Oh I understand that DMCA applies to any copyrighted work. However, if Victoria is injected with a change then the author of that injection is the copyright holder. Otherwise, 90% of the stuff sold here in the marketplace and elsewhere is in violation of copyright, according to the DAZ license???

What I'd like to know is if DAZ registered Victoria with the copyright office. There is no evidence available, that I'm aware, to show how Victoria has been registered in the copyrite office, if at all. Also, the US Copyright office is not the authority for the entire world and we all know she's been sold across the globe.

Each change or modification of Victoria follows the author of the change, not DAZ. I'm not arguing that DAZ doesn't hold copyrite to Victoria, but we're talking about derivitive works done to her.

Carefully read the artical you posted. Mainly it concerns motion pictures, novels, sound recordings and drawings. I think you may have missed some key points, too much for me to go into here.

Everything that was allowed before is now prohibitted?? and that's actually something the law cannot do. Can't be legal one day then pass laws that make what you did before now illegal. That's called  an ex post facto law or retroactive law, which is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Since the US is a country that has a bill of right and a constitution, ex post facto legislation is prohibited. But, DAZ is apparently changing their license as it suits them. And as far I'm concerned they don't play nice with the other kids, so they are going to be playing alone if they keep it up.

Vive Bene.  Spesso L'Amore.  Di Risata Molto.
Live Well.  Love Often.  Laugh Much.