Ok, so I am writting this in a little confusion over the whole process of the "allowance" of using models to create 3d figurines, ect. Now I don't really know the whole stance on it since it is uncharted waters at the current moment. But from what I am seeing it is a no go. But don't quote me on that, I don't truely know.

What I am wondering:

The people that have the airtight grasp over the mesh leaving the building, I can understand in the data format not allowing one to simply give away the data, but not in a printed out physical form. To be able to recreate the mesh from a 3d scan, the person would a.) Have to have a 3d scanner. b.) take into acount the morphed and complexity of the scene data to get it back to the original mesh, if at all possible. c.) more than likely have to have the original model themselves to do the above stated, defeating the purpose of scanning it in the first place if you already have the model. d.) have to create all the allready created data themselves, again more frustrating than just getting the model itself.

If this be the case, why would additional licensing be needed? I do understand if you are taking the model to be printed out by a company, or Kinko's of 3d Printing. A simple 5 to 10$ license for the 3d printed project which a percentage of the licenses goes to the vendors which created models, for unlimited prints of that project, with the items listed in the description for the license to use the models for said project where the license is located or purchased from. Or even a reasonable unlimited license for said store's models to be used for projects. As for a person who owns their own 3d printer, I would think since purchasing the mesh for use, it wouldn't be going against EULA to make a figurine with models purchased, since you are not distributing the files bought in any way, selling the figurine to someone who probably is oblivious to the whole workings of 3d creation in the first place, doesn't care how it was made just want the "pretty" type of person, or some soccer mom trying to buy their kid a ellaborate doll for their birthday.

I would also think that by allowing such as the above stated terms it would increase sales as well. Where as 3d art doesn't exactly bring in the bacon, but to only a few which have obtained 3d diety status, this would allow for a more enabled market to sell these types of figurines which in term would eventually come back to the content creators as newer models would be needed for other figurines, ect. increasing the profits of the content makers, which would increase revenues made by the middlemen market places, compaired to now where as vendor's content is only used for 2d images. From personal experiance from making and selling my stuff, I usually put back at least 75% of profit into other models that I have wanted or needed, or my wife just simply had to have. It is like the 20$ bill being passed around from artist to artist. With perception full speed ahead and the demand thus forth since this is new horizons, I would think that the 20$ would turn to at least a 50$ bill if not a 100.

This seems very logical at least to me...

As I said, I am not fully knowlegable of the whole thing, but wanted to throw this out their to get your ideas on the topic of 3d printing as vendors and users of vendor's products.

This post is not intended to start a render engine's war, or a spot for trolling, I am just very curious to see if others think likewise or differently. Please add your thoughts and suggestions as how you would like to see this emerge. I know I would love to open up Poser set up some D&D characters and print them out for my next campeign. Yes I am a D&D nerd, LOL. Anyways, your thoughts...

IIRC, someone (maybe DAZ) had an arrangement with one of the 3D printing services to allow people to get prints. Presumably, the printers gave a % back to the model creators. I don't know the details or if said arrangement still exists. In theory, 3D prints would be seen as the same as other use, either non-profit or commercial. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some folks will see having a physical model made from their IP as being different for whatever psychological or financial reasons, and want a bigger fee or disallow it entirely. As more individuals acquire the printing rechnology and learn to produce quality models with it, I'm sure we'll see things shake out. It's good to have the conversation now though

I'm not sure how much effect it would have on the larger companies. I'm sure some of the individual content creators haven't really thought about it. Hopefully, there will be some fairly uniform arrangements, otherwise it will become more complicated figuring out what you can use how and when. I'm waiting for 3D  Neural Imaging and whether you can legally beam Vickie directly into someone's brain :-)

Hi

It's kind of strange, you buy software to create content.

If you create something in Adobe Photoshop they don't expect a commission on everything you do with the artwork you create.

When I create a film using Premiere they don't expect a percentage of any profit I make on it.

I don't see how it is different with Poser, you pay for the software, you create the content using your brain, and skills, why should they expect a cut?

Mike

Mike, there's nothing wrong with something you created 100%. But if you used any content you bought in addition to the base included poser content, then you actually did not in fact, create it yourself. You used someone else's work to create your image.

You don't actually create most things with poser. You use content created by someone else, and reproduce it posed and arranged.

Here's the problem:

We'll take my warcow, my original character I did.

You purchase it to create 2d renderings or animation of it.

Now someone gets clever, and decided its ALL the rage, and they can make a bundle off making toys of him. So they create a 3d print, and then send that off to mass produce thousands of them, and sell them themselves.

He becomes one of those pop culture things, and the demand skyrockets, and they end up selling millions of them.

I look at my sales of him, and in three years, I've never even made minimum wage in the developement time off him, but others are making millions. And I do not get one red cent at all for the millions being sold.

See the issue now? Creators own the actual copyright on thier own creations, not the end users. Its no different than an author licensing his original work to create a movie. They get paid for the movie, but if someone wants to spin that off into a tv series, or do followup movies, they must negotiate a new licensing deal.

Pose alone does not actually create anything. You use either the included content to create, or you purchase someone elses creativity.

Daz was going to work with a 3d print company to allow reproduction, but when they looked at how much end users would have to pay for the licensing, and how much work is involved actually converting content to actually work with 3d printer hardware, they abandoned the idea, and adjusted the end user agreement to disallow 3d printing as unfair use.

