I have really been wanting to purchase Poser 5, but I have hesitated due to some questions I have about its EULA. If someone could please provide further clarification on this, I would sincerely appreciate it.

I am not an intellectual property attorney, but I have compared the Poser 4 EULA and the Poser 5 EULA, and there are significant differences. There is no mention of proprietary file formats in the Poser 4 EULA, but much of the Poser 5 EULA is devoted to protecting what are now being claimed, in this latter day, to be proprietary file formats.

From my reading of the new Poser 5 EULA, it seems that any content vendor, any software vendor, and any store should seek some form of legal advice prior to opening or using Poser 5. I hope this is not the case, but it does appear this way to me.

From what I can tell, any software vendor reading and writing these file formats, after agreeing to the new EULA, could be sued by Curious Labs for violating that EULA. So, the many cr2 modification and creation programs out here could fall victim to such violation if the program author does not enter into a licensing agreement with Curious Labs after agreeing to the new EULA. Curious Labs has made it clear that it wishes to deter competitors, and the EULA states that the decision as to whether something is in violation of the EULA is at the sole discretion of Curious Labs. Are these cr2 programs now competitors to Poser 5?

Also, any store selling Poser 5-specific content or software could possibly be sued for illegally reselling materials that are copyrighted by Curious Labs. I am sure Curious Labs will not prosecute the individual vendor, but if the store is not a member of Content Paradise, I would think their distribution of Poser 5-specific content without paying some sort of fee would not be looked upon favorably by Curious Labs.

Finally, as a content vendor, I would be concerned that the EULA states I have no copyright on my own creations. Why would I wish to give away my rights by agreeing to the new EULA when the previous EULA does not claim the content of those file formats to be proprietary? And why would I want to restrict my sales only to stores that were Content Paradise participants?

I hope that someone can give more clarification to this issue, but from what I am reading, content vendors, software vendors and stores are all possible losers if they break the seal on Poser 5. It seems the only way to provide even limited protection for yourself is to pay Curious Labs its "licensing fee" through Content Paradise.

Will someone please provide further clarification? Am I reading this right? I certainly hope not.

This has been a concern that has been raised and, IMHO, not adequately addressed. So as not to beat a dead horse repeatedly, I will just say that I am one of those who feel that the wording is severely lacking. If you search the Poser forum for EULA, you will see the previous discussions on the topic.

Kupa has stated that the wording of the eula is to protect CL not from product venders, (who have full distribution rights to Cr2s for their own products) but from the possibility of competing companies using CL's propietary formats to create a direct competitor to Poser.

Yep, lets copyright text files. ;P If this EULA is valid, then most of the discussions in the Poser Technical Forum may result in civil and/or criminal prosecution (read clause G. of the EULA). I'm quite sure that is not what CL wants, but the P5 EULA is like most other EULAs overly broad and ambiguous. Nobody knows if those provisions are valid without going through court. Thats why the last sentence in the Poser 5 EULA is important. ;P

I am concerned about this statement...
"Finally, as a content vendor, I would be concerned that the EULA states I have no copyright on my own creations. Why would I wish to give away my rights by agreeing to the new EULA when the previous EULA does not claim the content of those file formats to be proprietary? And why would I want to restrict my sales only to stores that were Content Paradise participants?"
Where has CL drawn the line as to what can or cannot be copyrighted. Although I am not anywhere near mastering Poser so that I can make some of the neat things offered at this website, I hope one day I'll grow to be able to create things and join everyone else. But if I keep burning the midnight oil, practicing and learning only to reach my goal and find that CL has this EULA that gobbles up the copyright to something I've created, what's it all for. CL should protect it's interest I agree. But, it should also specify in detail what the fine print or lack of really means. If CL is going to go after someone based on some fine detail when their broad brush didn't specify that detail, I think that would be wrong and abusive. Let the folks know what the real deal is. This establishment of terms to address the pirate wackos unfortunately assumes that everyone is going to do something illegal and all must be reigned in check. It's kind of insulting when you are an honest person. CL wants us to trust their EULA, but they don't trust the community of users. So, again, I say, put it in writing and don't be vague and sweep with a broad brush explanation.

