Perhaps it has been answered, but how would one go about giving away (for Freestuff) and selling products such as Characters based on the P5 figures?
Do CL own the P5 figure meshes, is it Daz, Runtime DNA or a combination?

Regards
STORM

..:--who is still waiting for P5 to land in Ireland--:..

After reading the 576 page debate at PoserPros, I would encode everything, including the cr2 files, using rcook's program in the freestuff. Alternately, I would encode the OBJ with Mover and distribute the CR2 as a text file with instructions to rename it as a CR2. I don't think Curious intends any change in the openness of the community, but there is a lot of uncertainty about, and these steps won't hurt anything.

I thought that might be the answer Cage. Thanks. But do you have any idea how the ownership of the meshes breaks down? I mean if Daz owns the meshes, and things heat up between them and CL, Daz could throw a huge spanner in the works and forbid distribution of any sort of derived products? And with their own program in the works,???? Regards STORM

Daz don't own the figures ;)ask infos directly to CL instead. Thanks Nef

I thought that Don and Judy were derived from Dork and Posette which were licenced to Metacreations and subsequently Cl for Poser 4 inclusion. If that is the case they Daz do own the meshes and thus my question. Regards STORM

DAZ has said they did not provide the characters. Even though DAZ created the meshes for Posette and Dork, it could have been an arraingment where CL owned the models, which is probably the case. It is not uncomon to hire another company to create things which ultimately end up being owned by the company doing the hiring.

This question has been asked and answered repeatedly. My sole purpose is to answer it again. Here it is: Distribute your morphs, sell your content, etc. just as you did before. They are yours, just as they were before. Iam unable to make any public interpretation of the P5 EULA beyond what has been publicly stated, so I will therefore not be posting anything further in this thread.

mmmmm.. Could CL please clear up the ownership issue? This adds even more uncertanty to the whole thing. It takes a considerable ammount of time and effort to create derived product. It is important that developers know the position before they put the work in. Uncertanty is not healty for the development of P5 content. Not trying to start a row, but I think it is a queation that should be cleared up. Regards STORM R

We seem to have cross-posted Anthony. Sorry for the question but I must repeat it. Who own the Don and Judy meshes? Regards STORM

Let me put it in a differnet way. Assume I or another developer decide to use the Don and Judy Meshes as a basis to create a new mesh product, one that will seriously compete with a Daz premier product. Daz decide they don't like the competition, invoke their ownership rights and the developers are up the creek with no paddle. It is for this and no other reason my question arises. Regards STORM

"Who own the Don and Judy meshes?" Who cares? Surely you're not considering selling the meshes themselves are you? Are you considering selling a derivitave? Obviously either of those would be illegal. If you want to sell anything else, then who owns the mesh seems pretty irrelevant. The rules have been the same since Poser 3 and apply to Vicky, Posette, Dork, Michael, Stephanie, DAZ Dragon, Don, Judy, et. al. ;) Sell or give away whatever "characters" you create, which are morph settings. Don't redistribute the meshes and you're cool. As for the DAZ/CL/Rosity issue, let them figure it out and I'm sure we'll know in time. Speculation on that has already soaked up 38 pages with hundreds of posts over a week and a half of time at poserpros and we're still no closer to knowing the answer, so I highly doubt you'll find any more resolution in this forum than you would simply by reading the massive interchange in that one. Paul

Heh... If you use the mesh to create any product, btw, that's a big no no. It's a derivative, and I can't count how many people I've seen fragged for making a derivative. Anyone remember the whole Amy/Posette incident?

Sorry Entropic you seem to miss my point. An example would be Jim Burton's Supermodel Vicky. How about say a high res mesh body (my own or another developers) with Judy's head so it can use the face room. this would require a mesh distribution encoded to the Judy figure Assume this competes directly with Vicky 3. Daz don't like that and use legal action based on their ownership of the Judy head mesh to stop it. Before anyone developes such a product they need to be certain who owns the Judy mesh and whom to get agreement with. That would be prudent in a business and legal sense. The sole purpose of the question is to find out who owns the Judy and Don mesh. Regards STORM

