and others). We realize that without your support we would not have a successful business built up around Poser. Having recently become aware of the scope of the use of DAZ maps in creating other maps, we felt that we needed to address this issue publically. This is intended to promote awareness rather than publically punish anyone. We believe that most of these copyright violations are due to lack of understanding and not blatant disregard for the agreements. We wish to thank the many people we have contacted privately on this topic, such as Snow Sultan, for quickly responding to our concerns. This whole topic is a two edged sword for us at DAZ. We realize that community development for Michael and Victoria has been the most significant factor in their success. Therefore, it would be wrong for us to discourage anyone from developing for them. The problems surface however, when our products are used as a building block for another product that eventually becomes a substitute for the product from which it was built. This is the reason that we publically provide templates for all our models as a starting point in which a map should be created to fit models. This is all that is needed to create original maps for our products. Once again, we really appreciate everyones support. The Poser community is really a great community to be a part of. We are very excited to see what the future will bring for us all. Thanks, AnneMarie White DAZ Productions www.daz3d.com P.S. To answer a few posts specifically... Snow Sultan, thanks so much for working with us. We definitely do not acuse you of being a thief and we appreciate your good nature. Ronstuff, we have no admin privilages at Renderosity, so we have no idea how your message was deleted. Hopefully this message may have addressed your concerns. Soulhuntre, sorry for the confusion concerning the statement that this map is obviously a derivative. This was based on our examination of the full-resolution maps by the artist that created the original maps, and was not intended to mean that it was obvious to someone viewing the small images posted above. hmatienzo or anyone else, please contact us with any information or concerns about potential copyright infringements. Thanks! David Amos, thanks for the offer. Yes, we would appreciate you sending us the Lina zip file. I suspect this is the same Lina map that we've seen in the past, which did turn out to be a very slightly modified version of DAZ's first Victoria texture map.

While I agree that, just on the basis of the hand alone, DAZ has every right to ask that the Oddyssey texture be pulled (The broken fingernail is obvious, as are the folds of skin at the finger joints), I think we also have to be a little careful here. Overlaying the two images only proves that the second artist was good at following the road map of where the textures are supposed to go in order to work properly on the model. That's not a very good issue to raise, IMHO, because for any texture to work properly, it would have to be in the same positioning as the placement in the original V1 or V2 texture maps. Further, there is a point where it doesn't matter what the originating texture map's copyright status is if the artist has sufficiently altered it to make it his or her own piece of work. With the added detail that appears visible at this low-rez, DAZ would have to work pretty hard to prove copyright violation. Yes, the artist used the original Vicky texture as a base, but the changes are more than an alteration in colour and a few smudges; they're fairly wholesale. There's also a level of detail that's been added that shows that the original texture was used a starting point and that's all. Unfortunately, that's not sufficient for proving copyright violation, because the law these days leans on the side of the accused artist. We're long past the days when a minor change was grounds for allowing something to be treated as brand new, but the differences in the overall composition of this texture are sufficient that it would be treated as a new piece of creative work. All the artist would have to do to prove this would be to drag in any and all Vicky textures and show that, in their essence, they're all alike in one way or another. It may unethical. It may even be immoral, particularly when the artist is selling it. But, with the copyright laws written the way they are now (and granted, on the international level, they're a real botch job at the moment), it's not illegal.

sigh Not a good evening, is it? :/ I realise that I'm in the same situation SnowSultan is - also my textures seem to have bits of the DAZ Vicki texture even though I don't even have it. Two of my textures are also partly based on Odyssey2. It seems there are many free (maybe even commercial? perhaps the MarketPlace items should be checked again) Vicki textures that are based on that particular DAZ texture and this obviously causes a big problem for anyone who has modified those free textures and is then redistributing the textures. I've allowed redistributing my textures, but now I'm asking anyone who has downloaded my textures (Rolinda, Johanna, Jeanne, Marielle, Shari) NOT to redistribute them. I've taken down the free downloads which I believe have small parts of the DAZ texture. I'll remake them to avoid breaking any copyright laws and they'll be up for download again soon. Sorry for any inconvenience :(

