A 3D Print is a derivative of the data and the data is copyrighted. The copyright owner can determine what sorts of derivatives are allowed. In this case, DAZ has severe restrictions regarding the 3D data and the specific topology of the model, but makes no claims against image-based derivatives.

A similar struggle came up in regards to retopo's of V4. (Reconstructiong the topograhy of a model's "surface" using a different geometry structure.)After awhile, and IIRC, it was decided that while retopos can definitely be a copy of a model's topology, it's not specific enough to the geometry to warrant copy protection. (Note: I am not making any claims that one should take as legal advice, here. Just gabbbing and this controversy was a long time ago, so I may have forgotten how it all finally added up...)

The thing is, with retopos, just about anything made to conform to V4 could be a retopo.. A close fitting bathing suite or undewear, for instance, could precisely follow V4's form, but have distinctively different geometry. So, a retopo is fine, in theory, at least.

The crazy thing is that this presents a quandry in regards to 3D Printing of derivatives of V4. If you're smart enough to add everything up, that is... Again, I'm just gabbing, not offering legal advice. The best way to find out the copyright claim is, of course, to ask the copyright holder.