In the case of Daz content, 9 times out of 10 daz itself does not own the copyright, its the Participating Artist who does.

And 3d printing is used all the time now for art statue and toy manufacturing. Most small licensed statues now are done in mudbox or zbrush, and the master print is 3d printed from digital creations.

Its not so much what one individual would do with a 3d print.. its the potential for copyright abuse of a 3d printed object. Thats why it is not considere fair use.

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.

As I understand it , you have unrestricted rights to your images, but it is not possible to extract a mesh or texture from that image. 

To create a 3d model you need a file that would allow the geometry to be extracted. That is not allowed.

Bump and displacement and texture maps require additional handling or the model appears smooth.

There would also I believe be a difference between one copy for your own use and making items for sale.

FYI: What Daz says in Part E of their EULA.

http://www.daz3d.com/eula

"Physical images (3D-print, molded copy, CNC-routed copy, and the like) of Content or any art derived from the Content is permitted only by User’s purchase from DAZ, via the User’s online DAZ store account, permission to deliver User’s derived works (art), including necessary Content, to an entity that creates 3D-images in a physical medium. User may then deliver User’s art in file format to that 3rd-party to have physical images printed or created, up to the limitations set forth in the online DAZ Store as delineated on the purchase page associated with the permission product. These limitations govern (i) personal and/or commercial use of the physical, printed images; and (ii) the quantity of 3-D printed images allowed."

So essentially, if you want to sell or give away a figure made with Daz content, they person you give it to must own or buy a copy of the DAZ Content purchased from DAZ.

This is all very theorehtical. From what I know about DAZ... or just about any Poser figure, it would require SO MUCH cleanup just to print a nude that it's not really practical. A 3D printed object must not only be water tight... but sized and given the position it would probably need the addition of structural supports as well dependingonhe poisiton so it didn't fall in mid print.

Adding clothing would mean removing tons of gerometry and welding the clothing not ony in place... but also to where the removed geomtery came from.

Quite franly... if you can do all that, you have the skills to model a figure from scratch, and don't really need DAZ. At least that's my opinion.

^ What he said.

Ah, yes...the ongoing "intellectual property" discussion.  Oklahoma now is taxing intellect.  Really.  It's rather convoluted but if you have any sort of intellectual property, you now owe property taxes on it.

Ok, very good points but I must ask this, how is this any different in regards a person buying the content creating a wonderful art piece, for prints, it becomes the rave, and goes viral more so than the Harlem Shake, people paying the artist creating the image from the resources they bought via through the content creators, and paying well. How is this any different from creating a toy and selling the same way.

Now this aint meant to start a flame fest, but if the content is purchased, for commercial use via the licensing agreement, then the person end user has a creative spark to make the item go viral, in any arena of creative output. If it is abuse to do so, then why isn't this same view taken to the 2d format as well. With the same view it wouldn't make sense to do so for commercial use content, if you sell the mesh for use.

Maybe this example would work, Joe Schmo works at Mattel, he designs a doll for the Barbie line, he gets the doll approved, they make the doll and Joe gets payed his normal fees as stated by their contract of usage, the doll hits the shelves, and kids go ape crap over it. They make millions from it. With the above mentioned pov, Joe who made the doll, has the IP rights, Mattel reproduced it on a broader scale and made it go viral through their marketing of the doll Joe designed. Joe is ticked off beyond all belief because it was his idea, and he only got the amount his contract gave him, which is substantually nil to what Mattel made. Joe could have simply done it all himself, designed the doll, made it, and marketed it, ect. Would it have had the same raving impact, maybe, but did Joe have all the resources Mattel had to make the doll as rave as it became, probably not.

Now I do understand those who don't work they have created, for this use, I get that, Just label it as not 3d printer friendly. Which there it would at least be contained to usage for, and against.

As for taking the models to a company, there is where the main fight would instill, because of the mesh geometry needed to do the print. Which would need a reasonable licensing usage if the person was wanting to go that route.I understand that completely. As for an individual who owns their own 3d printer the mesh goes no where but into the programming to put out the figurine, so a little less of a fiasco with distributing the mesh. Maybe one could list the files & links to the models used in an online readme source as to what it took to create the model, much like giving the ingredients on the labels, to legitamitely sale the item, so as a no claim to the rights of the mesh only the licensing usage of it in physical form.

Very good points though. And concerns as well, but I ask this as well, if you are a content creator at said place which isn't too fond of the idea of 3d printing, and wish to allow your content for use in this new uncharted area, then what. I guess there is the whole you could try to market it yourself outside the source, but that would be limiting, unless you are a Jack Tomalin, or Ironman13 which have a strong following base. But for those which use the middle man as a marketing base, that would be very limiting to them that wish to pioneer this new terrain. It does seem to be a double edged blade.

Just thoughts, and thank you all for throwing out your imput.

Quote - Ah, yes...the ongoing "intellectual property" discussion.  Oklahoma now is taxing intellect.  Really.  It's rather convoluted but if you have any sort of intellectual property, you now owe property taxes on it.

LOL yeah. I see that being enforced... Just like, in several states, if you go to another state on vacation and buy anything then bring it back to the state you live in, you're supposed to pay taxes on it when you get home. Like anyone does that.