I think if every one removed all their submissions that had even a tiny portion of a DAZ texture in them, this would be a very EMPTY place. Even if we use the guidelines as described here, a "substantial" number of items (free and commercial alike) would have to be removed. Maybe this is what we should do as artists to protect our own rights - after all, who is fighting to protect the portions of OUR work that are undisputedly original?. Maybe if the Odussey texture had the hands deleted and replaced with an outline that said "copy and paste your own copy of Vicky's hands here" - that would be acceptable to DAZ. It is a shame to see something which appears to be mostly original suppressed because of such petty claims. Lets make more stuff for the P4 characters, and avoid this grief all together.

Ron: "Lets make more stuff for the P4 characters, and avoid this grief all together" Hey, I'm all for that!!! As lovely as Mike and Vicky may be, they make a few too many demands on my computer's memory. DA DORK RULEZ (grin)

Atthisstage and others, We realize that you are not trying to be antagonistic but are just pointing out a few bits of information. This post is not a rebuttal but is intended hopefully to address a few of the things you mentioned. There are two important issues. The first is copyright (as discussed in the previous posts). The second issue is the DAZ Licensing agreement which specifically prohibits the re-distribution of the product (with or without modification). Hopefully the legal system would protect product developers and their license agreements if the copyright laws don't. In the bigger picture, we are all part of the Poser Community, and the standards we establish together are the standards that everyone will end up living by. If we (the Poser Community) create a standard that allows anyone to modify any product and re-distribute it as original work, then we remove incentives for artists to create original works. See the posts about Morph World and Traveller. We feel the artists that create the products should have the rights to establish their terms of usage (license agreements). Whether or not that artist chooses to prosecute license agreement violators, we feel the community should respect those rights and do our best to support the artist's wishes. We respectfully submit that for the best good of the entire community, the question should be "What's right and fair?" rather than "What can I get away with?" We hope that this standard will be one that is widely accepted Eowyn, thanks so much for your willingness to support this. It's people like you that make being apart of this community so fun. Ronstuff, a question for you is that if something is 90% original then why don't you just make the extra 10% effort to make it 100% original? Thanks, AnneMarie DAZ

And another thing... ;-) I just got done studying the "Difference map" above, and should point out how "weak" this evidence is. Look at the teeth on both original samples - (regular teeth in the DAZ texture - no teeth whatsoever in the "copy"). Yet the difference map makes it appear that they are "substantially" the same - except for the area around the gums. Is that because they are both WHITE? Come on, of course there are similarities in HUMAN figures - until we start growing our belly-buttons on our foreheads, at least!

My answer to "a question for you is that if something is 90% original then why don't you just make the extra 10% effort to make it 100% original? " Is because I am NOT being paid for my work and YOU are. And furthermore I paid for a product that falls short of it's claims. I'm tired of seeing promotional material that could only be generated with post-work, and is not a true reflection of the unaltered package, thats why.

AnneMarie, no doubt that what one should do is the best course of action. But we all know that what one should do and what one sometimes actually does are worlds apart. The unfortunate thing is that, despite what your licensing agreement says, chances are a copyright judge would dismiss your case here: the license would not supercede in this case -- and, again, blame the way the laws are written right now: it's a hole they have yet to address. As I said, it ain't moral and it ain't ethical, but it's not illegal. "What's right and what's fair?" That gets into areas of discussion that move well beyond any issue of copyright. What you see as right and fair could be seen as a gross violation by someone else. It's like the old quandry of: is taking a loaf of bread to feed your family really theft? In its more literal interpretation, you betcha. But is it? As I pointed out on another thread, right now the freebie and store sections of Renderosity are crammed with far more obvious copyright violations than this. The people who put up those models of Transformers et al probably feel there's no problem to it at all -- hell, if one looks at 3d-cc.com, the entire site is a monument to copyright violation. What does that say about community standards?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=351896

Not that I want to beat a dead horse, but I think this one is still kicking :0 If anybody is interested im my comments which mysteriously disappeared from this thread (server hickup or something I guess) - they are at this locatiion.