Would it then also be a violation of the EULA to write a plug-in for another program (such as Carrara Studio) that imports Poser 5 characters and props? I wonder also what effect this will have on the creators of Vue d'Espirit and World Builder, both of which can import Poser scenes and animations now?

Brian

Brian, the fact that you have to ask such questions reiterates my point. What is and is not a violation of the EULA. CL owes us anwers to these questions if they want our money. I don't feel that CL is trying to be sneaky, or anything like that. I just feel that their answer to protecting their interest doesn't consider ours. It doesn't have to be that way and I hope CL will address this matter so that we all know where we stand and can make our decisions and creations accordingly.

The statement I refer to regarding copyrighting your files is the first sentence in the EULA, which states:

Curious Labs, Inc. (Company), a California-based Corporation, provides the computer software and associated prorietary file formats (Program), and accompanying documentation (Documentation) in this package and licenses its use.

Emphasis mine.

If the proprietary file format is being licensed to you, not proprietary files, but proprietary file formats, which means any file in those formats, regardless of content, how can you own your files? The format belongs to CL, so the file belongs to CL, right? Or not?

Other portions of the EULA support this notion.

Like I said, I hope I'm reading this wrong.

IF you read the Eula carefuly they only restrict the distribution of included files in those formats, not created files! there is no mention of any restriction of files in those formats not created by CL or their vendors.

and it goes on to say that morphs, origonal textures, hair, and props, and charicters derived derived from those restricted files are free from restriction as long as you don't distribute the original restricted obj or cr2. really it is all spelled out clearly if you look carefuly

wdupre, I think I understand where you are coming from, but let's split distribution from ownership, and license from copyright. It seems as though the EULA says you can own your meshes, and copyright them, because they are OBJ data, and the OBJ format is not proprietary to CL. But anything else, you cannot copyright because CL owns the format. You can own your OBJ, but you can't own your CR2. I can copyright an OBJ or a JPG, but can I copyright a CR2 or a PZ3? I think it says you can't. You can't own it. As far as I can tell. So, how would I protect myself if someone ripped off my CR2? Is CL going to represent my interests in court? If I am not the holder of the copyright, what rights do I have? I don't think it would be in my best interest to agree to a document that takes my rights away from me. I have those rights with Poser 4. I can copyright a Poser 4 CR2. Why does Poser 5 require that I sign those rights away? Is there some benefit I don't understand?

no I went over it with a friend who is a lawyer and he agrees that the only copywrites they are protecting is the ones for the files that come directly with the program not for content that is origonaly produced or even derivative content that is spelled out in section J of the EULA the following section also states that camera and lighting settings (and by extention poses)can also be distributed and sold but not copywrited. other then those exceptions in no way does it limit your right to copyright your origonal content. you cannot copywrite the CR2 format but you can copywrite the origonal content it contains just the same as you cannot copywrite a piece of paper but you can copywrite the origonal words and images on it.

wdupre is absolutely right. Let's use MS Word as an example. If you create a document (such as a novel), you own that content and have full copyrights, etc. to it. There is no question that the novel belongs to you and not Microsoft. However, the DOC format itself is owned by Microsoft, just as the PSD format is owned by Adobe, the 3DS format by Discreet, and the 3DM format by McNeel (Rhino). I own the ships I created using Rhino, but not the 3DM format. This is why the EULA clearly states "file FORMATS". Yes, the CL file formats are readable in a text editor. This in no way means they are the same as a TXT file since they contain proprietary commands and parameters laid out in a very specific manner. Anthony Hernandez Curious Labs

Thanks anthony, according to my girlfriend Im always wrong but I knew I could be right sometimes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ;)

Yeah, well, show her my post and giver her a big fat "neener neener" from me :-) Anthony H.