In terms of 3D printing, poser models aren't high enough resolution as-is, to be viable for printing. There are a ton of modifications required to make it so. The model needs to be hollow, for example, but still have wall thickness, which basically means taking it into a program like ZBrush and preparing it for print, which is a job (and headache, if the model wasn't originally designed for printing) all its own. ZB does have a plug-in that's specifically for print exporting. Not sure what else it does tho since I've never used it.

By the time you did all that, none of the geometry would be the same as when you started out. So the only thing you'd really have to worry about in that regard is V4's shape being copyrighted. 

I just ran across a blog recently where a girl is using V4 to create a ball jointed doll. She's chopped up the mesh - in ZB i'm guessing - and modified the parts to be printed out. Not sure how far she's gotten with it, but it's clearly V4 she's using. I think she even stated as such in her blog posts. 

If she ever finishes it and decides to market it, (I think its just a personal project tho) then I can see where she'd run into a problem with DAZ in terms of V4's face/shape being so recognizable, but everything else, I don't think DAZ would be able to do much about it. They don't own copyright on the human form, only on the shape they create. Once that shape is modified, it no longer belongs to DAZ. 

~Shane

Quote -
Maybe this example would work, Joe Schmo works at Mattel, he designs a doll for the Barbie line, he gets the doll approved, they make the doll and Joe gets payed his normal fees as stated by their contract of usage, the doll hits the shelves, and kids go ape crap over it. They make millions from it. With the above mentioned pov, Joe who made the doll, has the IP rights, Mattel reproduced it on a broader scale and made it go viral through their marketing of the doll Joe designed. Joe is ticked off beyond all belief because it was his idea, and he only got the amount his contract gave him, which is substantually nil to what Mattel made. Joe could have simply done it all himself, designed the doll, made it, and marketed it, ect. Would it have had the same raving impact, maybe, but did Joe have all the resources Mattel had to make the doll as rave as it became, probably not.

Simple. Anything Joe makes for Matel belongs to Matel, not Joe. Joe is not the IP holder, Matel is. Matel hired Joe to create a doll, and paid him whatever was agreed to in the contract. It doesn't matter how many millions or billions Matel makes off of Joe's work, they only owe him the ammount Joe agreed to when he signed the contract. If Joe tries to turn around and market copies of the doll he made for Matel, Matel could sue the everliving piss out of him, and would win. 

Pretty much anything you create while working for a company, belongs to that company, not you, unless there are stipulations in your employment contract that state otherwise. There have been many lawsuits over this, and in most situations the companies win. 

Todd McFarlane, for example, was sued by Marvel when he created Spawn, because he was working for Marvel at the time so Marvel claimed ownership, even though he originally tried selling the idea to Marvel and they rejected it. 

~Shane

Yup. I call it IP theft by contract, but "Work for hire" is the law of the land. You don't play, you don't work, you don't eat. I consider it an insentive to never do my best work. At least not in design.

In the case of DAZ, you technically had to click on the eula before V4 could install her. So you digitally signed the contract even though you didn't read. YOUR BAD!

Plus... I go back to my most important point. If you have the skills to pull Vicky apart, you have the skills to model her.

There are even Creative Commons and Pulblic Domain human figure models you can cheat with if you really don't feel like the hour or two you need to make your own figure from scratch.

"Simple. Anything Joe makes for Matel belongs to Matel, not Joe. Joe is not the IP holder, Matel is. Matel hired Joe to create a doll, and paid him whatever was agreed to in the contract. It doesn't matter how many millions or billions Matel makes off of Joe's work, they only owe him the ammount Joe agreed to when he signed the contract."

Might not be the best example, but I was trying to explain a view from what I was getting from the post, now if I misinterpreted the post I am sorry, it might be I didn't see the vision expressed clearly or personal judgement of views might be conflicting and blinded something I may have missed.

That was the exact point I was trying to make, to a degree, but with the perspective of a content creator making something for someone else to use for commercial use, then turning around and wanting more revenue because the model made the artist using it more money than the person selling it did. I do understand the frustration, with how this could play out, but how many times has someone come up with a good idea, sold the rights to a company, and the company make good off of the idea. Technically it is the same Idea, just in a different format, with more involved than just handing over the complete rights of usage, the goal is seeking out a medium ground to make this vision possible.

Quote - Yup. I call it IP theft by contract, but "Work for hire" is the law of the land. You don't play, you don't work, you don't eat. I consider it an insentive to never do my best work. At least not in design.

In the case of DAZ, you technically had to click on the eula before V4 could install her. So you digitally signed the contract even though you didn't read. YOUR BAD!

Plus... I go back to my most important point. If you have the skills to pull Vicky apart, you have the skills to model her.

There are even Creative Commons and Pulblic Domain human figure models you can cheat with if you really don't feel like the hour or two you need to make your own figure from scratch.

well if the person didn't read the EULA, yeah I can see where it would be their "Bad". But if the content isn't leaving the place to create the model, how is that theft if in terms, it would be even harder to reproduce the figure in it's original form if say it were 3d scanned. If you are using the models bought, to create a physical doll, ect. you are not sharing the files of the content, they are not stored in the plastic printing out the physical form. I only see theft in the form of handing over the data to a company to print it out for you, in which if that route needed be traversed, you would have to have some kind of reasonable licensing to do so, for the sake of using the model for commercial or personal usage. That I can see where the point is valid about IP rights, but maybe you can better explain to me how would the same rights apply, if the source wasn't extracted and given to a print shop.

