I decided to send this as a question to a group of lawyers, >which should reply within 12 hours whether its legal or not

Before wasting some attorney's time please throughly read the DAZ EULA ,that you Defacto Agreed to, when you installed any Daz figure on your computer.

To be fair ,Daz never claimed I could not use MY base clothing dev meshes or even give them away free to people.

Only that by surrounding the Shape of the genesis Models with my geometry My models then became "subject to the Daz EULA" which apparently forbids the Open source distribution that I was attempting. Silly, far reaching and questionable ??..yes

No actual harm to me , I still make my own custom ,one off clothing and morphs for genesis and use them in paid commercial animation projects.

Eulas are not considered legally binding, at least where I live, so the Daz Eula is worth squat

Before wasting some attorney's time please throughly read the DAZ EULA ,that you Defacto Agreed to, when you installed any Daz figure on your computer.

To be fair ,Daz never claimed I could not use MY base clothing dev meshes or even give them away free to people.

Only that by surrounding the Shape of the genesis Models with my geometry My models then became "subject to the Daz EULA" which apparently forbids the Open source distribution that I was attempting. Silly, far reaching and questionable ??..yes

No actual harm to me , I still make my own custom ,one off clothing and morphs for genesis and use them in paid commercial animation projects.

I read through the Eula and found this: Which I guess the person you spoke to might have referred to from the Terms of use section (This is just part of it):

...provided that User may not in any case publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any renderings, animations, software applications, data or any other product from which any Content, or any part thereof, or any substantially similar version of the Content can be separately exported, extracted or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or format.

However that was not what you did, based on your model. Right after this they state the following:

Three Dimensional Works. DAZ wishes to encourage the expansion of the catalog of Content available to its users. Accordingly, User may access, use, copy, and modify the Content to create one or more derived or additional three-dimensional works provided that:

• any such derived or additional three-dimensional works are designed to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store either by (i) requiring the use of such Content to function, or (ii) allowing only limited function when not used in conjunction with Content from the online DAZ store; and

• upon receipt of a written request from DAZ, User will immediately cease any and all distribution of the derived or additional three-dimensional works User has created from the Content, if DAZ has determined, in its sole discretion, that (i) such additional or derived work is substantially similar to or is a clone of existing Content; or (ii) such additional or derived work fails to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store as described above.

Which to me seems to pretty much say that you CAN use the mesh if you want to create a new one, as long as you do not keep part of the original mesh. So basically I would understand it as you can use the rig of V4 and the mesh as a starting point, you just have to make sure that you modify her. I can't find anything saying anything regarding props (clothing) having any relation to whether or not you would break the Eula.

To be fair ,Daz never claimed I could not use MY base clothing dev meshes or even give them away free to people.

Im not really sure that I follow you, you wrote in the former post:

..here is a tiny excerpt from the mutiple emails Daz sent threatening me with legal action over MY OWN Original Model:

I assume from what you wrote here, that Daz didn't really liked what you were doing, since they would threaten you with legal actions? It seems very confusing, like the person at Daz didn't know their own Eula, as there is nothing wrong with your mesh, its not even an extraction of V4, its completely different which is fine based on the Eula, regardless of it fitting or not fitting V4.

Eulas are not considered legally binding, at least where I live, so the Daz Eula is worth squat

Yeah its not easy to figure out, it seems to differ from place to place and how the court views it or something, from what I could figure out. And it apparently works a little differently in US than in EU (Where im from)

DreaminGirl posted at 11:19AM Thu, 30 August 2018 - #4335467

Eulas are not considered legally binding, at least where I live, so the Daz Eula is worth squat

Lol, EULA's are considered legally binding licence agreements, even in Europe today. I would be very careful about suggesting to people that EULA's or any licencing agreement can be freely ignored and you can do as you please with any item provided under a EULA. Their has been some talk and even some legal cases about shrink wrapped EULA and also click wrap EULA's, which are agreed to after the financial transaction has taken place. In these cases certain aspects of a EULA's, such as a right to first sale have been found not to be applicable in some situations, but by no means does that mean that a EULA is not a legally binding agreement. If you are going to consider yourself to be above EULA or any other licensing agreements you better have some very deep pockets. You also need to consider it may not be just the EULA you are breaching but Copyright, Patent or Intellectual property laws. This is not legal advice, I would advise anyone considering the above comment as a precedent, to seek professional legal advice before acting on it.

@ Wolf my understanding was that you were attempting to distribute a derivative figure under a new open source licence no? There was no issue with the mesh itself, it was to do with the use of the auto-transfer tool to transfer IP from a Genesis character to your owh dev mesh and then distribute it under an open source licence, as you describe here:

wolf359 posted in another thread - #4307951

For me in DS it is Make & detail model in C4D from my 6000 face base Dev mesh suit (pictured below) Export to Daz studio

Load target figure

launch transfer utility

choose clothing type from drop down (Shirt,pants, full body, etc) hit OK. Done!! I have fully functional conformer with all figure morphs active less than 10 second seconds , after export from C4D.

Save to library

Here is the thread from here at Renderosity discussing the Dev suit and the issues with it, if anyone is interested.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/?thread_id=2910846#msg4298559

Wolf my understanding was that you were attempting to distribute a derivative figure under a new open source licence no? There was no issue with the mesh itself, it was to do with the use of the auto-transfer tool to transfer IP from a Genesis character to your owh dev mesh and then distribute it under an open source licence, as you describe here

I think you are correct, that you are not allowed to do that, because in that case you could do that with any morphs, you would have to make them from scratch or release the mesh without the morphs and simply tell people how to use Daz3D to transfer them unto your mesh, which would be fine as far as I understand it.

3D-Mobster posted at 12:38PM Thu, 30 August 2018 - #4335468

I read through the Eula and found this: Which I guess the person you spoke to might have referred to from the Terms of use section (This is just part of it):

---

...provided that User may not in any case publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any renderings, animations, software applications, data or any other product from which any Content, or any part thereof, or any substantially similar version of the Content can be separately exported, extracted or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or format.

---

However that was not what you did, based on your model.