I really hate this thread...and, its implications to our community. I have a couple of questions, though, for Annemarie... Just out of curiousity, did you happen to run across the Odyssey texture in freestuff, and, notice that the hands looked similar enough for further scrutiny? Or, were you tipped off by someone? (I hate the thought of the implications of that latter, more, than the former. But, please do share. Also, what about the "seam guides" templates. Are these okay to use? Thank you, Poppi

I'd just like to make it clear that it was never my intent to edit a DAZ texture and claim it as my own. The original Odyssey was an attempt to improve what I believe to be a converted Staale Loseth texture, and Odyssey the 2nd was just another update to try and add extra realism to that texture. I thought that I had kept track of every texture that I had cloned or used portions of, but I am positive that I did not knowingly use any element from any commercial texture. Poppi, I only used someone else's texture as a base because it was a free texture and the artist had not only allowed, but encouraged revisions. Both Odyssey and Odyssey the 2nd have been removed from Renderosity and the 3D Commune so as not to continue this copyright violation. If you have these textures, I ask that you do not redistribute them, nor make edited versions of them available, either for free or commercially. Thanks for your time, take care. SnowS Hoping his pictures are worth 1001 words.

OK - so now my reply has been removed from the Poser Forum and placed on C&D, where, I'm sure just EVERYBODY will find it there. Oh well. So much for freedom of speech. Its been a long day, and I just wanted to bring a little perspective to an issue that is rapidly being distorted.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=328

Snow Sultan--I appreciate your fast response, and your willingness to cooperate with DAZ. No one is pointing a finger at you. We tried to keep the matter private. Ronstuff I dont believe the post was deleted. This is a time out of 30 minutes if you were typing too long (happens to me all the time) and it just doesnt post. Everyone in General giving away something free or selling something that is not 100% yours is still a copyright violation. Some artist may give their approval to use anyway you want, but you still need their permission (and its best to keep in documented) and give them their due acknowledgement in the read me or license. The at least 90% or substantial change issues are really unclear, and its not worth the legal risk based on it. Community Standards Renderositys copyright policy is linked above and found on the toolbar. We believe strongly in protecting artists copyrights regardless of whether its given away or sold. I work hard to address all copyright complaints, to follow our copyright policies, and to keep them private. Unfortunately, there are some that post items that are not their own, and we have no perfect way of stopping ALL of them. However, we do rely heavily upon the community members or original creators of the works to notify us so we can investigate and resolve. Most are resolved in private with only the ones involved knowing about it. Lots of times, corrections are made and everyone is happy. There are also times when the item(s) in question is found not to be in violation (all the more reason why we keep it privatefalse claims can unintentionally hurt an artists image). Our policies do allow us to ban repeat offenders--we don't want them here; but thankfully, that is so rare. We don't like having to go to the extreme measures. Most of our members are honest and just are not aware of the copyright laws and our policies that enforce them. No one should be hung because they didnt know, but I hope that we can all work together to educate them on the laws and policies. Please feel free to email us at admin@renderosity.com if you have questions and concerns. Thanks, Jenifer Keeling (previously Handley) Renderosity Admin & Copyright Agent

Thanks for responding, SnowSultan. I never meant that you meant to rip anyone off....I was just wondering if the seam guides are okay to use. Also, I was wondering, if Daz is policing our freestuff, even, perhaps, our marketplace. My lil textures that I do, on my lil characters...well, I do at times use your seam guides...So, I was just curious. This has confused me, as to what is and isn't "do-able," when producing a texture. Poppi Also, I see that banner....about helping Curious Labs, by turning in folks you SUSPECT, and, it sort of rubs me the wrong way.....Yes, I have stated that in another thread. I was just curious as to whether Daz checked you out, or, you were perhaps "ratted" out, by a competitor, or enemy. Sorry, I am a little nosey, at times.