Attached Link: http://developer.apple.com/mkt/swl/pdf/QT5FileFormat.pdf

6Dprime: Excellent questions. Curious Labs has no intention of stifling legitimate work and commerce in Poser-related products. I reread the EULA and honestly don't have an "official" answer for you just now and cannot speculate on the details for obvious reasons. I did forward this thread to Steve Cooper (CL's President) and either he or I will follow up on this ASAP. :-) Anthony Hernandez Curious Labs

Hmm, thanks Anthony for your example.
All those formats (DOC, PSD, 3DS, 3DM) are read and written from other applications which stand in direct competition to the original application. Microsoft cannot ban other companies from using the DOC format.
A developer may think a closed file format is a good good idea, but as a user I want definitly open formats/standards. I have lots of old data I can't use anymore because no other program supports the file format and the original program is discontinued.
I really like the example of McNeel (Rhino). They provide other developers which easy and hassle-free means to read/write 3DM files (via their OpenNURBS library). They don't try to close the file format, they try to develop the best application that works with this file format.

Competition keeps companies honest, sometimes I think CuriousLabs has not enough competition.

{camera and lighting settings (and by extention poses)can also be distributed and sold but not copywrited. other then those exceptions in no way does it limit your right to copyright your origonal content.} Camera and light settings, as well as poses are combinations of commands and parameters that have infinite variations. How is it that a cr2 is copyrightable, but these are not? Is a cr2 not just a combination of commands and parameters as well? It seems to me that you can either copyright the contents of all these types of files, or you can't copyright any of them. Granted, enforcing a copyright on poses or light settings might be a bit more difficult than on a character, but the principal is the same, especially if said character was made just by tweaking pre-exisiting morph dials (and look at the dearth of characters in the Marketplace that look almost identical). I don't understand the distinction. And is Curious Labs saying they own the copyrights to poses and light settings, or that nobody owns a copyright to them? While any of these copyrights might be difficult to enforce, I wouldn't think any vendor would want to just blindly sign away the right to do so.

And in regards to the section titled "Internal Program Settings"? Which states the following. "You cannot claim any copyright or ownership of any Program settings or processes. For example, you may sell light or camera settings that you created using Program, but cannot copyright these settings as they are an integral part of program" That states Lights and Cameras only as an example. It does not rule out anything that could be considered an internal process. Lets look at what is being defined as an internal process there, and compare it to another instance. -Lights are user created data stored in a Poser file format for other people to access. -Morphs are user created data stored in a Poser file format for other people to access. -Light settings in Poser formats are useless outside the Poser program. -Morphs contained in a CR2 are useless outside the poser program. -Both files are only useable by way of an internal process in the program. i.e. reading and displaying the results. I would also like to point you momentarily to the following company. http://www.doschdesign.com - who happen to sell of all things, light settings for various programs ( 3DSmax, LW, Cinema4D) with their Light-Scenes product. Selling the assuredly artistic, and copyrightable work of lighting design is not uncommon even outside Poser. So, where is the line drawn being drawn at? I actually dont see any limitations being applied to CLs possible copyright claiming options in the Poser5 EULA. What we do have is a vague, opened ended EULA that implies that everything is possibly copyright CL, and then we have people making directionless statements that they'd "never pursue such a issue". Saying something does not make it always so, and forum posts are not legally binding vs. a contract. Also, trying to give examples in comparison to other programs like Microsoft Word is invalid. It in no way affects this situation since the two programs, and their EULAs are very different. In fact the MS Word EULA expressly and clearly states that any information stored in the programs format is the copyrightable property of the contents originator. I see no such statement anywhere in the Poser5 EULA.

Hmm... how to explain this... Characters, morphs, expressions, hands, poses, etc. need other components/files in order to be usable. You cannot apply a morph to "thin air", nor can you apply a pose without a figure to apply it to. Cameras and lights, by contrat, need nothing. Anyone can create light and camera settings at any time with or without other elements in a scene and these settings require absolutely nothing "external". A CD player need a CD inserted in order to be usable, but nothing stops you from twiddling its knobs and buttons to your heart's content. So I can sell and copyright a CD. I could even sell a list of dial/button settings that will deliver a certain sound. But I can't claim ownership of the fact that the Bass Boost dial is set to +3.25. I'm the king of crappy analogies and this is far from an exception but I hope it works :-) Anthony H.