This is exactly what happened, The Dev suit/figure used the auto transfer utility to transfer IP from a Genesis figure to a new base mesh/figure/suit creating a derivative figure that was then intended to be distributed under an Open Source licence. An end user could then transfer the Genesis IP to another new figure or mesh and avoid any Daz 3D licensing.

Right after this they state the following:

---

Three Dimensional Works. DAZ wishes to encourage the expansion of the catalog of Content available to its users. Accordingly, User may access, use, copy, and modify the Content to create one or more derived or additional three-dimensional works provided that:

• any such derived or additional three-dimensional works are designed to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store either by (i) requiring the use of such Content to function, or (ii) allowing only limited function when not used in conjunction with Content from the online DAZ store; and

• upon receipt of a written request from DAZ, User will immediately cease any and all distribution of the derived or additional three-dimensional works User has created from the Content, if DAZ has determined, in its sole discretion, that (i) such additional or derived work is substantially similar to or is a clone of existing Content; or (ii) such additional or derived work fails to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store as described above.

---

Which to me seems to pretty much say that you CAN use the mesh if you want to create a new one, as long as you do not keep part of the original mesh. So basically I would understand it as you can use the rig of V4 and the mesh as a starting point, you just have to make sure that you modify her. I can't find anything saying anything regarding props (clothing) having any relation to whether or not you would break the Eula.

---

Here is the thing, the moment you create your unique item/clothing using anything like Shrink Wrap or Extract in a 3D modelling app, It is considered to be derivative. The moment you use auto- transfer tools to transfer rigging or morphs, it is considered to be derivative. The Daz 3D EULA provides conditions for distributing or selling derivative content as stated above. The licence owner can also at any time request the derivative content be removed from distribution as in the conditions stated above.

This kind of licensing isn't unusual for rigged figures lets take Project Evolution for example, these are the licence terms for Project E. Copyright (c) 2018 erogenesis. All rights reserved. Not intended for redistribution.

This could be taken to mean that any kind of conforming, derivative or transferred component of PE to clothing or any other items are in breach of copyright and leave those distributing them open to litigation. As there are no conditions to allow such under its distribution licence that I can see? Daz 3D licence on the other hand does allow this conditionally. Now I'm pretty sure Evo has no intention of taking anyone to court for derivative uses of PE, but that is not what is stated in the licence is it? Would Evo a have grounds for a breach of copyright case for someone selling a nice cardigan type clothing item for PE that is derivative from the base mesh or rigging? Has any legal grounds been granted by the copyright holder in defence of such a practice?

Hivewire 3D also has a EULA, that clearly states that no right is granted to create derivative content from any item in the store including Dawn SE AFAIK for sale or distribution. Would they legally enforce you to remove items from distribution, probably not. Could they if they wanted to? There are no legal grounds established to prevent them from doing so that I can see.

So it would seem that Daz 3D's Eula is actually more detailed and allows more freedom to creators then many others do in their licensing agreements. So I am not sure why it specifically is being scoffed at here?

3D-Mobster posted at 3:39AM Thu, 30 August 2018 - #4335453

---

DAZ :"The fact that you modelled the meshes to fit around the Daz figures means that they derive from the Daz figures, and so are subject to the Daz EULA."

Welcome to the Delusional world of Daz3D ?

---

That's hilarious :D

Derivative works are still subject to infringement laws. Just look at all the fan fiction that exists, and all of it that has been shut down by the IP owner(s).

I have to say that I doubt that such claim would hold up in court and sounds more like a scare tactic made by someone that think they have the right to do something that they ain't legally allow to do. I mean what would they do if someone accidentally figured out that one Dreamworks clothing items for a movie fitted V4, would they threaten them as well? I would like to see that :D

---

There might be is some legal rights if you copy/paste the rigging directly, and that i would say is a HUGE maybe only and would like to see or hear from a lawyer that actually know if that is true or not, because I find it hard to believe. I mean Daz don't have any legal right in calling their bones hip, chest etc. Every 3D human character is build on the principal that the rig is suppose to mirror that of a human being, animal or whatever. I can only imagine Disney and Dreamworks having to invent fictional bones because they are scared of Daz :D

The clothng won't fit V4 unless it's being worn by V4 or some character that was based on V4. The rigging in a piece of clothing has to match the rigging in the figure that it's intended to be used on. (IE, copy/paste the rigging directly). It's not just a matter of naming the various body parts and bones the same. The joint parameters have to be the same as well, and each joint parameter has its own host of values unique to that particular joint in that particular figure. Those values exist in a file that is interpreted by the software. In fact they are bits of software code themselves, and software code is vary much protected by IP laws.

To me it sounds insane, seriously deluded if they can get away with that or if people take it seriously. In regards to your mesh Wolf359 it could probably fit several characters with only minor changes.

Wolf my understanding was that you were attempting to >distribute a derivative figure under a new open source >licence no? >There was no issue with the mesh itself, it >was to do with the use of the auto-transfer tool to transfer >IP from a Genesis >character to your owh dev mesh and >then distribute it under an open source licence, as you >describe here:

No.. Wrong incident,,,, that was a diiferent Issue "that animation proxy figure" had Daz genesis rigging and I conceded that thier RIGGING was thiers and not mine to distribute, no problem

The Email exchanges I posted here ,were about a later static unrigged empty shell of MY ORIGINAL GEOMETRY ONLY from Silo& C4D for making clothing,.. No Daz rigging just my static "encasement" Again no problem for me or anyone who acquires the skill to make their own base dev mesh.

wolf359 posted at 7:38PM Thu, 30 August 2018 - #4335479

Wolf my understanding was that you were attempting to >distribute a derivative figure under a new open source >licence no? >There was no issue with the mesh itself, it >was to do with the use of the auto-transfer tool to transfer >IP from a Genesis >character to your owh dev mesh and >then distribute it under an open source licence, as you >describe here:

No.. Wrong incident,,,, that was a diiferent Issue "that animation proxy figure" had Daz genesis rigging and I conceded that thier RIGGING was thiers and not mine to distribute, no problem

The Email exchanges I posted here ,were about a later static unrigged empty shell of MY ORIGINAL GEOMETRY ONLY from Silo& C4D for making clothing,.. No Daz rigging just my static "encasement" Again no problem for me or anyone who acquires the skill to make their own base dev mesh.