Hrm. Ok. I did misunderstand, but as far as I know, there are workarounds. The best would probably be to create the body mesh and then set the cr2 up to replace Judy's body. This avoids all the tangles because the new product actually requires the customer to own Judy, which is far from competitive. The EULA only seems to apply to development that competes with CL, so if the Judy mesh is owned by someone else, I can't see that being a problem, either. I got mixed up because you used the term derivative. A derivative is a mesh that starts with the original mesh and alters it. A completely original mesh would certainly not be copyright infringement. The more I think about this case, the less I think there's any need to worry, but I'm not a lawyer. ;) Paul

Thanks Entropic. But it still leaves the situation "Assume this competes directly with Vicky 3. Daz don't like that and use legal action based on their ownership of the Judy head mesh to stop it." They could do this on a selective basis withouth effecting ordinary users of the P5 Judy mesh in order to stop such a product, arguing that this product requires the use of the Judy Head Mesh to function in P5 and in relation only to this product they were invoking their ownership rights to the Head mesh block its' commercial distribution. Antway 3.06 A.M.here Time for bed Regards STORM

Opps ownership rights to the Head mesh block its' commercial distribution. should read ownership rights to the Head mesh to block its' commercial distribution.

If you distribute the cr2 to change Judy's body, then you aren't including her head and DAZ/CL would have NO legal ground to stand on since there is no infringement. For example, since I own Poser 5 I already have a legal copy of Judy. You would be able to sell me your high-res body to use with Judy's head. DAZ/CL could not prevent that, nor would they. You aren't infringing on their property in any way. You aren't distributing Judy's head, just an original body. I still firmly believe that CL owns Judy, and not DAZ. But you should ask CL to be sure. Also, a company can't invoke ownership rights selectively. If they are going to invoke ownership rights, they must do so for all instances that they are aware of, or risk losing all ownership rights.

If the mesh was designed under a work for hire contract then the mesh copyrights belong to CL which I believe is the case. Nevertheless gray area's of the EULA notwithstanding it has been pointed out by practicly every member of the CL staff time and time again that buisness would go on without change in respect to aftermarket content creation. If you could do it before you can still do it. copyright law doesn't change becouse of the EULA. the reason anthony can not comment is becouse Kupa has stated that he is discussing the possability of clarifying their position or the EULA with experts, and any comments before that process is complete could be detrimental to the process.

Nobody except Curious Labs and DAZ knows the answer to STORM's question. You can speculate all you want, but you could be wrong.

"What's the position on derived items?" "It's the same as it was last week." "What was it last week?" "Ummm.... we'll get back to you, k?" ;]

{Also, a company can't invoke ownership rights selectively. If they are going to invoke ownership rights, they must do so for all instances that they are aware of, or risk losing all ownership rights.} Jcleaver, I believe you are wrong there. It is my understanding that the owner of a copyright CAN selectively decide how and to whom they grant usage rights. If I give permission to Joe Blow to use Dina's mesh in any way he sees fit, that right is granted to him and him alone. It does not automatically grant everyone the rights to use Dina's mesh. The only way that would happen is if I specifically stated that everyone had the rights to use it. You may be confusing copyright with trademark. If the owner of a trademark doesn't vigorously defend it, they may lose it. That isn't the case with copyright.

""What's the position on derived items?" "It's the same as it was last week." "What was it last week?" "Ummm.... we'll get back to you, k?" ;] " Actually, bear, the position on derived items doesn't require outside help. The Federal Government got back to us on that one several decades ago... figuring out what is copyrighted, on the other hand, still has people in fits. ;) Paul

,

A few short hours later....
Sorry about the typos in my posts I was very tired. ;0)

Having thought about it some more during the blissful few hours of sleep the question remains, and I hope neither CL or Daz or indeed the community view this as a an attempt to ferment trouble. It is not, my concerns and question is genuine.

Before this we knew (or thought we knew) the position of ownership. Daz owned the P4 meshes which they licensed to Metacreations and subsequently CL for use with Poser 4.

I know of several instances in the past when P4 obj.meshes converted to other 3D formats were being given away on certain legal web sites. These sites had their activities stopped by Daz. This would suggest and imply that Daz still owned the P4 content meshes and were in fact defending their ownership and copyright by these actions.

To date Daz has been quite liberal on the use of its' meshes by licensed Poser users as regards free and commercially orientated product created by third party developers. They have only insisted that meshes be encoded to the P4 content to stop non-licensed people from obtaining the mesh.
In the case of the millennium figures (V2 and M2), there are further special rules as regards the cr2.