Mallen, if you're going to quote me, please do so in context. I made a general statement then said I would follow up on the specifics to get an "official" answer.

the pose part was added by me and I have no knowledge of CL's stand on pose files but the agument is there that just like camera and lighting this is just a collection of dial settings. but i also believe that a cr2 copywrite solely comprised of preexisting morph dials would be impossable to defend in court for the same reason whether the CL EULA allowed it or not. but custom morphs or accompanying texture would be copywriteable.

Lights settings, camara positions and so on are general concepts for 3D programs. A three-point lighting in Poser and Cinema 4D will give you comparable results.
With the ProPack I can import 3D modells from Poser into Cinema 4D but not the lights or camera position. Now if I write a Cinema 4D plugin wo import those too (which is dirt easy, would cost me less than 3 hours) do I need written permission from CL? If CL doesn't enforcing the copyright at this point where do they draw the line?

If Poser doesn't play nice with other application it will never lose its toy-status. Using different applications for differtent tasks is an integral part of a professional workflow. Proprietary file formats are anathema to serious users.

It already says In the eula that you can do anything with light settings other then copywrite them and as I said EUlA or no EULA I don't think they are copywritable your first point would be the general argument "Lights settings, camara positions and so on are general concepts for 3D programs.". you're not importing the lights just the settings the CL EUlA cant stop you from importing those settings. original content however is always copywritable by their creator and that right cannot be taken away by a EULA agreement even if they wanted to, original content cannot be copywrited untill after it is produced.

::shakes head:: Looks like I am not the only one confused by this whole issue... Being the fact that there are current programs out there that write to CR2's it is going to be interesting to see what will come of them the minute they are adapted to P5. For example, say the Tailor... I guess the biggest question I or anyone could ask would simply be, why the change?? Why the big change in the EULA from what it was in P4 and the Pro Pack?? Has something come about in the Market Place or the Community that has created this concern and if so, what steps as the Community can we take to aid CL from something like that occuring again. Jack

Hi wdupre, its not about the lights per se. If I want to import the .lt or .pz3 files which store the light settings I have to reverse engineer the file formats. Actually those formats are reverse engineered already. The ban in the new EULA comes after the fact that those clauses are already broken. 80

I don't think it matters what the EULA says on the issue of copyrighting things such as dial setting for lights, poses, cameras, etc... what matters is that the (US) Copyright Office would not give you a copyright on them. They are too "generic" and it would be too easy for another person to accidentally hit on the same settings. There are a lot of things they will not grant copyright on. For instance a font creator can only copyright the actual code of her font, not the appearance of it. So knock-off fonts, as long as they are not straight copies renamed, are legal. Why? Because the Copyright PTBs decided no one can copyright the alphabet. :) They decided all letter "A"s have certain characteristics, so it would be easy for one person's A to look just like another's. Or one person's light set, or sitting pose, or whatever. There are infinite possibilities for the bend of a leg, but only a narrow range of them could result in a realistic sitting pose. Maybe it stinks, maybe it doesn't, but regardless of what CL says, it's law. Phoenix

Umm phoenixamon, err..., you saw the target and missed it by a mile. ;)
CL doesn't claim ownership of third-party content. What they do is claim copyright for the format in which this content is stored.
I can't reuse a light set for Poser in Cinema 4D. To do this I or someone else would have to write a C4D plugin which can read .pz3 or .lt files. This means someone has to reverse engineer the file format, which is not allowed (see clause G. of the P5 EULA).
In effect all those small utilities which work with Poser file formats (MorphManager, PropViewer, CR2Editor, ...) would be illegal or need a written permission from CL.