From what I can tell the issue you are facing is more to do with the licensing terms you are attempting to distribute under 'Open Source' . The item you are describing would still be considered to be a derivative of the original Daz 3D model imo, the difference is whether the process to create the derivative was mechanical such as Shrink wrapping or Extracting from existing geometry or Manually as in loading the genesis base mesh and pushing and pulling vertices of a new mesh to encase the original mesh with a new one. Either way it is still derivative of the original mesh. Think photocopy(Mechanical) or tracing(Manual). Statements like this one reinforce the idea that it is derivative "ANY mesh that uses the shape of a Daz figure as a guide", using any original work as a guide would be considered to be derivative of that original. Your promo presented above also reflects that it is a derivative of the original Daz 3D mesh.

From what I can tell you were communicating with a Daz Forum moderator not an actual Daz 3D representative or their legal representative on this issue. And of course moderators will always er on the side of caution in issues like this one.

TBH I expect you will always run into issue with the Daz 3D EULA, when creating a derivative and attempting to distribute the item on any form of Open Source licence. Have you ever though of just operating under a standard licence, which respects the existing Daz 3D licence? If the item is 100% yours then of course you have a right to distribute under any licence you prefer, but any derivative must respect the original license. Daz 3D Clothing clones exist even in the Renderosity store with no issue, the difference is the licensing terms. The communication you received would seem to confirm that concept "as the shape of the base mesh is derived from the shape of the Daz figure it matches, and as a result you do not have the rights to make the mesh Open Source (or to loosen the Daz EULA in any way"

"I assume from what you wrote here, that Daz didn't >really liked what you were doing, since they would >threaten you with legal >actions? It seems very confusing, >like the person at Daz didn't know their own Eula, as >there is nothing wrong with your mesh, >its not even an >extraction of V4, its completely different which is fine >based on the Eula, regardless of it fitting or not fitting V4.

For clarification this was not a mesh for use with V4 V4 is dead to me !!

They were original geometry shells from the "silo man primitive" Stretched and pulled in C4D until it "encased" The Genesis 2&3 male and female bases.

From there I delete the parts I dont need and leave pants ,for example, and the sculpt and detail the pants or shirt or boots etc. before running the Daz transfer utility.

In the end Daz told that I can give these base encasements away or even SELL THEM. however my license must restrict their use to whatever they want to claim in there EULA.

My "problem "was with the very Bizzare principle that My original IP becomes subject to their EULA only because one could fit their T-posed Genesis figure inside my static T-pose human mannequin.

However The EULA is binding if you install their figure on your system

Frankly it is not a fight worth fighting as it does not affect me personally as an animated filmaker who only learned to model Sci fi clothing etc. because I utterly ABHORE begging at the feet of DAZ PAs' who have abandoned My perferred generation ( G2-G3) , they Dont really support Male figures as much and of course ,I dont pay for my custom ,on off clothing.

Here is the thing, the moment you create your unique item/clothing using anything like Shrink Wrap or Extract in a 3D modelling app, It is considered to be derivative. The moment you use auto- transfer tools to transfer rigging or morphs, it is considered to be derivative. The Daz 3D EULA provides conditions for distributing or selling derivative content as stated above. The licence owner can also at any time request the derivative content be removed from distribution as in the conditions stated above.

This kind of licensing isn't unusual for rigged figures lets take Project Evolution for example, these are the licence terms for Project E. Copyright (c) 2018 erogenesis. All rights reserved. Not intended for redistribution.

I can only go by what I believe to be true, and I really don't think Daz is legally able to call a piece of clothing for a derivative assuming that they for whatever reason chose to go to court, what they might do is to refuse to sell such item solely because they judge it to be one, but I think this is more like a "we can refuse to sell any item if we want", rather than having an actual legal right.

All objects PE, V4 etc. have basic copyright laws as far as I understand it so PE and Hirewire can say that they do not want anyone to share their design, but everyone have that right, regardless of what they write. The issue as I see it, is that we are talking about a human shape, rather than a complete design so if you removed the head of PE, V4 or Genesis and someone make a piece of cloth that happens to fit any of them, you would in theory have made a derivative of that character, keep in mind that cloth doesn't have to be skin tight, it could be a dress etc.

As said before, i can fully understand that you can not copy features such as morphs etc from Genesis to your own character and distribute it as your own.

The clothng won't fit V4 unless it's being worn by V4 or some character that was based on V4. The rigging in a piece of clothing has to match the rigging in the figure that it's intended to be used on. (IE, copy/paste the rigging directly). It's not just a matter of naming the various body parts and bones the same. The joint parameters have to be the same as well, and each joint parameter has its own host of values unique to that particular joint in that particular figure. Those values exist in a file that is interpreted by the software. In fact they are bits of software code themselves, and software code is vary much protected by IP laws.

Assuming that you only talk about conforming cloth, you can easily make dynamic cloth to fit several characters. And im really in doubt about the rigging, because I do agree that its data, well its as much data as the mesh of a character is. But humans as all other animals are in general very similar in shape and functionality, that you are working within very limited option compared to how many 3d humans are being created every day, which pretty much all use a somewhat similar setup. Remember that Genesis and all those characters are not new to this, they copied the basic rigging setup and technique from somewhere else.

So it would seem that Daz 3D's Eula is actually more detailed and allows more freedom to creators then many others do in their licensing agreements. So I am not sure why it specifically is being scoffed at here?

There is nothing wrong with Daz or their Eula, it just happens to be the one in question as it started with a discussion about V4 and whether SM should buy it, and since Daz owns her, it went on to whether Daz legally could claim that any character that would automatically fit any clothing items made for one of their characters would legally be able to say that it violate their IP for that character. So, at least from my point of view there are no bad feeling or anything wrong with Daz or their Eula, but its interesting to know exactly what a violation of IP involves when talking 3D characters.

wolf359 posted at 8:26PM Thu, 30 August 2018 - #4335483

They were original geometry shells from the "silo man primitive" Stretched and pulled in C4D until it "encased" The Genesis 2&3 male and female bases.

My "problem "was with the very Bizzare principle that My original IP becomes subject to their EULA only because one could fit their T-posed Genesis figure inside my static T-pose human mannequin.