This "custom and practice" has pertained for the whole period to date. It could be argued that Daz (whose primary business is the sale of meshes and related product) allowed this to happen to encourage the market and further sales of its' products.

It must be remembered we do not own either Poser or the meshes, we are licensed to use them under certain conditions.

Now in a situation, for example, where a developer was using Judy or Don to create a high quality product to compete with say Vicky 3 or Mike 3, or one that could be perceived as such, what would Daz do? Assuming that Judy and Don are derived or developed from the P4 meshes?

Daz could make a very strong legal argument that their licensing of the meshes to Metacreations/CL and their allowing the "custom and practice" usage of these meshes for commercial products in the past was never intended to allow a situation where their own meshes were being used by third parties to compete directly against Daz premier or any other products. And that in such a situation they had a right to selectively revoke their licence, and thus prevent commercial or free distribution of those competing third party products.

I think a court could well look favourably on such arguments.
Either way if it did come down to a legal action by Daz the involved cost would make a challenge to such action prohibitive for most and the time spent in processing such a challenge would effectively put the product out of date by the time it was resolved.

This situation throws up the spectre that Daz could have an effective veto over any third party commercial or free product that references their meshes (in any way) and that they see as threatening to their products. Moreover, that in such circumstances they (Daz) could prevent distribution of such product by legal action.

In the circumstance where Daz have announced that they are developing a program to compete with Poser 5 the possibility of such action becomes more likely.

If I am correct, the situation is thus unacceptable to Poser 5 users and developers. Why would anyone spend months developing such product if it could be stopped in its tracks by a court order or injunction based on the Daz ownership of the original meshes?

The fact that neither Daz or CL will give a simple answer to the questions of who owns the Don and Judy meshes make me even more suspicious that they are aware of the issues and that there is more to this than meets the eye.
I also understand and respect why Anthony may not be able to "make any public interpretation of the P5 EULA beyond what has been publicly stated." However, CL assurances to "Distribute your morphs, sell your content, etc. just as you did before" do not make me or others feel any happier. I would hate to have to fight Daz in a court action based on such an assurance.

So please both CL and Daz give us a straight answer to the simple question. "Who owns the Don and Judy meshes?"

Regards to all
STORM

Um... no offense meant here, Storm, but why would you want to take a mesh that has already been reworked, rework it again to try and create a competitive product against the original owners?? Why not just create one from fresh? If you are going to invest that sort of time into it and intend to sell it, would it not make more sense to completely OWN the mesh yourself? To my knowledge, Jim Burton asked for permission to create Super Model Vicky and got DAZ's blessing in it, regardless, Jim spent allot of time with that mesh and don't qoute me, it's pretty much a new mesh he created. Jim Burton would be better to ask about this. I can see the importance of asking ownership of the meshes so that you know who to seek permission from. But I guess I kinda have trouble understanding why you would want to create an all new mesh character, using someone elses mesh, then turn around and sell it to compete directly with them... again, no offense, but... well, if I was the owner of that mesh, I'd be asking for a serious royality from the sale of that "new" character. Just my 2 pennies, Jack

Hi Jack :0)
I am using the Judy scenario as an example to portray the kind of problems that might happen. One could raise the same question that you do in relation to Victoria products. Why not develope your own, like DSI did with Dina?
There are good market reasons for working with an existing mesh, not least, the existing extensive range of products available and customer investment.

For another thing the only head meshes that work with the Face Room are the Judy and Don mesh, as far as I am aware. That makes the ownership of the Judy mesh of some concern to all Poser 5 users and developers.

And thirdly with the potential that Daz and CL might end up being hostile competitors the goal posts in the existing usage and practice may well move completely.

Regards
STORM

..:--who is still waiting for P5 to land in Ireland--:..

DTHUREGRIE, I could be wrong. I wasn't talking about selectively granting rights. I was talking about selectively enforcing violations. I probably should have been more clear. But as I said, I could very well be wrong and confused it with trademark law. STORM, Probably the best avenue for an answer is to send an email to CL and DAZ. It is possible that you would get an answer quicker. They may monitor these boards, but would be unwilling to say something binding on these boards until they have all the answers themselves. I think they don't want to shoot themselves in the other foot also!