I don't believe this is what CL wants, but if you follow the letter of the EULA it is what you get. This is not CuriousLabs fault, every EULA of every software I read is to ambiguous. CL is just in a position where I can bitch at them. Sorry guys. ;)

I was only addressing one point from all the discussion above... just the issue of whether certain types of files would be copywritable (and the lack of necessity for P5 to address this in the EULA at all). You're right, I did not touch on the issue of ownership of a file FORMAT. That's because I don't feel I know enough about the issue to comment and am therefore following this threads with interest. But both topics are discussed above, so nyah! ;) Honestly, I am concerned about the File format rights claimed, but I think CL is largely trying to piss up a rope because they didn't say this in previous versions and the file formats are unchanged. I think that if they went to court on the issue, they'd be told they lost right to claim ownership by waiting far too long to do it. If you own P4 and do not upgrade and write programs that create or modify CR2s, you can not be bound to the P5 EULA. It's a contract you didn't "sign". Likewise, you could say, oh, it was a P4 CR2 that was reverse engineered because CL didn't claim ownership of those, and they can not legally retroactively apply a rule. And it's not my fault the file format has not changed from the previous unprotected one. Phoenix

Actually It can easily be argued that that a file format created spacificly for a program is in fact a portion of that program and in that sense they did clearly state that "any portion of the program merged into or used in conjunction with another program will continue to be the property of the company." that was in you P4 EULA. but the fact is that this is legaleze to protect their buts from the whole program being reverse engineered and they would be stupid not to protect their rights, they are no more likely to sue anyone creating helper aps then anyone else with similar patants and copywrites such as PDF, DOC, etc.

Well, it is a concern for all the new stuff in Poser files (think MorphManager for Dynamic Hair).

As it is nobody knows if a clause in the EULA holds up in court as long as you don't challenge it. That really sucks, because it might hurt someone of those who really push the boundaries of Poser.

CL has to know where we see problems. I don't think they will adress this issures with P5, but I hope there will be a P5.1 with a more open approach.

Hehe wdupre, if I'm my right to use a software is dependent of the sanity of the company then it is already to late. ;) Companies do change hands and/or politics and I want to protect my own interests in this case. BTW most high end 3D programs explicit allow access to the innards of their programs. There have Plugin Software Development Kits or release source code to read/write their file formats.

The way it looks to me, what matters the most here is not so much what the EULA says, but how the users and 3rd party developers choose to address it. The worst possible thing that could happen is that people are simply afraid and decide to chuck whatever projects they may be working on. That's what I'm afraid of. One thing that could happen is that developers could zip off notes to CL asking Steve for a letter stating that their particular program is acceptible to CL. Another thing would be for somebody to create a list of generic types of programs... CR2 editors, morph managers, MAT/MOR file creators, whatever... and CL could write up a nice little document for their web site assuring people the right to create these types of programs and asking people to write for permission if their type of program is not on the list. It would not contradict the EULA and would not take rights away from the end user, so it could be done legally. thing is, if they say you can, and you've got it in writing, they can't take it back later. Just don't give up, you programmers out there! You do great work. Don't be afraid to ask them directly for a written OK. Phoenix

Ooh, do you smell that? Is that what I think it is? I think it is. It's... COLD, RAW FEAR. Poser doesn't have a direct competitor right now. Under simple economic theory, you can figure out that eventually someone else will notice this market, decide they want a chunk of it, and make one. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say they do something better, faster, or cheaper, or have some nifty new toy or blinky flashy lights -- something that makes it as desireable or more desirable than Poser itself. Now, if this program could then read in and use Poser files, and thus plug into all of the products already available to Poser and allow Poser users to keep on going with everything they've got started, and without having to even pay CL (or whoever has Poser at that point) a license fee, they could cause some SERIOUS pain. So, CL wants to try to protect themselves from that happening. I can understand that. Now, keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer AT ALL, and that law is a tricky thing (I'll save my rant on that) and also that judges are human beings (and some of them are rather stupid human beings, but I'll save my rant on that as well). However, keeping those in mind, I'd say that the "helper aps" like Morph Manager, CR2edit, ect. have been well established as standard operating practice. (That may not be the right term; I haven't been awake very long). While technically CL could try to cause problems for them, they would likely not win, and I imagine the risks of losing, getting the horrible PR, and possibly having that portion of the EULA overturned would far exceed any minor advantage they might get. On the other hand, a direct competitor reading and manipulating Poser files as Poser does and essentially being a Poser substitue is very different from a helper ap, and would not be standard operating practice. CL could go after them without harming the helper aps. That's my guess on the reason for this portion of the EULA, but I don't know CL, so it's just a guess and I may even have completely misunderstood the issue. I apologize if it sounded preachy; actually writing it out helped me sort it out in my own mind, and also, I just woke up.