These two ideas directly contradict each other "My Original IP" and "Stretched and pulled in C4D until it "encased" The Genesis 2&3 male and female bases."

It's like saying I used my own sand to make a mold of Michelangelo's David. I own the sand, therefore I also own the shape that the sand just happened to fall around after I pushed and pounded into encasing the original sculpture which I used as a "guide". Because it is my sand and my bronze that I am using to make this new statue which I now own the IP for.

If it is a derivative you cannot change the licence terms accepted, except where granted to you by the original license of which your item is derivative. See my last post I think we may of cross posted.

3D-Mobster posted at 8:46PM Thu, 30 August 2018 - #4335484

---

Here is the thing, the moment you create your unique item/clothing using anything like Shrink Wrap or Extract in a 3D modelling app, It is considered to be derivative. The moment you use auto- transfer tools to transfer rigging or morphs, it is considered to be derivative. The Daz 3D EULA provides conditions for distributing or selling derivative content as stated above. The licence owner can also at any time request the derivative content be removed from distribution as in the conditions stated above.

This kind of licensing isn't unusual for rigged figures lets take Project Evolution for example, these are the licence terms for Project E. Copyright (c) 2018 erogenesis. All rights reserved. Not intended for redistribution.

---

I can only go by what I believe to be true, ... Snipped for brevity

Okay this is muddying the water a little from this particular issue and copyright law is a very murky area at the best of time and should only be waded into legally if you have pretty deep pockets and solid understanding of the laws associated. What the Daz EULA states is that any derivative content created from Daz 3D IP is subject to the Daz 3D EULA and the conditions associated. A static model of a jacket made in Zbrush is in no way a derivative of Daz 3D content. If that Jacket was formed from any Daz 3D IP whether V4 or a Genesis figure as a base or guide, it is generally considered to be derivative. If that jacket is then imported to Daz Studio or any other app and rigging or morphs is transferred to it ifrom Daz 3D's IP it's definitely a derivative item. The law is pretty clear when it comes to copyright derivatives. And Daz 3D's EULA terms are also clear when sale or distribution of derivatives is or isn't allowed.

Despite what you think or believe Evo would be well within his legal right to challenge any vendors sale of derivative content built on his copyrighted Project Evolution base and the law would be on his side in the event of a lawsuit. (This is just an example and I am no way saying that this would happen or that Evo would want that to happen, in fact quite the opposite in my understanding.)

I know that you are thinking no one can copyright the human figure, but that isn't quite true, have a look at the Michelangelo's statue of David for example... What exactly does that copyright cover as David is just a naked male human figure, right. You need to ask yourself "Would anyone not recognise the uniqueness of the sculpture when shown a picture of it?" or would they just assume it is a generic human figure the same as any other? No one can copyright individual words (Trademarks aside) but you can copyright a novel made entirely from those very same words. You need to look at what exactly is being protected by the copyright and generalising is just going to make the concept more confusing in my own experience. No one is saying that any clothing item that fits on a Daz 3D figure is derivative, what is being said is that any item made using Daz 3D IP as a base or a in some cases as a guide, can be considered to be a derivative of the original according to the legal definition.

As I have said Daz 3D does allow the resale of derivative content in pretty much all cases, but changing the license to Open Source is probably a step to far.

Hmmm... I really don't know, I get the impression that even the lawyers are not sure, by looking at others cases. Someone asked if it was legal to make a 3D model based on a 2d image found on google, like a building for instant. Some say that it is considered derivative as the building is copyrighted, others say that it depends. Pretty much all 3D modelers uses reference images either from google or some real stuff item, which apparently in most cases, from what I can understand is illegal, even if they just get inspired by them according to some of the lawyers.

This is the original question that the person asked:

Question:

In 3d modeling copyright law, Is it okay to base 3d models off of photographs of objects? when building a 3d model I have noticed that most, if not all modelers create their models from images found through google searches. Oftentimes they trace the objects in 3d and build from there. Is this legal? Obviously having a company's logo included in the model is illegal, but appropriating the image into 3d, is this lawful?

Here is two answers from IP law attorneys:

First one:

Your 3d object is likeley a derivative work of an origional i mage or picture. it is therfore an infringement of the origional copyright owner's rights. Engage an experienced copyright attorney to counsel you on your specific fact.

The second one uses a blender as example.

Second one:

Q: "As an example, say I want to make a blender. I go into google search and look for an image of a blender. Taking that image I begin to make a blender in 3d. I may change some of the angles to make it more to my liking."

R: Basic copyright and trade dress / design patent laws apply.

As for copyright, the general rule is that absent a license it's unlawful to create a 3D sculpture from someone else's 2D image. The 3D sculpture would infringe the 2D image copyright owner's exclusive right to make "derivative" works based on his work. But there's a wrinkle: To be an derivative work the 3D sculpture creator must create a copyrightable work. A 3D blender is NOT, however, a copyrightable "work" because copyright does not attach to "useful articles." I think copyright law does not prohibit the creation of a 3D useful article based upon a 2D photograph.

As for trade dress law, the specific, source-identifying appearance of a useful article is the exclusive "trade dress" of that product's manufacturer. Moreover, any new and non-obvious ornamental appearance of a product can be protected by a design patent [visit the link below to view some design patents claiming the appearance of blenders]. Before creating a blender that looks a lot like someone else's blender [or any product] it's first necessary to determine if the appearance of that product is protected under trade dress law or by a design patent. Your own intellectual property attorney can provide this "freedom to operate" opinion.

I really don't know what to think, its so confusing :D Pretty much all 3D modelers could be accused of doing something wrong. So I looked at how it is in Denmark where im from and from what I can see, its no problem to get inspiration by others work, you can't obviously copy it, like Mickey mouse etc. as these are trademark of Disney and their shape, color and name is protected. Damn Im glad im not a lawyer!! :D

I know that you are thinking no one can copyright the human figure, but that isn't quite true, have a look at the Michelangelo's statue of David for example... What exactly does that copyright cover as David is just a naked male human figure, right.

