Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Moderators: RedPhantom Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2026 Mar 04 1:34 pm)
Subject: DAZ's policy?
The reason people are still arguing Ron, is simple. Daz are saying one thing in the forums and another in their EULA. As they keep stating that the EULA is an extension and enforcement of their copyright and legally binding it means that the stuff they say in the forums is neither legally binding nor particularly worthy of note. Dan has stated several times that Daz don't have a problem with people making clothes, but their legal stance states clearly that they do - it's NOT allowed because by Daz definition the clothing (especially if it's morphed) is derivative. That's what Soulhuntre wants cleared up in the EULA. No derivative figures. Clothing ok. It's just an extra line to the EULA and would stop over half of the current concerns. Nothing Dan says in these forums means a bean in a court if Daz decide to get antsy over someone's clothing model. These posts from Dan are meaningless in that situation. He can say in the forums as often as he likes that he and Daz don't mind clothing, he can say as often as likes that they don't mind morphed clothing, but it is legally crapola according to their EULA. It's not an issue of people wanting to make new Vickie or Mike models, it's a case of being allowed legally to make clothes for them. Statements in a forum are not legally binding, they do NOT give you legal permission to do what Dan is saying we're all "allowed" to do. At ANY time they can change their mind - with drastic consequences - and stop further clothing being made and DEMAND, perfectly legally, that ALL items are removed from ALL stores. Therein lies the problem. say a small company decides to make a commercial animation with Vic and Mike, that's fine, they make clothing for this models, that's NOT fine. They are then open to a trigger happy fruitloop at DAZ to launch legal action because the clothing is classed as derivative. That's too much risk for some people. Not saying DAZ would do it, but the simple fact remains that they "could". Does that help you understand why some people are still concerned about this?
I think some people just like arguing. DAZ could do that, but they would immediately open themselves up to a class-action suit by ALL clothing modellers for loss of revenue, and have to have that definition of derivative held up by a court of law. Add to that the long term pressence of external clothing modelers and these messages would be evidence to demonstrate DAZ's definition of derivative implied in the EULA -- i.e. clothing is OK. They don't get to change that later and then post-facto demand all existing clothing be removed. Then they'd have to lather, rinse, repeat in EACH country where a clothing modeler lives... Oh GOSH, the idea makes me want to pee my pants and hide under the bed, and I'm not even affiliated with DAZ. And, as has been pointed out previously from the other side, DAZ can't change their EULA on products that have already been sold without agreement by the buyers. It's illegal and would invalidate the entire thing. So, guys, to sum up, there's no actual problem! It's just a bunch of theoreticals, borderline cases, and other headache fodder. Until there's an actual case and not just a potential "could happen", it's tilting at windmills.
Soulhuntre everytime you mention the same thing we keep putting in the same encouragement for people who have concerns to contact us. Please contact me off-line and if your project does not fall within the areas that we are trying to protect then I will be glad to work out a special letter for you giving you legal rights to do what you need to do. Please email me at dan@daz3d.com or call me at 800-267-5170 ex 103 I would be glad to work with you.
Fyrespiryt is absolutely correct in that it would infinitely stupid for DAZ to do such a thing. We would be wiser to set fire to our own building than to do something to try to stop the creating of the add-on products for our models. WE REALIZE THAT IT IS THE AFTERMARKET DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS GIVEN OUR MODELS THE STANDING THAT THEY NOW HAVE. But if that is not enough, as with Soulhuntre, we would be glad to work with developers to give them the official permission that they may feel they need.
JeffH. On your example of taking a Hummel and approximating its shape and reselling it. The question I have for you is when you buy the Hummel, do you make a legal binding agreement at that time that you would not use the Hummel in any way to create a derivative that competes against that Hummel? Anyway Jeff, on a bigger more important note. With you as a legal paid representative of Renderosity (admin). Don't you think that it may make sense for you to talk with your companies legal advisors about this specific issue before you continue to offer public legal advice that seems to encourage people that the DAZ EULA does not protect our models to the extent that we claim that it does. Our legal team has advised us that we do have legal basis for our claims but as you know that doesn't mean anything until it ends up in court. Also, you realize that that there are thousands of products that are distributed by Renderosity that have EULA's.
Anyway, I hope this helps to some extent. Ultimately it comes down to those people who want clarification on the agreement and those who are trying to find loopholes. Fortunately for us and the other developers in this great community, most people are notlooking for loopholes.
Sincerely,
Dan Farr
Fyrespirit: I happen to agree with you, although I'm not entirely convinced on the class action suit in response. While I'm not overly concerned what the frell Daz decide to do in the long run as it mostly won't affect what I do in the slightest; I do find these threads fascinating. The points and counterpoints are a bit of entertainment. Having said that, yes there are some concerns that I think are valid and have nothing to do with looking for loop holes or ways to rip off Daz products - well, not for everyone anyway, there's always going to be someone somewhere who will do that regardless of copyright and EULA. While Daz in their current form probably won't do anything to hurt the vendors or themselves at this time, we don't know what's down the road or how long the current staff will remain. I mean, it's nice to think that Dan and the crew will be around for a good while yet but in this day and age it's impossible to predict. There might be someone round the corner looking to buy them and then this argument most likely will raise it's head again. That's another day though. Meanwhile I hope you'll excuse my occassional forays into this topic as it is of interest to me just in case I ever decide to make something that's based around Daz models. :)
Hey, no problem, Questor; why do you think I'm jumping in? ^~ To do a better, calmer job of making my point now that I'm actually awake, it's something that's worth keeping back in the corner of one's mind, but that's it. I guess strike the balancing of realizing that it is a possibility, but that it's only a possibility. At this point, there's no reason for 99.99999% of clothing modelers to stress out. Sure, we can think up hypothetical situations until our heads explode (I'm still picking up brain bits, BTW ^~), but really each RL case needs to be judged individually depending on the circumstances, and anything else is just theory. Like I said before, theory'll get you so far, then it'll get you killed. After all, according to theory, the Titanic was unsinkable. I definitely agree on the entertainment value, though. We oughta sell tickets!