I aint trying to start a war over this, I would like to see this work and benefit both parties, the creators and end users as well, seeing that I would believe it would pour more into the community, in both workflow, and the possibility of making more revenue. Or at least this is how I am seeing it unfold in my head.

And you are seeing it years after content creators already fought the battle to retain the copyright to their creations.

The real issue is money though. If content creators were rolling in huge piles of cash, they wouldn't care about 3d printed use, but the fact of the matter is only 10% of the content creators out there make enough to do it full time for a living.

I'm sure if you approached them with a reasonable amount for the right to digitally print thier copyrighted items, they would be happy to oblige, but th efact of the matter is poser content is grossly underpriced for the work involved in it's creation.

Example: The going rate for modelling a 3d statue for reproduction is between $1000 and $4000, depending on detail level and final sculpt size.

Tell me which poser content user is ready to pay that amount for reproduction rights? (And keep in mind, you need to buy the rights for everything you want to use in your print.. the figure, props, clothing, ect.

AND you also need to have them adapt is so it can be actually be 3d printed, which could be weeks of work.

This has been discussed MANY times in the last few years over and over again.

If you want to make 3d prints of items, learn to make them.

Quote - well if the person didn't read the EULA, yeah I can see where it would be their "Bad". But if the content isn't leaving the place to create the model, how is that theft

I think you confused two different issues.

• I consider the practice of "Wor for Hire" to be "Theft by Contract".  When you work for a company YOUR creativity legally becomes the property of the legal non-entinty that is the company you work for. You are basically coerced into signing the contract since the alternative is their hiring some one else. You ussually lose both accreditation as well as any fututre finacial gain from your creative concepts I cdon't think Copyright should EVER be transferable. But since art is such a competitive market at the commercial level, and multi-billion dollar corpatation can legally outgun any individual, that's just the way it is until society decides to value indivudual creativity over corporate profit.

• The EULA discussion is a different form of contract.  Realistically DAZ doesn't have the financial resources to go after inidivuadals using their creative products for one off pieces of art, or even the kind of low manufacting production that 3D printing provides. You could probably print out some limited one offs or unique pieces of art using DAZ products you purchased without issue. But if you reach a certain undetermined number, I'm sure they will legally address use of thier product as explicitly denied in their eula. Most likely with a cease and deist order. If you took a 3D file that used DAZ content to a commercial 3D print service to have something made for your self, it should be fine. Even a commisioned work of art should slip through the cracks. But if you want to make 1000 copies and sell them, you might be in trouble.

• If that 3D Print service kept the files you provided and offered to print them for other people, they would have a problem.

The only thing we can say about the technology is that it will change and improve. If it is possible to laser scan a physical model and convert it to data to be printed, I don't see why a software equivalent might not be able to 'scan' a 3D model and do the same. The problems of converting geometry files might fo away. Regarding the question of rights,

I not sure I really see a lot of logical difference between making 2D prints or films, or any other accepted commercial use and 3D printing - someone is still making money off someone else's IP. I suppose one could argue that with the 3D print, the value is in the representation of the model itself if you just printed a stock T Pose figure. Once you get into creatively posing and clothing the figure though it acquires its primary value from the creative efforts of the artist - the same as a 2D image. Why should one be permitted and the other prohibited. Note I'm not arguing the original modeler's right to impose such restrictions, I'm just saying the difference puzzles me - unless it boils down to some abstract perception that it is somehow entirely different or - more likely, the thought that the 3D print is probably going to be more financially lucrative. People see a render and they think a few posters maybe or a book cover. They think 3D print and they start seeing Barbie and her millions.

Maybe within a decade, 3D printers will be as common as the traditional kind. If Poser or something similar is still around, people are naturally going to want to print their artwork. I doubt that most of them are going to make any more money than most people do now; maybe the occasional few bucks at the flea market. I hope that the model creators and the artists can reach a reasonable balance here. Of course, thinking of Kinect and the beginnings of consumer mocap, maybe in 10 years, 3D scanning and automatic rigging will have reached a point where purchasing 3D figures will be obsolete anyway.  

AFAIK, it's no longer necessary to make all models water tight for printing, although many Poser models make extensive use of bumps, displacements and transparencies that the output from them would likely be horrible.

I've considered sending some of my stuff for printing but I haven't the money to spend on what's essentially a vanity project.  

@Gareee

"Example: The going rate for modelling a 3d statue for reproduction is between $1000 and $4000, depending on detail level and final sculpt size."

The problem with this IMHO, is that with the sales of 3d models in the store being anywhere 5$ to 50$ depending on the product, this would be outrageous to have to pay 1,000 - 4000$ per item modeled. The product would have to sell for at least a quater more than the going rate to include a fair standard for comission in this standard. Now, is anyone making 3d art going to pay that amount for a set of hair, or a sculpted human figure? I see what you are saying about compensation for the time put into modelling a figure, trust me I know the time put into modelling first hand, but if I went by those standards, you all would LOL me outta the forum.

Hence a reasonable license fee for those using the models, by taking the compiled scene made in a 3d program, to a 3rd party printing site, maybe based on a limit number, meaning how many items used, from vendors which allow their models to be printed, like 1-3 models 5 bucks, 4-6 7.50, ect, where the licensing would be set up like a serial number page, in the acount area, so if approached about usage you can whip that out and have yourself covered. Where the license fee would be split up with the middle man site, and vendors who models are used in the production of the item be printed. There not only the content creators get paid, but the middle man site as well, since it is covering for the usage of the products in that project.