Jenifer, while I appreciate the fact that you guys are trying to be diligent and that you also have a huge web site to run, something here doesn't wash too well. In the first three pages of characters for Poser in the freebie section, there's a Dana Scully character, a Rutger Hauer character, characters from Willow, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and a Xena character. All of these can be considered copyright violation, even the Hauer (which would be seen as "appropriating a celebrity's likeness", something that has emerged as a new area of copyright protection in the last couple of years). Some of these have been up for a couple of weeks, certainly enough time for someone to pick up on the fact that they're probably not there with any permissions. This is not to say anyone at Renderosity isn't doing his or her job when it comes to this issue. But it still raises the issue of priorities.

There's a woman down my street who is definitely infringing Daz's copyright - she is the spitting image of Victoria, she even has a broken fingernail ! Wait a minute though - she is older than Daz or Zygote ! Perhaps she could say that her copyright is being infringed. I don't think she's into 3d though so she is probably unaware of any transgressions. But be aware Daz -- If you ever come up with a fat, bald middle aged male model with a broken tooth, then I'm gonna have to sue. I've got that copyright !

I can't speak for US law, but in the UK copyright violations are fought over and judged on "proveable loss of earnings" as well as utilisation of owned materials. While free items are often in violation of trade and industry copyrights they are rarely pursued unless blatanty utilising materials owned by someone else because there is no profit involved - either for the perpetrator or for the pursuant. If however profit is being made then by all that's hairy in the legal world you'd better have permission from whomeever owns the copyright/license to sell anything based on that, whether it's a movie vehicle/person or a prop based on something. If the shape and image and name of Lambourghini is copyrighted/licensed then yes, you should by rights have permission of the copyright/license holder to redistribute and make money from THEIR copyrighted/licensed product. If I make a character of the Queen of England and sell her in the store here I would either have to make sure that I had permission from the Palace authorities or sleep very lightly waiting for the men in ill-fitting suits to come knocking on my door - especially if she happened to look through the galleries and see what usually happens to women here. Daz textures are allegedly being used in free stuff and perhaps the store (however unwittingly), id they can prove a loss of earnings as a result of this regardless of whether their texture/whatever was better or worse than the contested item they have a legal case. Copyright is no longer based on percentage, but profit gain/loss and hasn't been percentage based for some time. For instance, a few years ago you could photocopy 10% of an article/book/whatever and be safe in the knowledge that you were inside the copyright laws. That changed in the UK last year, which means it probably changed in the US several years before. Whatever the reasons, DAZ lose money however miniscule that amount may be and their materials are being employed in a fashion that goes against their terms of agreement for usage. In all honesty, the terms and conditions are more important than the actual copyright. AFAIK DAZ do not give permission for any of their materials in whole or in part to be redistributed in any form. That is the issue. Not whether DAZ are being draconian in their methods or picking holes because of little similarities. No permision to redistribute, seems pretty simple to me. I also don't see that there's an issue whether someone told DAZ or whether they discovered it themselves. How many people here would prefer to be told if someone found their stuff being "illegally" redistributed without permission? I've seen some threads here exploring that very event. To be quite frank, most of us are hobbyists. Unless some of the people in this thread have a basic grounding in law we are all just shooting the breeze. If you want to know the answers to the questions fielded in this thread, seek proper legal advice. Any fool can come in here and make glorified statements about "personal experience" (heck I just did) but as far as I know most of us are not trained in law or legal interpretation or in the maze of copyright legislation. In all honesty, and in closing, I would have thought that supporting DAZ would be better than interrogating them. But then I'm weird anyway, what do I know?