Dan, If I bought the Victoria suit pack which contains almost NO body morphs for Vicki, then used the Tailor to create morphs so the clothes could fit Vicki 2.0, then released a .cr2 for that suit, is there a problem with this? (You're shutting out all your MAC people by releasing clothing with no morphs, btw.) If I bought a non-Daz business suit pack for Victoria, then used the Tailor to create morphs so the clothes could fit Vicki 2.0, then released a .cr2 for that suit, is there a problem with this? If I took a non-Daz clothing item here, such as a suit of armor for Victoria or Mike, and ran that through the Tailor so it would fit the version 2 Vicki/Mike then released the .cr2 file of that non-Daz item, is there a problem with this? (Use Serrge's Sisters of Battle Armor or Traveler's Baroque armor as examples.) All three scenarios assume that there is one or more external .obj files, instead of embedded geometry in the .cr2 files. Thank you for your time.
"No, and obviously no one is talking about copying Victoria in this manner so it's kind of a red herring." No, but this issue is really about figure cloning, and not about making average clothing match. Unless the clothing matches the figures shape too exactly as to be mistaken for the real thing, i.e. a bodysuit. And even in regards to the bodysuit, as Dan stated above, they let that item continue on happily. Tailoring clothes today, cloning whole figures tomorrow. Daz just had to define the boundary line before the latter happened.
Dan,
"derivative"
The product would have to contain part of the original to be derivative.
An approximation is NOT derivative.
A figure created with parts of the Victoria mesh IS derivative.
Big difference.
I wish I had an orignial figure to sell as a test case. Have your legal team examine what I have said here. I bet they don't have a clear technical understanding of what the Tailor does.
If they are of the understanding that the Tailor "copies" protected data, they have been misinformed.
-JH.
PS: I don't legally represent Renderosity in any way.
No, but this issue is really about figure cloning, and not about making average clothing match. Not trying to be argumentative but that's not been the issue until recently. If you read through the threads from the first instance the issue has always been one based around the bodysuit and similar items and negating the need for the later figures by using altered clothing on the earlier figures. So, no, this issue isn't and wasn't about figure cloning at all, it was about clothing containing morphs from Vic2/Mike2 and later about morphs and derivative clothing containing those morphs and the definition of "derivative". The figure cloning is a recent addition to the thread as an example and has never been an issue of argument. So far everyone has agreed this would be wrong and nobody so far in any of the threads has wished to do this. Feel free to check but the arguments and requests for clarrification have centred around the term "derivative", the "we'll allow you to do it for now" statement, and the question of morphs and morphed clothes and how they could infringe on anything as they're unique mesh.
What I am saying is that, figure cloning is the true root to the issue. The clothing portion was just small piece that broke the surface. "So far everyone has agreed this would be wrong " JeffH does not agree that its wrong. He's stated several times in this thread alone that he feels its perfectly OK.
Sorry, MallenLane but I don't see any who have been arguing throughout these posts and all the previous threads on this and other forums as stating at all that they feel copyright violation is perfectly OK. Quite the opposite in fact. That's been one of the main contentions in the whole debacle. Simply because Daz have stated that clothing is derivative of the original figure mesh that tailor transfers morphs and THAT is an infringement of their copyright. Nobody has said or implied that it's ok to infringe, in fact that's what caused the whole argument in the first place. The implication that DAZ considered ANY clothing as an infringement and they were "allowing" people to do it "for now". Just for clarrification. The very first statement from Daz was... **** Steve Kondris Thanks for taking the time to write to us concerning this...we've had to discuss this a bit and this brought up other issues, etc., etc. But, I do have an answer for you. There is little to no creative abilities within the bounds/code of the Tailor, simply tools to manipulate/transfer/organize, etc. And though Codetwister's application does allow some pretty unique results, this is not considered original creation or design. HOWEVER, and this is the big crucial "however", because the new cr2's generated by The Tailor still require that people possess both AIko and the Victoria Clothing Pak in order to make use of the new CR2's. Whenever a new character or product requires that both the figure that the morphs were transferred from and the figure that the morphs were transferred to be owned already by the users, then this process is legal. When this guideline is adhered to, neither DAZ, nor any of the artists that work cooperatively as Brokered Artists with DAZ, or any other creator for that matter, is damaged by such new creations. This does not mean that derivative characters cannot be made or sold if they work off of limited use CR2 files. In fact, there are many ways in which this can be done, whether it be via MOR Pose files (perhaps the most preferred method by us), OBJaction mover, etc. By "Limited Use CR2" I mean those that are non-distributable. In the case of DAZ's property, any Millennium Figure CR2 (other than say Michael 1.0, Victoria 1.0, or the Millennium Baby to name a few) is considered to be "non-distributable". What I want to address here though is the concept of "circumvention". This is the simplest and most accurate way to state DAZ's position on any such characters. The only thing DAZ considers unfair, and therefore illegal, is when someone creates a character that then makes it possible for people to truly benefit from the Millennium Figures CR2 contents without having to purchase the Millennium Figure itself. For example, if someone creates a CR2 file for Michael's Bodysuit that contains the Muscular3 morph from Michael 2.0 and then begins to distribute that new CR2 publicly or commercially, suddenly people who have never purchased Michael 2.0 will benefit from items included only within Michael 2.0. We feel that this is unfair, particularly when it creates a disincentive to purchase that original product. Basically, anything that circumvents the need to purchase an original product is most likely not allowed. ***** This did not start from, nor was it stated that the root problem was cloned figures. None