As for the person which owns their 3d printer I don't really see it as the need to go through all the hoops as someone who is taking it to a 3d Kinko's, if the person is keeping the mesh from having to redistribute it, then it would be the same as rendering a 2d image, and placing it up for sale on a desktop background site or on a coffee mug or ect. Maybe the end user could keep their 3d printer serial on file with the middle man site, to keep up with who has and has not to keep the bickering about usage to a minimal. Maybe even offering up a by project or annually license to keep submitting printing projects as long as the license is valid, where the end user would have to submit product info on the sites accounting area, while if the end user decides to cancel the license terms they can keep printing the already done projects commercially, but can't add new ones to the fold.

"This has been discussed MANY times in the last few years over and over again."

And I do hope a solution to this can be found. One that benefits both parties, but is reasonable.

This is an opinion, but a possibility, keep in mind I am a dreamer, and an esentric one at that, so this may sound like a Pisces rambling about an imaginary world.

With the possibility of this uncharted area, while the stage is set at it's infancy, either it can possibly level the playing field on how everything is done, we are talking 3d printing some models right now, but this may be the future in different areas as well. It is just now hitting the mainstream in the past few years, and will spark the minds of those which may have never heard of 3d programs such as Poser or Daz to get involved with using them. Bringing more revenue to the content creators and middlemen sites. All because they see 3d printing and get psyched cause this means a different means to producing stuff. Where the costs to do so now is fairly a vanity project, in the future it may become common as printing out a 2d image. This also has the possibility to aid in artificial organ creation, where as organ harvesting, waiting for a transplant would become the obsolete practice, even making it possibly more affordable to prolong life itself. Just a couple of possibilities this offers. Not to get off topic, with 3d creation, and the models used, but with each seed grows a plant, if nurtured correctly. This truely has been discussed over and over again, I did read some of the posts googled about it, but when the topic is brought up and words exchanged hopefully with an intent of learning or coming to a common ground to advance this further than just a money making scheme for some creators of the content, or end users who want to make a few pretties and put up in their store, is the seed in which may advance the whole idea of 3d printing into other avenues. And with this said, the vendor who modeled the realistic looking heart to be used in a zombie apocalypse piece could be the one to model the heart for the next artificial heart which will not rely if it takes or not to the person. These are just possibilities, but it all starts on the lowest level and works it's way up, thus forth can be seen as evolution through the technology, but then again that all depends on the way things pan out, sorry to get way off topic from just talking about the 3d and licensing, but this is what I meant earlier by the potential being so much more. It has to start somewhere.

@lmckenzie

"People see a render and they think a few posters maybe or a book cover. They think 3D print and they start seeing Barbie and her millions."

My wife an I talked about this today, actually when discussing this as a means to go beyond the current ways, while it is reinventing the already invented. As with any technology, comes responcibility.

@SAM

"AFAIK, it's no longer necessary to make all models water tight for printing, although many Poser models make extensive use of bumps, displacements and transparencies that the output from them would likely be horrible."

Agreed there, while but the models would be a great base for some to use and would be a great learning experiance for some to get the model to to print quality based on their expertise learning curve, while providing content creators a new source of income to make the 3d model 3d printing ready if the end user and the creator can agree to come to a agreement on the price and usage. Also would increase tutorials needed for said ventures, which someone can write and place for sale.

"I've considered sending some of my stuff for printing but I haven't the money to spend on what's essentially a vanity project."

I know exactly what you mean, I wish I could print out my some model I made, same boat I am afraid, hell I am doing all my modelling on a 2004 pc, with a Nvidia mx440 graphics card, and only 500 mb of ram. go ahead lol I know that is coming after mentioning those specs, but you got to play with the hand your dealt with.

Just my two bits on it...

Starting with the assumption you have a 3d obj that you got a general commercial licence to use in createing images, art, etc.  But speciffically prohibits reselling the geometry itself (which is what the copyright actually covers).  As I understand copyright law, you could use that mesh to create a 3d printed object and legally that would be no different than creating a digital image for commercial use... you aren't actually distributing or reselling the geometry so copyright isn't an issue.  Same as if you use it to create a digital pic, then use that pic to have printed art made, or graphics on a t-shirt, etc.  The physical model doesn't contain the obj geometry and its the specific geometry that is copyrighted (copyright law requires that you copyright something very specific, so for example to register the copyright for V4, DAZ would have had to submit a copy of the obj geometry to the copyright office which keeps a copy on file and that is what the court will compare too in determining if copyright infringement has occurred.  Since we do have a license to use V4 in commercial art, and since a physical object doesn't contain the geometry mesh, its not copyright infringement nor is it a derivative work, however, see EULA's below).