I don't think this apply here, first of all its not a digital file which can be manipulated into something else, so you would have to destroy the statue of David to make it into something else. But I would assume that this statue is not protected because its a man standing there, but is protected as any other piece of art, so its the uniqueness of the whole statue. it doesn't mean that no other artist in the world can create a naked standing man in a similar fashion. But you are not allowed to copy his statue and for instant call it "David 2, twice as good". At least that's how I understand it.

So what your saying is if I use M4 to create Michelangelo's David BUT name him Leonardo.I should be good right? ?

It depends, you could do it, but you might risk getting sued by whoever owns the copyright if they thought that you were breaking it. And in that case you would most likely be told to not do it or risk a lawsuit where you would have to argue your case.and you would most likely loose if its were clearly a copy. So as I said, you are NOT allowed to make a copy of his statue and call it "David 2", if its obvious that your intend is to copy it. But you could make a statue standing the same way with long hair, a slightly different body shape and call it Leonardo, I don't think there would be anything wrong in that.

I really doubt that they have a copyright on his pose, his hair, size of statue, material and whatever you can think of. Its a copyright on that particular piece of art.

Check this one:

That is being sold on Ebay and cost 140 bucks 3ft garden statue.

Title: Fat David Michelangelo Super- Size Garden Statue Sculpture

If you do a search there on:

David Michelangelo

There are 1000+ items like that you can buy

I always wonder when I see paintings and statues of "those days" how did they keep those fig leafs in place,glue? spit?..lol i mean honestly I never see any type of string (thong like) or was it just added by the artist because of religious pressure of not showing their wieners.

Maybe that is why it became art in the first place, the mystery of the leaves :D

On a more serious note and have to admit that I might remember wrong, but as you probably know, they used to make them with genitals and so forth as sign of virtue etc. But i think it came with the Catholic church that didn't like it, so they chopped them off and might be why they started to cover them up as it was seen as vulgar or some religious thing. So maybe a leaf were the least they could get away with, could explain some of reason at least, but again im not 100% sure :)

"so they chopped them off " is rather.harsh ? Savages...????

Fat David is probably well into the realm of parody and would probably have no issues in a commercial application. Which brings up an even murkier subject with copyright Fair Use.

Anyone is free to make a statue and call it David, as the name David is referenced from the bible and is not the property of the current statue owner. In fact there are numerous master work statues named David that I know of such as Donatello's rather effeminate version, or Verrochio's David. So the name itself isn't protected by copyright and you could quite easily make a human figure study called David 2 without any real issues, as long as it doesn't reflect a likeness to the protected Michelangelo version. The likeness is what will get you into trouble, even if you call it Peter or Mary.

Where legal issues will definitely occur is firstly when mechanical copyright infringement occurs i.e taking a picture of David and using it to promote a tour company in Florence without correctly licencing the use of the image from the statues owner. Or manually, if I were to employ a sculpture to create 1/20 scale clay copy, of which I could create a mold for the creation of unlicensed knock off statues and sell them to the local street vendors. So the main thing here is generally all copyright cases are based around competitive commercial application of owned IP. Anyone is free to take personal images of the statue for their own use with certain conditions. But to take a photo of the statue and then claim copyright over the image and place the image in the public domain for anyone to use is likely see you in court with the actual copyright holders of the statue. I would have to say most cases of copyright with David have been pretty cut and dry. If you respect that the statues owner has the right to licence commercial representations of that IP and that anyone using its likeness without permission is in breach of that right. If they attempted to claim that your reclining ZBrush model was derivative of the David Statue because the way its little finger was posed similarly, it would be a very long bow to draw and not really within the interests of the statures owner in pursuing as there is no direct commercial competition even if that little finger was inspired from the statue.

What the copyright holders actually does own in relation to David is the likeness of the statue, which is kind of an abstract idea tbh as likeness is very subjective. But if you take a look at the three statues of David I mentioned earlier, they are all the same subject yet all are very different from each other. Easily recognisable as their own IP with their own form and style. You can be inspired by anything, but generally most people can see where the point of inspiration ends and direct copying begins. Though the line occasionally does become blurred and copyright at these times tends to fall on the time established of the two similar works or to the party with the deepest pockets.

You tend to find that very few small copyright incidences will ever make their way to court or through any serious litigation. The first thing you will see if you do step on the toes of any major copyright holders, not to mention any names like Disney or anything, would be a cease and desist letters. Most people at this point will decide it just isn't worth pursuing and drop it. But if you do decide that your little black eared, red panted anthropomorphic mouse character is in no way a copy of Disney's IP you better have some very deep pockets and some strong documentation showing how your character was developed, even inspiration from Mickey in cases like that would be an instantalose for youself. Cases like that are more about making an example and setting precedents, so regardless of how much money you have the fines and penalties in a likely loss could be astronomical. Buildings are another issue and will likely come down to how aggressively the copyright owner wants to protect their assets or whether licensing is required. The Eiffel Tower is an interesting case where Photographs of any kind, even personal use, are illegal at night because of the copyright protections of the light displays.

At the end of the day, a background working knowledge of Copyright is about all that is possible or needed, as it is a rather mercurial subject likely to change shape according to specific scenarios . Often copyright will be breached and never pursued by the legal entitled entity as they have no interest in it or it may even be helping them promote their IP. Other time the copyright holder may aggressively attack the slightest infringement to the point of dragging kids at local fares off of blue trains with smiley faces and demanding it be repainted and the face removed or destroyed completely.

I found it is best to always er on the side of caution or if you are unsure do your best to communicate with the copyright owner and ask what requirements they may have for licensing their IP, sometimes it is cheap as a cup of coffee other times they just like to be informed of how you found the item useful. Always try to get permissions in writing as it will help you if any issues come up later. The license you attach can also have a big impact on how aggressively perceived infringements may be pursued. But generally, be inspired by everything, do not copy anything protected directly whether mechanically or manually, make sure you follow any rules if your usage borders on derivative and you won't run into any real issues. And if you do act accordingly with what you know to be based in law. Don't challenge someones Copyright or IP on a hunch or personal intuition and always seek professional legal help if in doubt. And you will pretty much have no issue with copyright law.