of those involved in this issue have made or are making Mike of Vickie models. It started from DAZ's concern over items that would circumvent the need for their models, such as a body suit - this continued on to include discussions regarding other clothing that also met this criteria and as far as I can tell all the threads at PoserPro, Renderosity and 3DCommune have revolved around the same thing. Obviously Dan and Steve's statements and all the ensuing conversation and argument was mislead. Especially seeing as the major concern - that of morphed clothing apparently is not the real issue at all. Hrrm. How odd that it all started there. and later.... as part of the first "clarrification" posts. **** The most important issue is what I tried to focus on in my initial post: circumvention. If someone passed around all of Michael 2.0's morphs within a cr2 for Michael shoes, would we get all hot-and-bothered about it? No. And why not? Because it creates no real damage to any of our products. There are some items which we are more concerned about, the bodysuit is the best example I can think of. If you have Michael 1 and the standard bodysuit, no big deal. If someone transfers all of Michael 2.0's FBM's into the new bodysuit cr2 file, then someone with only Michael one has everything he/she needs to create their own new muscular fantasy/superhero character. This crosses the line from being a creation which enhances or adds value to a product and instead begins to directly compete with that product. **** **** Good morning everyone. Or perhaps I should just say hello. Its morning now, but it will likely be afternoon or evening by the time we have this message ready to post. ;) Just in the way of introduction, this same message is being posted in multiple locations, and of necessity may appear general or may not address every individual that has contributed to this thread thus far. So, on to the issues... 1) This whole thing is not an issue specifically with The Tailor; it is an issue of morph and mesh ownership and protection. The Tailor is a fabulous product, and DAZ does not feel it contradictory in the least to endorse both the responsible use of this product and the protection of peoples intellectual property. There have been many other tools out there for a long time that provide ways of doing similar thingstools that also can be used in ways that can be either bad or good for everyone involved. **** But I must be wrong, it's about making Mike and Vic models isn't it?
"what if i did the same using the contour tool, or the section curve tool?"
I don't have Rhino to know all the details, but if the final result is an original mesh that is not part of the Victoria mesh, then you would be within your rights to do what you want with it.
This is how much of the 3rd party clothing is made to fit Victoria.
but, i do think this is one of the things that worries daz. because, yes...those tools are used alot for bodices, and, even butts....however, someone with few scruples could take them farther, and, basically use them to create a whole "new" vicki, or mike...i have thought and thought and thought on why daz came out with their stance, and why they won't just go ahead and say....clothing okay...full body suits, not okay...and this is all i can think of that makes any sense.
We all know where that always leads and we're all old enough to know better. If we're going to have a more-or-less rational discussion of DAZ's policies and our opinions on them, great, but if we're just gonna fight, take it outside, please? (I ain't your momma and I ain't a mod, so I don't care who started it. I just don't wanna watch it.)
Questor: "DAZ could do that, but they would immediately open themselves up to a class-action suit by ALL clothing modellers for loss of revenue, and have to have that definition of derivative held up by a court of law."
Do you have the money for a suit like that? I sure don't.
Questor: "And, as has been pointed out previously from the other side, DAZ can't change their EULA on products that have already been sold without agreement by the buyers. It's illegal and would invalidate the entire thing."
Daz could not make the EULA more restrictive retroactively, but they absolutely can make it less restrictive and give people the option to adopt the new license. It is common and absolutely legal.
Questor: "So, guys, to sum up, there's no actual problem! It's just a bunch of theoreticals, borderline cases, and other headache fodder. Until there's an actual case and not just a potential "could happen", it's tilting at windmills."
This is a discussion about the legal issues surrounding the EULA of the most prominent third party supplier in the Poser market. The concerns are legitimate and the legalities of the areas being discussed are wide reaching in the industry of 3D models. Even if there isn't a problem with Daz itself the discussion is serving to bring valuable issues to light on an entire range of topics of law and licensing, not to mention allowing us as a community to discuss how we feel about many things.
It seems to me the discussion has been useful, educational and productive.
danfarr: "Soulhuntre everytime you mention the same thing we keep putting in the same encouragement for people who have concerns to contact us. Please contact me off-line and if your project does not fall within the areas that we are trying to protect then I will be glad to work out a special letter for you giving you legal rights to do what you need to do. Please email me at dan@daz3d.com or call me at 800-267-5170 ex 103 I would be glad to work with you."
I understand that Dan. I have no worries that I couldn't get a letter that would protect my project or myself. And I am sure Daz will work with others to do the same thing. But the discussion is still useful to have... and there are still issues worthy of community discussion. One of those issues is why the EULA can't include language protecting clothing makers if Daz is willing to grant such assurances in writing to individual manufacturers.
Despite some comments by others to the contrary I am not really hostile here. I am not grinding an axe or anything of the type. I just want this to be something the community understands and discusses... because we are already seeing this policy effect the market and the tone of the discussion of other manufacturers. We need to figure out as a community and individually what we will accept.
It may be that your legal department can't bring itself to give up a broad claim of rights just to satisfy some people who have issues. It may be that to say "clothing is OK" is something they feel would not allow you to protect yourself in the future. It may be that they actually believe that Daz has the right to control what clothing items people make for a Daz figure.