You are are probably right Jcleaver, it is a pity, I was hoping that they would answer this openly for the sake of all the community.

I am beginning to wonder if it will take some warez head somewhere to start distributing the meshes through a web site before the real owners are willing to step forward and claim their property. Please do not take this as a request that someone do this, I would not condone or support this in any way. But I find it riduculous in a community that is so definitive and defensive about copyright that we are unable to find out who owns the P5 meshes or get a straight answer from the company distributing them.

regards
STORM

It was stated some time ago that Runtime DNA created the meshes for Don and Judy. As to who owns them, I have no idea. But since CL and RDNA have no squabble, I don't think any future problems will arise concerning Don or Judy.

I read somewhere that they were created from the P4 Dork and Posette, and that Runtime DNA did the conversion for CL. If that is the case Daz could own the meshes (they created Dork and Posette for P4), and Don and Judy could be regarded as derivative products. Since Daz seem to be having nothing to do with Poser 5 and were not involved in the adaptation of these meshes, the further question arises (if these meshes are owned by Daz) as to if we are properly licensed to use these meshes. I know this is a can of worms and I am not trying to harm either Daz or CL, but the failure to answer this question by CL is worrying me and should be worrying the community. This matter has to be cleared up very soon. I sympathise with CL, they have had a rough couple of weeks and I wish them the best, but I think it is important that we get clear and comprehensive answers to this question. Regards STORM

Storm, The same rights you have with the licensed meshes in Poser 4 exists with Don and Judy in Poser 5. The license agreement is between Metacreations and their successor (Curious Labs) and Zygote and their successor (DAZ). It's wouldn't be appropriate for me to disclose the full detail of license. But the license does specifcally allow users to create derivatives. Bottomline, none of the licensing of this content has changed, and as such you are able to use and distribute the content the same way you were in Poser 4. Steve Cooper

Thank you Steve, So that means that these meshes are derived from the P4 meshes. Ok, if I want to distibute a new figure, say the Judy figure with added hi-res detailing geometry in the mesh as a commercial product (this would require encoding the new mesh to Judy but would be a new mesh distribution) who do I deal with as regards permissions, Daz or CL. Who has the proprietry rights to deal on this matter. An answer to that will clear up remaining doubts. Thanks. STORM

Alternatively can I just go ahead and do it (as an encoded obj) without consuting CL or Daz? Thanks STORM

Storm, That's a difficult question to answer. Remember the various statements and position on the hands of the Amy character? While it didn't create significant issues for us at CL, it became an issue elsewhere. This is potentially turning into a conversation that would best be dealt with in email or by phone. Feel free to send me a post. I'm in the midst of a weeklong summit and have very limited time this week, so likely would want to schedule some time next week to talk to you. Thanks, Steve Cooper

Ok will do the email thing next week.
Or if you happen to be in Dublin by any chance in the near future I am a short distance from Baggot Street! Some good pubs around there full of people talking. ;0)
Thanks again for responding to the issue.

Regards
STORM

Now that's an offer! Nothing like long tap pipe, thick headed Guiness. I may be in the UK in a few weeks, and may end up in Dublin. If so, lunch or drinks are on me... Kupa

Deal!

Kupa, We have no concerns with you discussing or explaining any of the terms of the Meta-Zygote agreement publicly to help explain proper usage of the models. I think that there are more people interested in this topic than just Storm. I would suggest that section 3.2 has a very clear definition of the proper usage. Storm, objaction mover is definitely a very safe way to go, and doesnt require permission from us. Dan Farr President, DAZ Productions

Hi Dan Farr This applies even if I or others are selling (brokering) an altered Judy mesh, say with high res geometry added into it (made by me)? Like e.g. the P4 Eve figure (new extra geometry in the hip area by Torino). This is ok for the Judy and Don Meshes so long as they are encoded to the meshes supplied with P5? If this is correct thank you very much for clearing it up. Thanks Regards STORM

Storm, Yes, you are correct. Doing something like you suggested creates no problems as far as DAZ is concerned. You still may want to talk with Kupa to make sure that they are o.k. with it as well. Sincerely, Dan Farr

Wow! Ok Steve Cooper fill in the gap please. Does this square with you and Cl as well. Let's put this issue to bed for once and for all and move on. We can then talk about other things when we have that pint or two! ;0) Thanks again Dan Regards STORM