3D-Mobster posted at 3:28AM Fri, 31 August 2018 - #4335484

Assuming that you only talk about conforming cloth, you can easily make dynamic cloth to fit several characters. And im really in doubt about the rigging, because I do agree that its data, well its as much data as the mesh of a character is. But humans as all other animals are in general very similar in shape and functionality, that you are working within very limited option compared to how many 3d humans are being created every day, which pretty much all use a somewhat similar setup. Remember that Genesis and all those characters are not new to this, they copied the basic rigging setup and technique from somewhere else.

An artist's interpretation of the human form still belongs to that artist. Even if you were working with a 3D scanned human model, the rights to that scan is still owned by someone - likely whoever created it. And if you were to give the V4 model - or any other human model - to 10 different rigging artists then you would get 10 different rigs. While the shapes may be similar from one human model to the next they are not exact, and the joint parameters would rarely match exactly.

That is being sold on Ebay and cost 140 bucks 3ft garden statue.

Title: Fat David Michelangelo Super- Size Garden Statue Sculpture

If you do a search there on:

David Michelangelo

There are 1000+ items like that you can buy

There's no copyright on Michelangelo's David, as the statue is over 500 years old. Copyrights do expire eventually. 130 years I think from the death of the creator. Something like that. You can find replicas of it all over the place. I have one in alabaster that's about 6 inches tall I got 20+ years ago.

Fat David is probably well into the realm of parody and would probably have no issues in a commercial application. Which brings up an even murkier subject with copyright Fair Use.

There's no copyright on Michelangelo's David, as the statue is over 500 years old. Copyrights do expire eventually. 130 years I think from the death of the creator. Something like that. You can find replicas of it all over the place. I have one in alabaster that's about 6 inches tall I got 20+ years ago.

Its weird, because it says in the description, for the fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Because from what I could figure out, there is a commercial copyright or something on the statue of David, as companies have apparently used it to promote themselves without getting permission. However the Fat david above is clearly a commercial product, so either they have a license to make it or the copyright does not cover it.

But to take a photo of the statue and then claim copyright over the image and place the image in the public domain for anyone to use is likely see you in court with the actual copyright holders of the statue.

I doubt that, again looking at Ebay, there are lots of postcard being sold of him, some looks like they were made with a very poor camera. Check this one:

Look how low the color quality is, noise etc. yet its being sold for 2.5 pounds. I doubt a professional photographer would sell an image of such low quality. But i would guess that the person in theory have copyright to that image.

Im not saying that you are not right, merely that it seems that either people and companies like Ebay is breaking the rules, by allowing copyrighted material to be sold. Or the rules for what is allowed and ain't is nearly impossible to figure out.

Look at this, I doubt they got a license for this: (I added the black box, but its all there looking at you)

Cost 13.5$ From what I can see its just someone that think it funny that have made it. Its categorized as unbranded.

And if you were to give the V4 model - or any other human model - to 10 different rigging artists then you would get 10 different rigs. While the shapes may be similar from one human model to the next they are not exact, and the joint parameters would rarely match exactly

Yeah your right, but the question is still if a rig can be copyrighted, I really don't know. Because is it the dimensions of the bones? the amount they can bend, twist etc. which in theory have no limits. So what exactly is copyrighted? Not saying that you are wrong, but I would assume that to even get something copyrighted in the first place, you would need to be at least somewhat specific in regards to what exactly you want the copyright to cover. And I just find it very hard to believe that Daz or whatever company can say that they want a copyright for a specific rig. Because what you are saying is, that no one in the world in theory can make a rig like V4 or any of the other genesis character. Again im talking in theory, if what you say is the case.

Now what would happen, if I created a high res mesh, an exact copy of V4 just more polygons and sold the mesh as a highres version of V4, BUT to use it people would have to own V4 and copy the bones, morphs etc. from her to my model, before they could use it. Because reading their Eula:

Three Dimensional Works. DAZ wishes to encourage the expansion of the catalog of Content available to its users. Accordingly, User may access, use, copy, and modify the Content to create one or more derived or additional three-dimensional works provided that:

• any such derived or additional three-dimensional works are designed to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store either by (i) requiring the use of such Content to function, or (ii) allowing only limited function when not used in conjunction with Content from the online DAZ store; and

• upon receipt of a written request from DAZ, User will immediately cease any and all distribution of the derived or additional three-dimensional works User has created from the Content, if DAZ has determined, in its sole discretion, that (i) such additional or derived work is substantially similar to or is a clone of existing Content; or (ii) such additional or derived work fails to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store as described above.

The first part seems to fall into that category, my model would require people to buy V4 from Daz, however looking at point 2 it would clearly be a clone of existing content. Now I doubt that Daz would allow me to sell such product on their page, but nothing would prevent me from selling it on Renderosity would it?

While the shapes may be similar from one human model to the next they are not exact, and the joint parameters would rarely match exactly.

+1

Now what would happen, if I created a high res mesh, an exact copy of V4 just more polygons and sold the mesh as a highres version of V4, BUT to use it people would have to own V4 and copy the bones, morphs etc. from her to my model, before they could use it.

Clothing ? dont know An actual Figure? bad idea.. But I can tell you what would happen with the figure idea. After the dust settles I would email you and say. I told you that was a bad idea ????

Clothing ? dont know An actual Figure? bad idea.. But I can tell you what would happen with the figure idea. After the dust settles I would email you and say. I told you that was a bad idea ????

Just an email? The least you could do would be to visit me in jail :D

However the Fat david above is clearly a commercial product, so either they have a license to make it or the copyright does not cover it.

This is the section of Fair Use that would apply here.

Producers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been sued for infringement by the targets of their ridicule, even though such use may be protected as fair use. These fair use cases distinguish between parodies, which use a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself and satire, or comment on something else. Courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires, but the ultimate outcome in either circumstance will turn on the application of the four fair use factors.

For example, when Tom Forsythe appropriated Barbie dolls for his photography project "Food Chain Barbie" (depicting several copies of the doll naked and disheveled and about to be baked in an oven, blended in a food mixer, and the like), Mattel lost its copyright infringement lawsuit against him because his work effectively parodies Barbie and the values she represents

I doubt that, again looking at Ebay, there are lots of postcard being sold of him, some looks like they were made with a very poor camera.