I have no idea. But it seems like a useful question to ask.
I am not describing this as a huge conspiracy, or ascribing evil intent to Daz. I am just discussing with others what the actual effect of your EULA is. As it stands, on the website, right now. And some in the community are discussing if that EULA is one they want to agree to.
While I appreciate that an individual vendor can get some legal protection ... effectively an exemption for a specific product... the real issues are whether we as a community want to be put in a position where we have to ask for an letter allowing us to do something we clearly should be able to do without worrying. That concern is one created by the EULA... and I think it is valid to discuss.
danfarr: "Anyway, I hope this helps to some extent. Ultimately it comes down to those people who want clarification on the agreement and those who are trying to find loopholes. Fortunately for us and the other developers in this great community, most people are notlooking for loopholes."
I find it profoundly disturbing that any discussion of these issues is being characterized as "looking for loopholes" and simply being argumentative. I really was under the impression that we as a community had the right to discusses issues that had interest to the community.
It is possible to have legitimate concerns about this stuff... and it is only going to be more and more disturbing for any discussion of Daz or Daz policies to be denegraded as something only troublemakers do.
You have a policy that is at odds with the wording of your EULA. It's that simple. That conflict effects many of us and is a cause for concern and a valid topic of discussion. I appreciate that there may be reasons for it, I appreciate that you will help individual vendors protect themselves... and I think your motives may well be good ones.
It may be a very simple answer. The answer may be for Daz to say (in the EULA and/or the Faq on the website) something to the effect of:
"It is not our intention to prevent third party vendors from creating conforming clothing or accessories but unfortunately we cannot make a general exception in this EULA without exposing ourselves to theft of our property. Please feel free to contact us at [insert contact information] and we will be happy to discuss with you an an agreement protecting both our property and your ability to market your product with confidence!"
I absolutely understand that it may simply be a situation where Daz feels they have to write their EULA much broader than they actually want it to be and that the only way Daz feels they can handle the situation is on an individual case by case with vendors. I might not agree with the premise but I can certainly live with it :)
To me, the main issue is the possible dampening effect on the industry of the EULA as it stands... something like the above as an appendix to the EULA and in the FAQ would not change your rights under the EULA but would clarify the INTENT of the document. And that would be incredibly useful for everyone concerned in my mind.
Not that making me happy is a big issue for anyone, but I certainly am an easy guy to make happy :)
FyreSpiryt: "At this point, there's no reason for 99.99999% of clothing modelers to stress out. Sure, we can think up hypothetical situations until our heads explode (I'm still picking up brain bits, BTW ^_~), but really each RL case needs to be judged individually depending on the circumstances, and anything else is just theory"
And it seems that this discussion is part of that attempt - to figure out exactly what the situation is and why it is so that we can make informed choices.
FyreSpiryt: "Like I said before, theory'll get you so far, then it'll get you killed. After all, according to theory, the Titanic was unsinkable."
Actually, the Titanic was never unsinkable in theory. That was a marketing gimmick and a claim of it's designer. Even at the time it was clear that there were circumstances that would sink the ship :)
A bad theory will kill you. A good theory will save your life.
MallenLane: "No, but this issue is really about figure cloning, and not about making average clothing match. Unless the clothing matches the figures shape too exactly as to be mistaken for the real thing, i.e. a bodysuit."
And I understand the concern. I want Daz to be able to protect themselves too. But you have to realize that as it stands the EULA doesn't say this. Under this EULA right now a conforming necklace could be considered a derivative work. Since that is not the intent part of this discussion to to figure out if an EULA could be written that would protect Daz but allow the things they are saying they want to allow.
MallenLane: "Tailoring clothes today, cloning whole figures tomorrow. Daz just had to define the boundary line before the latter happened."
Since copyright already protected them from the latter, I think they drew the line way too broadly. Again, this is a broad grey area... I totally understand Daz wanting to protect themselves.
Soulhuntre " Since copyright already protected them from the latter, I think they drew the line way too broadly. Again, this is a broad grey area... I totally understand Daz wanting to protect themselves. " Actually some people in this thread appear to have some doubt as to whether copyright does protect the latter situation, if the latter is achieved by using a procedure similar to the following. Victoria is set into the background. A rough cage is modelled in the foreground. The rough model is then, through use of a program that can interpret the surface contour of another model, fitted to the exact shape of Victoria. This leaves you with an entirely new mesh, that has the exact same basic rendered result as Victoria. I did an example of this earlier, posted the result rendered, then deleted that post becuase I was tired of debating about it. To get a decent clone of a large portion of Vicky's legs, torso, and arms took roughly 25 minutes. More work now, and less chatter for me. ;)
mallen...why'd you remove your pictoral example? i know that you can do with your modelling program, what i can do with mine...maybe, more. i am just too curious...why did you delete the most excellent examples you posted? daz has a right to be concerned. i would be, if that was my business. however, they should have had someone ...a "tech" person...telling them what the tailor could do...also, what all the other programs that they sell can do. seems they fluffed up a bit, and, we the community are paying the price....