However, then we get into EULA agreements.  EULA agreements can pretty much specifiy anything they want and its binding.  So say someone makes a 3d obj mesh and includes a EULA that says you can use it to create any form of art provided you don't violate the copyright (resell the obj mesh itself) and at no point color any part of the object blue.  Weird as that may be, its legally binding.  Or you could make a model of your girlfriend, sell it and specify that it can be used to create any sort of digital art, so long as it does not contain any sexually explicity content... and its legally binding, your virtual girlfriend won't be making digital porn (at least not legally).  So if DAZ has basically said you can't use V4 for 3D printing with out more or less going thru DAZ in the EULA, you're stuck with that.  EULA's allow you to place pretty much any restriction or reserve any right you (as the creator and copyright holder) might wish.  It can get pretty weird, I've seen EULA's that, for example, allowed almost anything but stated you couldn't post images created with the content to a certain web site... apparently the creator didn't like that specific website and didn't want any of their stuff used in art there... guess what, its legal to do that... annoying, but legal.

As far as the idea that someone could rescan the printed 3D model and somehow recover the 3D obj mesh... no, they couldn't.  First, 3D printing requires post work that will somewhat alter the topology of the figure (from what I've seen, they have to smooth it out because the printer leaves lots of rough spots), once that's done you've got a prototype you can use to cast molds from for production.  Even if you scanned that, you wouldn't get the same obj geometry.  A good 3d model has a mesh with vertice edges that follow the contours of the body.  But a scanner will generally just give you straight rings looping around the figure.  Plus the polygon count itself would be different.  Try using that mesh and it won't deform the same way as the original figure, you'll get noticebly different results.  Also that scanned mesh won't include any rigging, morphs, etc.   So the idea that someone will copy the figure and somehow "steal" the work of the original 3d modeller is just silly, can't happen that way.  It would take a lot of work to recreate it and that would cost someone way more money and time than just spending the $50 and buying a copy of V4 directly from DAZ
Now personally, if I were going to try my hand at 3D printing from a 3D model, I'd skip Poser and Poser content entirely.  I'd shell out for 3D Studio Max or ZBrush, go to a professional 3D model vendor (exhchange3d for example, which in their standard license explicitly includes the right to use the model in 3D printing) and buy a much higher rez model than V4 that doesn't have any restriction about 3D printing and have at it.  Which is, from what I understand, exactly what most trying to do this are doing.

Someone mentioned that as the technology for 3D printing becomes more common place, this will all shake out and I think that is true.   I really don't get some of the crazy EULA agreements I've seen in the Poser community, sometimes it just seems plain silly or greedy or paranoid.  But, if you buy something that comes with a EULA, you are bound by it.  Even if it seems or is really dumb, you agreed to it so deal with it.  If you don't like the EULA's of a specific vendor, buy from someone else.

Doesn't DAZ even have something against uploading your scenes to render farms if they contain DAZ models? 

Maybe I'm wrong about that but thought I heard that somewhere a while back. Haven't read the updated EULA tho so not sure.

But uploading the models to a 3D print company's website is still distributing the models, which is against EULA. You'd be sending the model files to someone that doesn't have license to use it. Printing isn't an automatic thing, someone on the other end has to check the model to make sure it's viable for printing and then configure/convert it to work with whatever print system they're using.

So there's one area where 3D printing differs from 2D printing.

And the majority of users don't have their own 3D printers, and those that are available for home use aren't that great on details, so I'm guessing most people that wanted to do that would be sending to a professional print service that have access to higher quality printers.

Keep in mind also, 3D printing averages about $2 per square CM of material, up to $5 or more, so printing even a small figure ( 3 inches or so) can get pricey pretty fast. At this point 3D printing is still only viable for most to prototype a model intended for traditional casting. 

~Shane

I don't think that anyone is goint to even potentially  make enough money off of this for it to be a practical issue for some years yet. At the low end, for a figure to become a big seller usually requires a tie-in with a film etc., so that's pretty much out. Creating a unique new figure that could compete with the gazillion made in PRC plastic things seems far fetched. At  the high end, you would need both artistic excellence and a high quality castine to get collectors to pony up enough to mske a profit. For the most part, I think this will remain as Sam said, a vanity type thing for a while. There are always exceptions that prove the rulu. I suppose someone could create a poignant fallen runner figure and market it as a memorial to the Boston bombing tragedy, something like that that caught people's imaginations and took off for awhile, but again, that's an exception.

So in other words, Mahakali, you don't want to pay people properly for their work.

Thats exactly why the rights to 3d printing were removed from the various site's Eulas.

If someone has to take a week to make a 3d printable conversion for you possible, what is that time worth to you? How much do you think they should make for a week's working wages? At even only a walmart wage of $10 an hour, thats $400.

I'd be interested to see what you think a week's worth of work is actually worth to you.

(And the "they can make it up in volume sales" justification can't be used, because there are VERY few people intestested in high costly 3d printing.)

I think the situation with a 3D printing service is a bit of a grey area.  Technically they do have a license of sort since their access is subject to their contract to provide a service, they are not reselling or redistributing the obj file, nor do they keep it beyond what is required to produce the model.  Basically, its like saying "Okay, I bought this model and I have a right to make art with it, but instead of rendering it myself I'm gonna upload it to my friend Bob's super awesome graphics computer to do the render, then the obj files after the render is done."  On the basis of copyright law alone I don't think anyone could make a case against that.  So while I'm not a lawyer, I would make an educated guess that there is a legal precendent for it, if not it would likely be up to a judge.

However, if DAZ's EULA specifically states (and I haven't read it for myself lately, so this is an example for sake of discussion) that you can't provide it to a 3D printer or only to one they approve or that the 3D printer must first buy a copy of DAZ V4 or what have you, then those clauses would be binding and you'd be obligated to follow it, period.  Doesn't matter if copyright law itself would allow it, if the EULA says you can't then you can't.