Alien abduction, Graham, that's the only answer. They abducted her, photographed her extensively, and are now using her likeness to numb the minds of an entire generation of modellers in order to facilitate their eventual takeover of the world. Sounds like a case for the X-Files (TM). I wonder if Fox (TM) would be interested in pursuing this for one of their "reality shows" (patent pending)? Or maybe Sixty Minutes (TM) would do a story on her? I bet Mike Wallace (TM) would leap at the opportunity of interviewing the prototype for Victoria (TM)... (grin) <-- (patent pending)

I don't think anyone here is "interrogating" DAZ, Questor. I think instead we're all looking for the limits, because a license forbidding anything "in whole or in part" means that almost anything generated for a Poser character could be seen as a technical violation of the license. I'd happily bet that a lot of the conforming clothing generated is using part of the Vicky mesh somewhere in its construction, no matter how small. So does that constitute a violation? If this string is any indication, you bet it is. So where does DAZ draw the line? By forbidding everything that's not DAZ-approved? That's gonna make it pretty tough for the hobbyists, who live to see what they can do with these characters. So here we have something that was generated as a freebie. There's no loss of income to DAZ because of the texture's existence, only the knowledge that one can visibly see the texture was used as a starting point. In terms of the licence, hands down it's in violation. No question about that. But does anyone win by telling SnowSultan to pull it? DAZ isn't going to make any more money than they had before, so that's not an issue. Snow put enough work into it to make it his/her own creation, so that's not the issue either. Frankly, I'm not sure any more just what is being proven here, save that DAZ wants (rightfully) to control what's theirs. And that's admirable. I just think they could have chosen a better target to make their case. This is like whacking a fly with a sledgehammer, and I don't think it would kill DAZ to say to Snow or anyone else making textures for a DAZ product, "Look, we don't want you to pull your work needlessly. Just let us take a look and give it our thumbs up before you do something and put it up for distribution." That way, people get to create, DAZ sells more product, and everyone wins in the end.

Ever try to sell a completely original texture here? I mean a hand painted one, and not one comprised of digital images of a real body. It's next to impossible. Some of the top artists here use the DAZ/Zygote maps to base their textures on. Hell, I've seen some that are direct copies, aside from a little colorization. Doing that overlay thing, everything matches up line for line.

Fair enough, perhaps I misread this thread somewhat. As far as SnowSultan is concerned, I hosted three of his textures and he contacted me to pull them. I don't think that DAZ demanded they be removed - I don't know for certain of course - but as far as I can tell from what SnowSultan has said to me, he was acting out of his own concern by pulling the textures from freestuff. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by what I said, but there is so much "questionable" behaviour and there will be more and more of it as this community grows that I honestly think that DAZ are correct in taking the stand they have. As far as "drawing the line". Yes I can see how that could get confusing. However, there is always the option of doing the same thing I have done in the past. Mail them with details and ask. So far the responses I've had from DAZ when I've asked them about redistributing parts or new parts (especially Vic2) have been extremely informative, very polite and helpful and quick. I'm sorry but in this age of rapid communication it seems that communication is the first thing to suffer. It seems that very very few people ask others for permission anymore and that is to my way of thinking, highly distressing. I know SnowSultan and Staale have offered their textures for free with permission to redistribute "freely" improved textures, DAZ don't give that permission, nor do people who sell in the store here. Whole or in part applies to a lot of things in a lot of places. If it was to be taken literally then for most of us there's no point getting up in the morning. In DAZ's case they don't object to art, freely provide templates so people can make textures without buying items and they can redistribute those. They are pretty clear in their FAQ and any doubts can be answered by their sales staff over email or telephone. Maybe I'm stupid or something but I just don't see the problem. When I have a doubt I ask directly, if I don't get an answer I don't do, if I get an answer I'm a happy camper. I don't know, perhaps I'm missing something fundamental in life. NOI to anyone, just airing my somewhat befuddled mind.

I had a question, for AnneMarie. It was not answered. I do not count, in this issue. I do paint my own testures. However, I did get an interesting email...from a co=worker...about would I consider brokering for Daz. So, I have a ? for you all. Should I say, yes? Should I say, no, and continue with my own lil Poppi's...that no one has the rights to, but me? (Err...and, the occasional porn police?) You decide. Thanks, Poppi, Poppi's Productions.