I have to say, though, I am flattered to be mistaken for Questor. I like Questor; sa's cool. I was gonna just walk off, but if I'm gonna be mis-attributed anyway, I might as well clarify my statements. The beauty of a class action suit is that, generally speaking, one person does not bear the burden of the cost. Yes, Daz can make a less restrictive EULA and give people the option of adopting it. They can also make a more restrictive EULA and give people the option of adopting it. The important, common, and absolutely legal part of those statements is "give people the option". Dat's ma point. As I said, they need agreement from the buyers. And your response to my "tilting at windmills" comment, it seems to me that a problem here is that the general theoretical question of what is derivative is getting more entwined with what DAZ allows than it needs to be. Yes, they're tied to each other, but a lot of people are confused by the knots and think they aren't allowed to make clothing now. That is NOT the case. The discussions are about legal and ethical definitions of derivative figure, and about DAZ's policies, and about how those relate to each other, but the three are not interchangeable and that's confusing a lot of people and creating a lot of friction and hurt feelings that don't need to be there. --Hey, can someone open a window in here? The smoke's getting awfully thick. Now, to the statements I got credit for. Trying to figure out what the exact situation is: that's not going to happen with theoreticals. Why? Because the world is not divided into simply black and white. There's a lot of gray cases that would have to be judged based on their specific, exact circumstances. Trying to do so with hypotheticals is just a spider's web of confusion because, by defintion, there are not those specific, exact circumstances. Frankly, I don't blame the DAZ folks for refusing to step into that trap. It's a good way to get themselves in trouble with no benefit. They're best served -- in fact, I think we're all best served -- by the generalities, and pointing out the problems when they occur. Trying to narrow it down to pinpoint precision on guesses of what could happen is going to step on a lot of toes on both sides unnecessarily. Well, the Titanic designer's theory was that it would never be sunk under real world application if it were made in such a way, wouldn't it? Yes, a good theory will save your life, but it's only good if it holds up under real world circumstances. And to find that out for certain, you need real world circumstances to test it under. Interesting and COMPLETELY off-top note: safety factor (the amount of over-engineering for safety's sake) for an elevator: minimum 11. Safety factor for a commercial airplane: Around 1.3, give or take. (Don't worry, that doesn't mean planes are unsafe. They're inspected a LOT more than elevators in order to compensate for that.) As for adding something to DAZ's FAQ, how about "DAZ definitely has no intention to prevent people from creating complimentary clothing for the Millennium figures. Or saddles for the charger, for that matter. We admittedly recognize that Michael and Victoria would not be what they are today without the developmental synergy of third party developers. Also, we recognize the contributions of the many different Poser related forums such as Renderosity, 3D Commune, Runtime DNA, Poser World and others who are actively developing and selling Millennium figure clothing. We don't wish to thwart their development in any way." Would that do it for ya? (DAZ FAQ, "What is DAZ's position on the distribution of models and morphs derived from DAZ products?") I agree that these discussions (note the plural) are worthwhile and useful. But we really need to all be on the same page. My major point is more facts, less "what if"s. The what-ifs are all well and good to set the stage, but we're never gonna advance the plot very far without some facts. (How's that for a bad metaphor?)
in fact, I think we're all best served -- by the generalities, and pointing out the problems when they occur. Trying to narrow it down to pinpoint precision on guesses of what could happen is going to step on a lot of toes on both sides unnecessarily. no, modellers are not served best with this. daz needs to either shit or get off the pottie. they cannot keep their eula...new edition, as it now stands...and expect ANYONE who is reputable...except for jb, the sellout....to model fashions for their figures. shoot...i have even gotten good enough that i COULD conceivably make a new figure for poser...and, some clothing to boot. daz needs to clarify, or to fade. would you want to buy a clothing package with such an iffy eula hanging over the legality of your new purchase???? even if they did not set out to ruin the market for third party modellers...they did ruin it to a great extent. that's it. they need to clarify. period. danfarr did. that was good for me. however, others have said it is not legal to put down eula terms in a public forum.
I would like to, for a moment, set all debates about "derivative" or "is the EULA is enforceable or not" completely aside. I don't care to discuss anylonger if those things are or are not. There's an easy way to test them and its in a court of law. nuff said. Poppi the EULA is fine, and is probably written in the only way possible to protect against what my removed example showed was easily possible. Daz has already stated that they do not intend to persue violations that are beneficial to the success of their figures; as 99.9% of any clothing item you can think of would be. That's good enough for me, and I trust that they are sincere in their intent. Everyone is all in pitchforks around Daz at the moment. I'd like to remind you all, it could just as easily be any Renderosity, RDNA, Commune, or other Brokered artist out there who's effort in creating a model could be rail-roaded by someone who decides to shape clone their model. Lets say you make a dress to sell Poppi. Then two days later someone comes out with one that renders identically to yours, yet is completely different in the mesh. And we aren't talking about " they made a dress in the same style" we are talking about "I rendered them side by side and I can't really tell which is which". You can clone a dress just as easily as you can clone a vicky. I bet you'd be wishing you had a EULA clause as well.
CC from someone else at another site that made the MOST sense to me.. ---------- Let us assume that A is a model that you are legally allowed to distribute under any conditions. If you alter A in UVMapper, you are still legally allowed to distribute the model. The copyright of the model does not transfer to Steve Cox. Let us assume that B is a morph target that you are legally allowed to distribute (ie, one of the original P4 morphs, which DAZ has allowed us to redistribute in any form which does not contain actual geometry). If you transfer B to another mesh using Tailor, you are still legally allowed to distribute the morph. The copyright does not transfer to CodeTwister. Let us assume that C is a DAZ vicki 2 morph target--which you are not legally allowed to distribute in any form. If you transfer C to another mesh using Tailor, you are still not allowed to distribute the morph. Any restrictions present on the original morph that you worked from will carry through to any derivative works that you create. ------ seems simple.
First off, my apologies Questor, the correct attribution is below.