Like I said, copyright is one thing, EULA's are a separate issue.  You can be fine on the actual copyright and still run into trouble with the EULA.  Pays to read it carefully before you use the stuff (and its one reason I'm getting leary fo using anything by DAZ because last I looked their EULA was getting longer and longer and frankly, who needs the hassle?)

So far as the marketablility might be, you might be surprised.  15 years ago I briefly dealt with a company that was then taking 3D models made by artist and turning them into bronze cast statuettes that sold from $200 to over $5,000 each.  I also know that some in the RPG metal/plastic miniature industry have experimented with using 3D models and printers to create master copies that injection molds are then made from.  But again, you're better off buying base models that have fewer "strings" attached.

All you need to make a 3D print is a Lego NXT set...

It is a new version of my LEGO 3D Milling Machine. It was developed to participate in the WRO 2011 - Abu Dhabi in the "LEGO Robotics Experts" area.

There is a lot of improvements, but the most important is that it is running leJOS with a linked PC. Now there is no more file size restrictions. All the data is in the computer that sends small amount of coordinates to the NXT every loop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oF0pMILT7_Y

Edit; here's another one...

http://www.makermasters.com/diy-lego-3d-cnc-milling-machine

"But uploading the models to a 3D print company's website is still distributing the models, which is against EULA. You'd be sending the model files to someone that doesn't have license to use it. Printing isn't an automatic thing, someone on the other end has to check the model to make sure it's viable for printing and then configure/convert it to work with whatever print system they're using."

Which was why I was saying about the licensing if that route needed to be taken.

@Gareee,

Ok, let me put it this way since you are misinterreting what I said, Take your Warcow, and put it up for $1,000. How many people are going to buy it?And are you going to make your minimum wage selling it at that price.

With this attitude that most people seem to have, the only people that would be even remotely close to paying those fees for time spent would be the buisness industry.

"The problem with this IMHO, is that with the sales of 3d models in the store being anywhere 5$ to 50$ depending on the product, this would be outrageous to have to pay 1,000 - 4000$ per item modeled. The product would have to sell for at least a quater more than the going rate to include a fair standard for comission in this standard. Now, is anyone making 3d art going to pay that amount for a set of hair, or a sculpted human figure? I see what you are saying about compensation for the time put into modelling a figure, trust me I know the time put into modelling first hand, but if I went by those standards, you all would LOL me outta the forum."

Say I made a conforming belt buckle, it took say a week to get it right  modelled, and another month to get all the bells and whistles put in, and days to get the promos done up to par with what is deemed acceptable to a marketplace terms, as well as writing the Readme, and getting it tested. I figure with all the time put in making it, letting the renders go for hours on a pc, which in my case is slow if I am doing a very detailed render, and place it in the marketplace for 500$ because it was standard going wages . First most marketplaces would probably deny it based on unfair pricing, I beleive Rendo has a pricing guide set up for industry standards when submitting your product, am I not correct, unless I uploaded it at TS, E3d. Everyone is not gonna need a belt buckle, so limited audience, but it caters to those that say may need one, and wasn't offered previously.

Now if you are talking about making back in sales, the time put in, selling at 10.00 -20.00, whatever the standards set by Rendo is on their guide, and people buy for that amount, do you honestly expect them to pay up to 4000$ to do the same thing as if they rendered an image sold it for a couple of bucks to a friend, or taken to a consignment comic shop, Hell, the image could become another viral thing, and be sold on coffee mugs, posters, t shirts, any other novelty items, and make that person a millionaire where as the person making the 3d print have the same success and low and behold now you have content creators coming out of the wood work like sharks because how dare someone make a replica of their mesh physically. As I have stated, a few times already, I can see the whole thing where vendors get upset about people going and sharing the model for the project. Yes protect the content, but there is new technologies advancing, do you partake or be left behind. You can opt out of partaking in pioneering something new, where as others would evolve their crafts. Nothing wrong with that, just the warcow wouldn't be the next saturday morning cartoon with it's own toy line based on your model, and if by some means it did, there is your making up for only obtaining minimum wages in sales. I am not trying to pick a fight with you on it, but using the example you gave earlier.

As for the time put into modelling the model, putting forth greater value to it, where as the commisioner could watch over the process of the sculptor if in the same area of work environment, the person can see forth first hand how much time is put into the work. Where as a 3d model if someone said they spent X amount of hours on the job, an end user would not know the true time spent, for all the end user knows you could have made the mesh in an hour or two, where as in the amount of worth one puts forth could be exagerated, to boost up the "time spent" it would fall under the whole honor system and whether one would believe the words from source, while a shady thing to do, it can be done. The end result which wins over many end users is, is the model right for what I want, affordable for what I can afford, and how well is it made. Strangely enough not too many people care about the process of the creation of their content unless they are wanting to learn how to do it themselves. But that is an opinion, I could be completely wrong there in some cases, but in some cases it is true. Everyone's flavor and demeanor is different.

You asked if I would rather see the content creator deprived of their worth, the answer is no. I have bought a model set which cost 40$ and the next day it was in Fast Grab, for 7$, did I call up Daz and ask for a refund, no because the model was worth the 40$ I spent for it. Was I miffed, no, a little dissapointed, because that would have meant I could have gotten a few hairs I had in my cart which I took out to get the tavern set, was I glad that others could get it, sure that gave the chance for someone in a less financial way, a great oppertunity to play with something they normally couldn't afford.