Ah Phoenix, a voice of reason. rather then argue semantics you cut to the chase and point to a solution that I'm sure would not be a hardship for CL and would protect the rights of programmers.

fyresprite Exactly. it is not in CL's best interest to styfle creativity which can only expand their user base. but any company would be crazy not to try to defend that user base from a direct competitor.

FyreSpiryt > Poser doesn't have a direct competitor right now.

There are lots of competitors with the functions of Poser. If messiah:animate could read Poser files I would be gone in the space of a minute. The price tag is maybe too steep for normal hobby users but it is well worth the money.
What makes Poser so attractive is the price of the application and the amount of free or inexpensive third-party content.

wdupre > but any company would be crazy not to try to defend that user base from a direct competitor.

They can try, but I think their chances are slim. Poser files are not encoded, anyone with a text editor can read them (no DMCA protection) and the mesh and material data are based on a format of another company (Alias|Wavefront).

Well, if I get my P5 update I can see for myself if Poser is good enough. I'm very excited about the new features, but the real test is the day to day usability. All those small things which just have to work, no Crosstalk, working ERC and so on.

I think a content user base is the best protection for CuriousLabs.

To get around such a restriction, the competitor could simply use the import/export availability in Poser to their advantage; since if you export something from Poser into a new file format (say, .obj), then CLs' copyright over that information has ceased as it is no longer in the "protected" file format. Therefore, if I were competing with Poser, I would simply allow the import of .obj (and other "Poserable" file formats) thereby legally circumventing the "protection" in a manner that most users - including novices - can accomplish with relative ease. So, although a lot of the line of thought and reasoning is sound, it still provides minimal, if any, true protection; except for the portions of Poser that cannot be exported.

Thats the point CyberStretch. To do it your way you still have to have Poser, this application doesn't really compete with Poser. But if the competitor can read Poser files and work with the data (joints, materials, ...) you don't need Poser anymore.

CyberStretch > except for the portions of Poser that cannot be exported.

Every functionality which is in Poser 4 is available in decent 3D apps. Every new functionality of Poser 5 is also a part of some 3D apps or as external plugin available.

To say it again: Poser 5 doesn't exist in a vacuum, all the features are available elsewhere. Posers strong points are the (cheap) prize and the third-party content.

so if CL can't do anything about it legaly and won't do anything about it, from a product acceptance point of view, Why worry about it? I for one am ready to move on from this subject, I already baught P5 and will not hesitate to install it, inevitable warts and all. anyone who doesn't want to doesn't have to. wishing happy times for all:)

::blink blinks blearily:: OK, I'm confused. Yuri, which side are you arguing for?

All one would need for this to work is an adequate import utility to negate the requirement of having Poser. Since "helper apps" seem to have the legal right to do so, I think CL would be hard-pressed in a court of law to deny competitors from doing the same. Even if you had to use an intermediary utility to accomplish the transformation, it would still legally circumvent the copyright protection of the protected Poser file format.

No offense intended, but how come whenever someone suggests an alternative to certain opinions, the discussion always turns into "buy it or don't"? Apparently, some people have enough interest to discuss these topics until their opinions are invalidated. The only way we will ever hash out these types of issues now or in the future is to, er, hash them out.

FyreSpiryt > ::blink blinks blearily:: OK, I'm confused. Yuri, which side are you arguing for?

Hehe, my own. Consistency is for the weak of mind. ;D
Truth to tell I'm of a mixed mind in regard of this whole matter. I don't want to hamper CuriousLabs, but I think some parts of the EULA are over the top, bad for the user and not enforcable.