FyreSpiryt: "So, guys, to sum up, there's no actual problem! It's just a bunch of theoreticals, borderline cases, and other headache fodder. Until there's an actual case and not just a potential "could happen", it's tilting at windmills."
Sorry 'bout that.
MallenLane: "This leaves you with an entirely new mesh, that has the exact same basic rendered result as Victoria. I did an example of this earlier, posted the result rendered, then deleted that post becuase I was tired of debating about it."
If the end result could be easily confused with Victoria then copyright protects Daz extensively - there isn't much question about it. That is basically a "look and feel" copyright issue.
What Daz is NOT protected from by copyright is someone else making clothing that will fit Vicki, or a figure that will fir in Vicki's clothing.
FyreSpiryt: "They're best served -- in fact, I think we're all best served -- by the generalities, and pointing out the problems when they" occur.
I disagree. I think the discussion of theoretical issues has already had a strongly positive effect on the community and has elicited a lot of (fairly reassuring) clarification from Daz.
The single WORST way to approach it would have been to ignore it and see who got sued.
**FyreSpiryt:Â ** "Trying to narrow it down to pinpoint precision on guesses of what could happen is going to step on a lot of toes on both sides unnecessarily."
An EULA is exactly that... a legal document that must be specific and unambiguous to be maximally effective. So whether we all like it or not a specific "black and white" situation exists.
FyreSpiryt: "Would that do it for ya?"
Somewhat... but it is missing the extension of specific exemptions and the offer to call them for one. It is also missing the fact that they recognize that their wording is necessarily over-broad.
MallenLane: "Lets say you make a dress to sell Poppi. Then two days later someone comes out with one that renders identically to yours, yet is completely different in the mesh. And we aren't talking about " they made a dress in the same style" we are talking about "I rendered them side by side and I can't really tell which is which"."
You're EULA wouldn't be the issue unless you SPECIFICALLY allowed this - because copyright would make it a violation. The EULA would not be necessary. The Daz EULA as it stands says "you can't make a belt for our dress", then Daz is later saying "but we will let it slide".
If it was as your example situation this wouldn't ever be an issue.
bitemark: "If you transfer B to another mesh using Tailor, you are still legally allowed to distribute the morph. The copyright does not transfer to CodeTwister."
This is of limited usefulness... it is conceivable that the law would consider this to be a different morph that you also owned. The program cannot "take" a copyright, nor could Codetwister get the copyright any more than Word lets Microsoft have the (c) to your documents. In other words, this situation does not signify a direct custodial relationship.
bitemark: "If you transfer C to another mesh using Tailor, you are still not allowed to distribute the morph. Any restrictions present on the original morph that you worked from will carry through to any derivative works that you create."
However, using the Tailor to fit non skintight clothing to that morph does NOT duplicate that morph. It simply makes sure that your mesh does not share the same volume as the morph. So using the Tailor to fit a leather motorcycle jacket to a "Breast 5 100%" Vicki 2 does NOT result in a Jacket with a copy of the "Breast 5" morph.
"However, using the Tailor to fit non skintight clothing to that morph does NOT duplicate that morph. It simply makes sure that your mesh does not share the same volume as the morph. So using the Tailor to fit a leather motorcycle jacket to a "Breast 5 100%" Vicki 2 does NOT result in a Jacket with a copy of the "Breast 5" morph." It wouldn't have to be a duplicate to be a derivative...no? Can anyone humor me with the legal definition of derivative, or is it based on the discretion of whatever judge might happen on that case?
"DERIVATIVE WORK - A work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'. 17 U.S.C."
It's not all that simple :)
The right to make a derivative work overlaps somewhat with the reproduction right. According to the Copyright Act, a derivative work is
a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
A derivative work usually involves a type of transformation, such as the transformation of a novel into a motion picture. In the computer industry, a second version of a software program is generally considered a derivative work based upon the earlier version. Rights Granted Under Copyright Law (BitLaw)
My real question in this matter insofar as copyright is actually based on the question of whether a 3D model is considered to be fixed in it's 3D shape (proportions and so on) it it's expression (the EXACT 3D co-ordinates). This is a crucial question. It is my belief that while Vicki' EXACT shape is protected and "fixed" that the basic proportions of her shape are an idea or concept - and not protect able by copyright.
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." - Works Unprotected by Copyright Law (BitLaw)
A further segment...
"An example is the best way to explain this idea/expression distinction. Suppose that an inventor discovers a process for cold fusion--an invention that would revolutionize society as we know it. If the inventor were to write down on paper a description of the process, that description would be protected against copyright infringement from the moment the work is fixed. If she were to publish her paper, no one would be able to make additional copies of the paper without her permission. However, anyone reading her paper could implement her process without fear of copyright infringement, since the process itself--the idea--is not protected under copyright law. In fact, it would even be allowable for someone to write a competing paper describing her invention, as long as the competing paper described the invention in its own words and did not take any "expression" from the original paper. However, only the inventor could apply for patent protection for her process. After applying for the patent, and going through a rigorous examination of the patentability of her patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office might grant her a patent. At that point, she could prevent all others from using her idea. (For more discussion on patent protection, see the BitLaw discussion on patents)."Â - Works Unprotected by Copyright Law (BitLaw)
For other views of how derivative works might or might not be defined and protected we can look at "game supplements". it turns out that you can make a suppliment for an existing game or game system without violating the copyright. You might have to duplicate some of the concepts and numbers, but they are not themselves protected... only their expression.
"Some have claimed that any game supplement is by definition a "derivative work" under copyright law. This is based on Chapter 1, Section 103 of U.S. Copyright Law. However, a derivative work in this sense is defined by the inclusion of previously-copyrighted material.