I may be a bit naive here. But I don't see that other than the hands, where the statement of "After viewing the Victoria 1 vs. Odyssey it was obvious to DAZ that they are the same map" fits. I'm sorry but I think the texture on the right is mounds better and if I had paid for the one on the right I'd be a bit upset. I don't remember which one belongs to whom now (and don't want to go to the top again). But I am confused since all textures follow the same lines and layout. An overlay only shows shadings and there are sufficient shading differences between the two to make me wonder. So I can honestly say I do not understand this at all. because I would think there would be matches in the overlays of any textures. Anyone want to take an absolute original that is not being questioned and overlay it on the Daz texture? (I don't have the daz texture or I would) I'd really like to understand the difference thing. But it is a good idea to not trust that textures can be modified, ran into that myself recently when someone told me I could modify a texture they sent as redistributable and turned out it wasn't quite that way. Sad, now what do we do for textures if we can't trust any in the free section?

Learn to make our own? I'm still somewhat of a newbie in Poser, having only gotten back to the program in the last few months after abandoning it with vers 2 as being too complicated for this little mind to handle. But now that I'm seeing it with a fresh eye, I'm also learning how to make my own textures from scratch, discovering what works, what doesn't, and why. Next, I tackle models, but that's gonna be a while yet, I fear. Still, it means I'll be using stuff that I made, not something that came from suspect sources I can't trace. And BTW, I don't think we can trust much in the store section either, truth be told.

Making one's own is always a great place to start. However, I just don't like this. IMHO...there is something just a tad smarmey about all this business. AND...I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED A REPLY FROM ANNEMARIE. It was a simple question. Hummmm....starting to take a side, now. Please, I just want an anwwer. K? Thanks

Home Made textures don't sell. But steal a Daz texture and colorize it, or doctor it up a bit, and you will be one of the honored ones...In the Merchant's Guild

The seam guides are fine, Poppi. Annemarie may not know what you are talking about in regards to the seam guide. Daz provides free templates for their models for others to create textures. (Note the different terms: templates vs. textures.) SnowSultan took the template and colored it so everyone could tell where the front and back lined up. That is his work, painted on a base template that was given out by Daz specifically for people to create textures. The free template is a far cry from a commercial texture. You can download the template even if you don't purchase the model. If SnowSultan's guide says that it's okay to paint over it, then you're free to use it. It's based on a freely available template, not a purchased texture.

is that sarcasm?? :~) What's wrong with a homemade texture? Isn't Angie in the free stuff area a hand made texture? I haven't downloaded it yet (file was huge) but the renders of it look great....

A simple fix, daz can make a cheep basemap, and give it out free for the persons that are not good at color matching for skin tones and simple things like that.

Poppi, My daughter works at DAZ. I happen to know that DAZ only works 9-5 Monday thru Friday, so Annemarie is not ignoring you, she is probably just not working and hasn't seen your reply yet. : ) Ryoko

AngelFyre:Home Made textures don't sell. But steal a Daz texture and colorize it, or doctor it up a bit, and you will be one of the honored ones...In the Merchant's Guild LadySilverMage:is that sarcasm?? :~) What's wrong with a homemade texture? Isn't Angie in the free stuff area a hand made texture? I haven't downloaded it yet (file was huge) but the renders of it look great.... another way i took that to mean is that all the high selling texturers in rederosity are copyright violators. it's an exageration... not ALL of them are, surely ;) congrats on settling the matter SnowSultan :)

Thanks, Ry...My oldest and youngest are living in Utah...THey don't hate snow, like I do. LOL...fat chance of me ever visiting, though. (Humm...think they planned it like that?) I just would like an answer to my questions. I don't think they were snotty, or, anything like that. Just some thoughts that I had about all this that I would like to have gone from my head. Thanks, again, Poppi