I'm also a bit unsure about the EULA, for much the same reasons. Maybe it's just smokescreen butt-coverage, maybe it's not. Since I can't run P5 anyway now and haven't seen enough that would help my art to justify the expense, my plan is to sit back and see how things play out. Oh, and say "I told you so" when the first complaints by actual P5 users come rolling in. (And they will. We're always griping about something around here. ^_~)

long sighing moan I think I'm getting a headache. It seems like everyday, someone discovers another hitch in Poser 5. All the more reason why I'm not rushing right out ot buy it. Things were so much simpler with Poser 4. I think I'll stick with that for now. Melanie

Anthony, Let's try a different analogy regarding poses -- sculpture. Let's say someone creates a pose that mimics "The Thinker" in Poser 4. And let's assume it is nearly perfect. By subtle manipulation, the artist has overcome the mesh breaks in the forearm bend under the chin, etc. After four months of tedious, loving work, she copyrights it, sells it, and all is good. Then, she installs Poser 5. She implicitly agrees to the new EULA. She implicitly agrees that she no longer holds copyright to her pose that she worked so long to create and that is so clever and expertly executed. How can she sell it? Yet the new EULA states that she cannot copyright it. If she can't copyright it, who owns it? Who protects it from theft? With the new EULA, are all poses in the public domain? So do they all come out of the MarketPlace and go into the Free Stuff? Things may not be this simple, but I always thought you had to own something before you could sell it.

Well, I could understand adjusting the EULA in the event of a competitive program, though I probably wouldn't have made it as ambigious as it is. However, I see CL caught between a rock and a hard place with this. Their product needs content for it to be of value to the user. Otherwise Viewpoint/Zygote/DAZ products and a whole slew of others wouldn't have been bundled with Poser in the first place. Likewise, those Content Creators need Poser in order to make a living as well. A symbiotic relationship where one CANNOT exist without the other. CL need to make sure producers of product for Poser content can still make content to further the value of Poser, but at the same time they need to protect themselves against any unseen competitor that might arise. Yet with as ambigious as the new EULA is, I would be very wary of approaching CL if I was creating a helper program, such as Morph Manager or The Tailor. One thing that I know about many programmers is they like to shroud themselves in secrecy when they are creating their applications. Particularly if they intend to sell that application (The Tailor for example)in one of the online stores. Now, I don't think this would happen on the part of CL, but what if I was to create a helper application which would make something easier for the Poser Community and approached CL about that idea to ask permission. Not only do I stand the risk of being told, no... but now I also stand the risk of having my idea stolen from me with no form of compensation. To make matters worse, if I design that program ahead of time and am told no, I can't get permission to distribute it, then I've wasted all of that time and/or money having it created. Again, I don't think CL would do this, but it has been known to happen a time or two even in this Community. In a verified and understandable effort to try and protect themselves and a market that they currently own, I see that this new EULA may end up slowing or causing an end to 3rd party products being created to support their market. Regretfully, in order to make sure that I am not violating anything in the EULA, I wont be creating anything myself for P5. HOWEVER, I will continue to make supportive product for P4. I'd rather error on the side of caution, then error and find out that I screwed up something terrible and possibly get sued for it. The sad part of this is, I think there will be allot of content creators out there that think, feel and will do the same as me. Jack

I finally downloaded the damn manual, and read the EULA, and re-read it several times, the end result is I'm not worried, I just ordered Poser 5 in fact. There is some question in my mind as what exactly is a "derivative" item, and thus restriced context that can't be sold, but I'm pretty clear in my own mind. However, as telling others that it would be O.K. for them would be practicing law without a licence, I'm not going to say that. ;-) I'm a digital artist, not a lawyer, after all.

"I'm a digital artist, not a lawyer, after all." However, as an artist using another's tools, it behooves you to know the laws surrounding that usage so as not to position yourself for litigation. "Ignorance to the law is no excuse." Therefore, in order to be perfectly legit, you really do need to be an artist and a lawyer. :0)