Legally the post card sold on Ebay would breach the copyright laws protecting the statue unless properly licensed. Would it be worth the time and money to pursue a complaint against a foreign printing company selling illegal post cards, probably not. Issues like this can quickly fall into the whack-a-mole issue that exist in a few other areas. It goes a bit like this, an item is illegally added for sale, the item is noticed by the copyright owner, legal preceding take place and legal notice is sent to the the individual that is selling the item, asking them to remove it from sale. After a month or two the item is finally removed. The next day it is re-added under a slightly different name or from a different account and so on. What ends up happening is the copyright owner needs to constantly pursue their rights, sending letters and monitoring the situation only to watch items almost instantly reappear. The individual who is knowingly breaching their copyright does a little dancing and a bit of up and down of adding or removing things, but continually has an incoming revenue stream. Pretty safe in the knowledge that it just won't be worth the time and cost for the copyright owner to actually pursue any real legal proceedings against them.

Another thing that is worth noting on copyright is it is often based on case precedent, not any hard and fast rules of what is or isn't protected. So in other words courts will decide on a case by case basis, based on previous rulings that set precedent. So basically a decision that could influence the rest of your life will likely be based on how well your legal representation can convince a judge that you own or have independently created an item and how well those suing you can present evidence that it infringes on their own legal rights. Cases can go on for years and cost well into the millions of dollars.

No because Christiania is no longer the same....so why even go, Im on a Denmark strike for now. ? I'll just send my support.....from afar lol ?

I've used Victoria 4 for over 10 years now. Upgrading form V3 to V4 felt like a big improvement. But since V4.2 I never felt the need to upgrade, because of flaws or limitations in the model. Over the years I added a lot of very handy deformers, morphs and skins to my library to completely tweak her figure, characters and expresions to my liking. I make (mostly) NSFW vampire art with V4 and M4. Together with all the clothing and props she still delivers the results I'm looking for. Switching to a new character would feel like going back to square one and start from scratch.

TheDarkerSideOfArt posted at 8:40PM Fri, 04 January 2019 - #4335602

No because Christiania is no longer the same....so why even go, Im on a Denmark strike for now. ? I'll just send my support.....from afar lol ?

Christiania is pretty much back to normal and sells hash just as before :D. So as expected when a government comes up with a "good" idea, it gets caught up in political issues and things fall apart. So all they manage to do were to get it spread throughout the whole city and start a drug war between two gangs just where I live, so one group on each side of me. So that's is just excellent :D

I thought I was happy with V4, and never considered switching. Then I got more happy when I discovered Karina's mod of V4, Sasha-16 A dream came true that I didn't know I was having.

User forum for Sasha-16

The concept of dragging to pose one actor at a time; the hand morphing; the easypose functions ... I could keep going.

I've been a Poser user since Poser 2. The main benefit I saw from Genesis was more natural bending-so I was a very motivated V4-WM beta tester. Mainly I've been interested in more "realistic" characters. I added Lightwave to my tool set several years ago and spent many an hour toying with SSS shader nodes-finally getting close to what I was looking for. Of course I also made shader nodes for more realistic metals, wood, gems, etc. II also got Zbrush for morph making, Then I took a 5 year break! Back now and having fun with the new Ray traced Superfly (derived from blender). I missed all the node tinkering discussions on RDNA so it's been a pain learning what I need to get best results. The lack of usable displacement in annoying. I'd made numerous displacement maps in Zbrush-which enhance realisim,I also found a newer Weight Mapped V4.2 Sasha16. I looked at Daz. IRAY! very impressive. Still with a herculean effort-you can get fairly close using PBR and cycles shaders with Poser 11. The trouble is that SM does not make it a turnkey solution. I go to Daz and see all the physically based shader materials already included in the products. So far nothing on the Poser side (that I have seen). I am a tinkerer who finds some satisfaction in experimentation-but I suspect the average person is not. So while daz users plug and play and push render-and get "daz-zling" results-most Poser renders still look like Poser 6

Yep. Indeed! How does she compare with V4-WM from circa 2013? operaguy posted at 1:20AM Sat, 05 January 2019 - #4343111

I thought I was happy with V4, and never considered switching. Then I got more happy when I discovered Karina's mod of V4, Sasha-16 A dream came true that I didn't know I was having.

User forum for Sasha-16

The concept of dragging to pose one actor at a time; the hand morphing; the easypose functions ... I could keep going.

As for realism, especial in skin, I find the skin texture maps to be lacking in general. The only one I truly love is the Elite Lana set from Daz.

Not having used that 2013 WM V4, I can't compare. All I know is, Sasha-16 is a dream to pose and bend. Here's two more:

There is an 80% off sale on DAZ Original V4 and M4 items today, Saturday Jan 5th. (which stacks on the Platinum Club discount, if one happens to be a member, for a total discount of 87%) It is on the scroller at the top of the DAZ Shop page...

I just looked, and the Lana skin texture pack is on sale for $6. Just go do daz and search the shop on V4 Elite Texture: Lana

Here are two renders of V4/Sasha-16 wearing the Lana texture. [sidebar: see the hands? it is wonderful to be able to dial in shape, slenderness, length and other elements of Sasha's hands, and the added morphs for posing the hands are wonderful.]

This one is Firefly with SSS but no indirect illumination:

This is the same pose, but with GI activated, no "regular" lights:

The "Lana" skin is also included in a 4-part bundle, with "Amy, Maria, and Maya." which is also on sale.

My opinion, after working with all four, is that Lana stands alone. Here are my quibbles with the others:

Amy's freckles and tone are fine, but there is an error ... somehow the area around the shoulders is stretched. I remember pointing this out to Daz at the time of release, but apparently no correction, as even the promo images for Amy show the distortion. Here's Amy:

Now for Marie and Maya. I am disappointed on several fronts: 1) there are hints of makeup around the eyes; 2) they have the same "plucked and drawn" eyebrows which I dislike; 3) While obviously driven from intense scans of real skin, somehow that "Daz Look" got involved, and this results in a plastic edge to the tone.

Marie:

Maya:

There are two other Elite Textures that have caught my attention, both at $6 .... V4 Elite Texture: Katie (redhead skin tones with a million freckles!) V4 Elite Texture: Ariana

Also: there is a corresponding pool of M4 Elite textures as well.