In the cases referred to above, the courts found that no violation had occured when the works reproduced only what is neccessary to convey the essential idea. i.e. Accolade's code contained some of the same code that Sega did, but this was simply because they were conveying the same idea. Simply referring to or interacting with previous works does not by itself make a work derivative.
There are a few cases, however, where the subject matter of a copyrighted work is considered to be part of the copyright." -Â Copyright and Game Supplements
A quote from the same page that is interesting...
"A board or role-playing game relies heavily upon ideas. Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted -- only specific text which explains the idea. The same game rule, expressed through totally different text, is not an infringement." -Â Copyright and Game Supplements
It gets even more complicated - it is completely reasonable to argue that the general shape of Victoria is a "useful article", and not a specifically protect able work. Note, the bold and underlined emphasis below is mine.
"Some distinctions are clear. For instance, a painting on the side of a truck is protectable under copyright law even though the truck is a useful article. The painting is clearly separable from the utilitarian aspects of the truck. The overall shape of the truck, on the other hand, would not be copyrightable since the shape is an essential part of the truck's utility. Another commonly considered example is that of clothing. The print found on the fabric of a skirt or jacket is copyrightable, since it exists separately from the utilitarian nature of the clothing. However, there is no copyright in the cut of the cloth, or the design of the skirt or jacket as a whole, since these articles are utilitarian. This is true even of fanciful costumes; no copyright protection is granted to the costume as a whole.
[snip]
Another interesting copyright concern is the extent of copyright protection in pictoral or sculptural works that portray a useful article. Take, for example, a painting of a futuristic looking automobile. Copyright protection would prevent the outright copying of the painting. In addition, copyright law would prevent the creation of a three-dimensional model of the automobile found in the painting. However, under the specific terms of the Copyright Act, copyright law would not prevent General Motors from making a working (hence utilitarian) automobile of the design found in the painting." -Â Works Unprotected by Copyright Law (BitLaw)
So there is a lot to think about in this - it is not as simple as the idea that a item of clothing that fit Victoria is a derivitive model. it is COMPLETELY possible that the >general< shape of a Victoria morph (not the exact shape, only what is needed to avoid collisions and fit the clothing) is a "useful article" under the eyes of copyright law, and thus not protect able. This is enhanced by the nature of the use to which Victoria is specifically marketed.
Now, the EULA may in fact be restrictive enough to keep Daz's wishes in place - but it is NOT clear that copyright does.
Enjoy :)
"Me: They're best served -- in fact, I think we're all best served -- by the generalities, and pointing out the problems when they occur. Trying to narrow it down to pinpoint precision on guesses of what could happen is going to step on a lot of toes on both sides unnecessarily." OK, I'm going to try this one more time, although frankly I think either my point is being purposely missed or I'm just not capable of expressing it properly. Can we please look at my whole message and not take one or two sentences out of context this time around, please? Thanks. The way I look at it, because not all future techniques and variables are known, there are three options. 1) Define the things that specifically can be done, and everything else can't. 2) Define the things that specifically can't be done, and everything else can. 3) Define the things that specifically can be done and the things that specifically can't, establish rough guidelines for everything else, and realize that the gray area is dynamic and ever-changing and will need to be worked as new issues. My humblest of opinions is that 3 is the best option for all involved, and I'll tell you why. Option 1 is the possibility everyone is bitching about, and it stifles innovation. Option 2 is a great way to get burned because of changing technology, because eventually "everything else" is going to come up with a new technique that wasn't predicted. For instance, two years ago it was completely safe to distribute morphs as "squished", i.e. everything but the vertices removed. It could be opened, but it's just be a bunch of dots. Now some programs can create solid models from point clouds. My opinion is that three, which is what I'm promoting, allows the most protection for both sides as well as leeway in the future. My point is NOT, and have never been, that we should just "ignore it". I have said REPEATEDLY that the discussions are worthwhile, and it's something to keep in mind. My point is that we should be looking at facts as well, and not running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming that the sky is falling. (OK, that was badly mixed, since a chicken with its head cut off would have a hard time screaming.) THAT is not doing any good. It looks to me that one of option 3's issues was (is being?) worked, and now half the world is screaming that we've been hit with option 1 and we won't settle for anything less than option 2.