Now if I see a content creator that is just asinine, I will avoid them like the plague. Those would be the only ones that have no worth to me, but they have worth to someone else, all is good then.

"If someone has to take a week to make a 3d printable conversion for you possible, what is that time worth to you? How much do you think they should make for a week's working wages? At even only a walmart wage of $10 an hour, thats $400."

Ugggggh Wal-Mart I hated working there, unloading trucks sucks, and department manager of toys , with all your help being pulled to other departments sucks, especially when you have 10 return carts each morning because management sucks, yeah I had good crew but bad management. To answer your question, that would have to be decided upon by the modeller and the end user if the end user required that be done, if the end user can't do it themselves, if the model isn't printer ready. The wages aint for me to decided and that would be between the two who were duking out negotiating those terms, if that case arose. But with that example I am glad to know I made more than the 10$ imaginary person did. :)

"I'd be interested to see what you think a week's worth of work is actually worth to you."

A week of my time, depends how much Mt Dew I have, meat lovers pizzas, I am comfortable with just about anything as long company aint composed of closed minded people. A week's worth to me is living as I am as who I am, but not what I am not. You can't put a value on that... I do it because I love it... If I make something off of it, good, if I don't oh well. It would be nice to be able to pay all my bills with my models, but meh, you can only do so much, and if the normal crowd ain't down with my twisted mind cool beans "have a nice day", as Mick Foley would say in his awesome voice.

"(And the "they can make it up in volume sales" justification can't be used, because there are VERY few people intestested in high costly 3d printing.)"

I'm interested in it, I can't afford it but I am very interested in it on many levels, where as now I couldn't just go out and plop down 3 grand on it, in the future when it may become as low cost to produce a couple of D&D figures, hell maybe a cool fantasy figurine to put up our physical goods shop, who knows I may even want to open a Delighted storefront and sell my inspirations there, who knows what the future holds. But between you and me, the main reason I want to see this excell instead of fall, is because this holds new oppertunities beyond just the simple make pretties and sell them, where as this is off topic in what I am about to say, but if the time comes where as this technology has the capability to maybe someday aid in getting my step daughter off of Insulin for the rest of her life I will embrace it full force. Now I might be a dreamer condemned to just seeing the black and white before me, but it has to start somewhere. And I see this as a possibility not only with her, but with any transplant patient, just another reason why I feel a sigh of releif when in my lifetime it has come to pass the ability to not only print in 2d but in 3d as well, even though it has been in use for years now by big industry, that it is making a huge process in the mainstream now. And who knows where the modeller would come from, if in fact they were creating tools to save those who wouldn't have a chance other wise, they might even be from the community here themselves, who knows how fate will pan out sometimes. I understand if you can't see past to what I am seeing the future hold, I don't ask you too, but it is why I exsist. As I said it starts on the lower levels and works up, this is why I am so interested in it now... I might be a fool to believe such things, but I will believe it if it gives me hope for the future...

Now to get back on topic.

@Tarkhis

"I also know that some in the RPG metal/plastic miniature industry have experimented with using 3D models and printers to create master copies that injection molds are then made from.  But again, you're better off buying base models that have fewer "strings" attached."

That's pretty cool, I tried my hand with the old fashioned way, polymer clay, exacto blades, and a set of wood tools, and paper clips. Giants worked well, but getting them to proper scale wasn't so well.

Daz does have a 30 day, no questions asked refund policy. At least they did. I'm sure of it was abused they would flag and ban someone. But if a $40 item went on sale for $7,you were totally with in your rights to request a refund for the difference.

The simple fact is that the community runs on the honor system, and community policing. If The Combined MAFIAA (RIAA/MPAA), hasn't been able to dent the piracy market with enough resources to lobby the U.S. Government into coercing other into obedience, our little community is not going to do it.

It's technically impossible to track what item comes from what 3D printer. I just saw a DIY 3D printable stepper motor. Short of registering natural magnets, like we DON'T register guns, you're never going to be able to track who owns a 3D printer. If you are motivated enough you can get the stepper motors from old printer clogging landfill.

3D printing in plastic was brought to us by hobby hacker tech. Not commercial appliance manufacturers. There is no gate kepper. There is no realistic way to employ one.

Look at thingaverse vs. Defence Distributed.

Thingaverse banned gun parts. DD opened up there own Site.

We're talking about a homebrew tech that can persist off recycled plastic bottles for media and can all but self replicate.

Your business model is adapting to the tech, not the other way around.

I don't buy models because They are not available for free. I buy them because it's more convenient than trying to find them by other means, and it supports the artist the way I want to be supported.

That's your price point and contract limit. If your price too high for something fairly common, or your EULA is too restictive, you'll just be competed out of the market.

"
Daz does have a 30 day, no questions asked refund policy. At least they did. I'm sure of it was abused they would flag and ban someone. But if a $40 item went on sale for $7,you were totally with in your rights to request a refund for the difference."

Understood, completely, I just didn't see a point in doing so at the time, and the item was well worth it,

"I don't buy models because They are not available for free. I buy them because it's more convenient than trying to find them by other means, and it supports the artist the way I want to be supported."

Exactly, I buy what I need or want in the moment, for whatever it is I am doing.