More: I found a "Photo Realistic" bundle, Daz SKU:12191

It includes the Elite body morphs, and two hair models....

But also four character packs, two for V4 including Lana, and two for M4

$20.00

Thanks a lot, WandW, for pointing to that V4/M4 sale at Daz3D. Look what you did to my shopping cart over there!

And that's after spending over $120 here the during the last week.

Heading back there after I cool down, to filter a few things out. Sheesh.

::::: Opera :::::

Here's one more "Lana." Firefly, no GI

Thanks WandW for the tip. I'll take a look. Operaguy- Lana has been a favorite texture for many years. Another I like is Dublin.

The sale is still on. I spent $80.00

I injected the Dublin textures into the exact setup of my last Lana ...

This one without changing Danae's SSS settings....

And this one with my settings, specifically dialing up the specular, the bump, and the displacement....

I still using V4 she hold her own against the new ones Daz all ready went thur last count 5 females in less ten years all clothing not really work all these on these newest female that yet to come who knows

Satisfies my interests. Here is V4-WM Tamesis textures, Cycles Skin Shader, For the sword, I used the Phyically based root node, plugged the sword image map in for color-and dialed "metallic" to 1.0. I did the same with the armor.

wolf359 posted at 5:04PM Thu, 17 January 2019 - #4335419

it would great if Smith Micro bought V4 outright from Daz and kept on improving her

V4 can only be "improved " by completely re-creating her with more modern technology that is tied to a native application that has matching core technolog to implement the advanced features of the figure,

Honestly, if a company is the making that kind of investment why not Make their own?? instead of continuously renovating some patched up, 12 year of rig from Daz??

Figure& animation Companies Like Reallusion have began to understand what the rest of the CG world Already knew.....

You Dont Need to keep paying homage to one"special" group of people in Draper Utah ,to have good looking young white girls in your Character program . Thus Reallusion Will be shortly releasing their own stand alone high quality Figure creation&morphing program with NVDIA IRay for use in the Powerful Iclone animation pipeline as well as for exporting to other pro Applications that import FBX(including poser11)

https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/production.html?utm_source=rc_1805&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=cc_main_know_more

Wolf, If I remember properly Zygote and DAZ have been creating stuff for amateur users to work in an application for amateur users, at its onset anyway. As an amateur user I don't need for all the stuff you are talking about. Mil1/2, Mil3/4 figures for poser were, originally, I think, targeted to an amateur market. Over the years, some users I have noticed hardly even utilize the dials to get different characters let alone explore functionalities you are concerned with.

I use V4/Mil4 figures to get ideas out of my head. I don't do animation or export to higher functioning apps for rendering. Too complicated for my gray matter.I don't create "art" just pictures to get those images out of my head. poser does that as it has always done. Unfortunately for me I have not head the mental capacity to learn and use the more detailed complex functions of it to get the most out of the application to my eternal frustration. But knowing my limitations and not so much the app's I keep it simple.

To answer the question of this thread I use V4 because I am VERY HEAVILY invested in the model by way of morphs, textures accessories, etc. Her learning curve has been greatly flattened and knowing where everything is on her I can set up images quickly which is important for my limited attention span. To start over with a new figure (and I have tried them all to my ever frustrated disappointment) is always daunting for me and my simple needs. V2 and V4 still remain my favorites. I got Sasha 16 and had long conversations with Karina LOOOOOONG before he released her, though i use his beautiful Karina Vagina set a lot for v4, I have not tried Sasha out. Not sure why really I see a lot of good functionality in her. Would be nice if someone created a similar WM rig fix for M4 but that is another story.

-Timberwolf- posted at 5:24PM Thu, 17 January 2019 - #4329080

The real cr*p happening in Poser forums is, they act like in a cult. Don't post your opinion, that does not go with the crowd and you are accused to be a troll as part of the evil DAZ conspiracy. That is just crazy. Actually I think, the decay of Poser came with those V4 only users. They brought Poser down. They don't care about how well their figure is, they don't see, that V4 bends like a piece of dry wood and is therefore only useful in portraits. The V4 users mantra is: "I bought so much stuff, I won't switch." Then why should SM invest in really improving Poser? Why would they release cool figures, when that crowd is still using V4 only? SM can lean back and sell the same stuff over and over again including some free modules every new version as a tease. For the majority of the V4 people Poser 7 mostley would be enough. @ Karina: your Sasha 16 is amazing and awsome - small problem still, she is about 10 years late. A product like this released in 2008, I might have become a V4 user too. last but not least, I just can't stand all those V4s in the galleries anymore. yawn Beside some small amount of real good examples, the majority is ... well... below "expected skill level". Use more than those unbalance pregiven one shin up poses. Stop those "one eye blink tongue out" expressions. No more fairies on a mushroom, please. Light set up are a cool thing that People urgently shoul think about. Seriousley, it's a PITA to watch the e.g. DeviantArt galleries using V4. Go drop V4, it won't hurt. There are two new kids on the block to play with. Bella and Project Evolution. You can even convert your V4 stuff to PE now. Now with my comment, twolf359 and Male_M3dia don't look as much like Trolls anymore, isn't it? so yeah, I'm glad I could help. Reality check friend except for maybe Poser 4 when Zygote and RDNA folks(if I am not mistaken) were creating some of the content where as most if not ALL the SM characters included in Poser natively sucked big time. Most if the figures and other content sold at SM have sucked just as badly. I don't think they have not improved the app because everyone uses V4 but they rally don't give a damn about the app itself and the figures available for it. If they did it would be a great app/figure combo like DAZ has created.

SM has pretty much given up on Poser and Poser users and seem to just be going through the motions of supporting client base with all or any of the products they sell. Their tech support sucks their customer service sucks and their content sucks. Poser might be ok as it stands but if you can't find good content for it t too will suck which is why so many long time users have migrated to D/S. Not plugging for D/S what Daz did to long time Poser users sucks too. I invested THOUSANDS of dollars there since I started in Poser4 when they were still Zygote. I felt abandoned and even quit giving them my money after years of having them hold my wallet captive as a Plat Club user. But, as an adult who understands business I see the brilliant moves thy have made and all to protect their money making base.