"Have your legal team examine what I have said here. I bet they don't have a clear technical understanding of what the Tailor does. If they are of the understanding that the Tailor "copies" protected data, they have been misinformed." Jeff... after reading every single thing that's been posted in all of these threads since this began, I'm no longer certain that DAZ has a clear technical understanding of what Tailor does. Or what "follow curves" in a modeling program does, for that matter. "Please contact me off-line and if your project does not fall within the areas that we are trying to protect then I will be glad to work out a special letter for you giving you legal rights to do what you need to do. " Dan, if soulhuntre's projects don't fall into an area that's actually protected, he doesn't need a special letter of permission to do anything he's legally entitled to do already. That's like a cop giving me a special lettr entitling me to drive trough a green traffic light - nice to have, but it's a bit redundant. so far, based on extensive reading of this, it looks like every "clarification" and every public statement made by Daz to "lay things to rest", instead merely muddies the waters a bit more and raises new questions. While really laying very few of the ones that keep being asked to rest. I think it's really cool that you guys are being nice and giving everyone such braod latitude to produce seat covers.. er, Vicki covers. ;] I'm also questioning wether the latitude is your to give or with hold... just as JeffH is, and for probably the same reasons JeffH has for questioning: like Jeff and like soulhuntre: I do know a bit about code, and a bit about what modeling programs and morphs do and do not do. And like Soulhuntre and Questor, personally, I'd feel a bit better if you took these statements out of the "conversational" and non-legally binding venue of public forum, and put them in your EULA where they might have admissibility if a test case does go to civil court. Forum posts aren't accountable in civil law. Only criminal, as I understand it. Not that you guys would DO that of course grin but you can say all of the reassuring things in forum you care to and then conveniently forget them in a copyright court. Especially if you cahnge your minds later and rescind all the groovey "permissions". What's the historical quote I'm searching for? Ah yes... "knifed from behind with such surpassing smoothness... " Btw.. tis interesting to see that Chad's no longer respodning. Benched the 2nd string and sent in the 1st line, ne? ;]
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
- Monkeysmell
"Ultimately it comes down to those people who want clarification on the agreement and those who are trying to find loopholes. " By the way - flat out: it isn't "trying to find loopholes" to point out flaws in logic and holes in a public relations statement. That same condescending dismissal of everyone who questions the inherent contradictions in some of these statements, questions the interpretations of what Tailor and other shape approximation tools does or does not do, and those who find areas in these various clarifications that don't seem to hold consistently with other statements made by your representatives on the same topics keeps coming up in these public announcements over and over. Not everyone who questions some of the statements made by Daz employees and people arguing on their behalf is "trying to find loopholes". A lot of us just want to get answers on the points being brought up, and feel that we have every right to question the points that don't seem consistent. It would be appreciated if the implication that people questioning the various points and worrying at the details weren't assumed to be potential theives in Daz PR statemnets, and insultingly dismissed, thank you.
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
- Monkeysmell
I agree Fyrespirit with 3. definitions with communication, I dont think this can be as cut and dry as everyone would like for it to be. I know that if Daz tells me not to use tailor to pass out the newly fitted clothes , then I won't ...not until someone else does it , takes it to court and actually wins their case. If I understand correctly a lot of the things that we do are or could be against the EUlA and whether we like that or not we agreed to it when we bought the models, they are giving us freedom of creation , so personally if I were the one modeling around -shrinkwrapping-and supporting the daz figures , I would be getting permission in writing. I can't imagine the flood of letters daz would have to send out to make all the items permissable , but that's their worries, because without the permission you may face being sued, and as so many seem to be saying forum posts won't mean diddly. Get it in writing folks, they'll get tired of sending out all of those letters and correspondance and have to make the eula more friendly ...no? And my meaning of more friendly is to tell us , yes you may model clothing and not have to worry about us biting you in two for importing vicky into a 3d app to get the measurements right ...or yes tailor your clothes but dont tailor the full body suits... and other such plain english talk. If I have it right now , this is really what everyone wants , that and some just want daz to say, tailor doesnt use the morph...but I'm not so sure on that , because I dont think you can approximate without deriving. I dont own it though so dont shoot me.
so bite, are you saying that folks should not use the tailor, even to put morphs on clothing for their own personal use? and, if all the clothing modellers go by the eula...the way daz wants it....then folks better start pulling their clothing out of the stores, according to you, so they don't run the risk of being sued by daz, right?
No, Im only referring to whats in the eula, or perhaps it was only the faq that stated shrinkwrapping was a violation, and it would only be a violation if it was to be sold or redistributed, of course personal use is fair game.
I'm not saying what anyone should do , I'm only saying that I personally would want the written consent. My knowledge of the law wouldn't allow me to put myself at risk and if I did and was sued these forum threads wouldn't hold water according to what I understand.
All of that may be just blowing steam though because I don't think anyone would really have to worry about it.
I suspect that daz would have to be violated in a very detrimental way and the violator would have to flat out refuse to come to an agreement before court actually had to come in play.
I use Tailor all the time. And you know what, I mostly use it on Mike 1 & Vicky 1 characters. I just realized that! 
Oh, Poppi, I couldn't help notice all the threads where you told us your ass is just like Vicky's?! Do you know the kind of images that are in my mind right now? I've "known you" for a year or so, and don't recall so much talk about your ass... That's kind of funny by the way. 
"where you told us your ass is just like Vicky's?! Do you know the kind of images that are in my mind right now? " That's somehow very disturbing...
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
- Monkeysmell
Obviously Poppi is in violation as Daz own the copyright on Vickie's ass and Ron is in danger of violation of DAZ shrink wrap policies. All in all I think these two are in hot water. Ron more so when his better half finds out he's having virtual fantasies about 3d mesh buttocks. And yes, you're right Ironbear, it's very disturbing. :)
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
shoot...i have it on my computer at work...will post it when i get home. I used the "section" command in rhino, and made a series of leg curves for victoria. then i matched the unclosed ones, and, lofted them all. (i was working on a pair of stockings for her...the kind that use garters. suffice it to say...this leg looks pretty much EXACTLY like victoria's leg. I'll remember to bring it home...slap the portions of victoria's cr2 on it, and, you'll see what i mean...it then will have victoria's movements, as well. now, you could get even fancier and use the tailor to transfer all her leg morphs over to this "stocking". the reason i brought up the "contour" and "section" tools in rhino is: they can make pretty close to exact copies of the original figure, with very little work on the part of the modeller. there is a vast difference in hitting a button in a 3d modelling program and replicating a model, and, in using the form of that model as a basis of creation of an entirely new shape. these are very useful for creating close fitting bodices, but, the addition of sleeves, skirts, flounces, etc....then it becomes an actual "creation". i know i didn't explain this very well...anyone else care to do a little better for me?