Thanks for your feedback everyone. And thank you for the obvious efforts so many of you are making to discuss these issues in a way that actually promotes understanding. It is very appreciated, as well as conducive to the further constructive exchange of ideas. We also appreciate your concern for upholding license agreements and copyright, and for your general desire to work within a system that allows for developers ownership and protection rights to be maintained.

Just for the record, dishonest people will always look for loopholes or they will outright take what they want. At DAZ, we know that our survival in this market depends primarily on promoting the necessary education for honest people to be honest, especially at times like this when questions arise.

It seems that many of you have raised the question of what constitutes a derivative model or morph, so Ill try to address that here. And I'll be posting this message in other locations Im aware of where these questions have been asked. Its also been pointed out that in my efforts to be thorough and accurate in representing DAZ I can tend to sound like a lawyer. I will try to be as plain as possible without sacrificing the accuracy.

With that in mind, I thought that maybe I should look up the dictionary definition of the word derivative. I wont post my findings here, but feel free to look it up yourself. The common thing I found in all of the possible meanings of the word derivative is that a derivative always requires an original. By definition, something that requires something else in order to be created is a derivative of that something else.

So, on to talking about 3D stuff...

A morph target or a mesh is owned by its original creator.

If it is an original morph or original mesh (such as DraXs Musclebound Michael morph or Bloodsongs Dragon Factory model), then this morph/mesh is owned entirely by its creator. The owner of the model (DAZ in the case of Musclebound Michael) does not have any say in the usage of someones original morph for that model. This is, of course, provided that its usage does not infringe upon the rights of the model creator somehow (such as distributing the Musclebound Michael product as an OBJ rather than as a delta set which requires the Michael OBJ).

If it is a derivative morph or a derivative mesh (such as the Muscular morph on Stephanie or Torinos Eve model), then this morph/mesh is owned partially by the creator of the derivative work and partially by the creator of the work from which it was derived. This derivative morph/mesh can only be distributed in one of two ways: (1) under terms agreed to by both creators, or (2) in such a way that the derivative morph does not circumvent the need for the end user to already have the morph or model from which it was derived. (You may note that the Eve model, a derivative of the Posette model, is distributed as an encrypted file such that it requires the ownership of the original mesh.)

And with that groundwork, let me answer a few specific questions that are representative of many.

1. I have just a small example in mind, If I made a coat for Vicki or Mike It could be taken as a mesh derivate work? no matter if the entire geometry is different?

It could be. It depends on how you made the coat. It will be a derivative mesh if you could not have made it in the same way without using the other partys model (Vicki or Mike in your example). If it is a derivative, as most clothing item models are, then you will either need to distribute it in such a way that it requires the end user to already own the original model, or you will need an agreement on terms for distribution with the owner of the original model. If the owner of the original model is DAZ, you may rest assured that your agreement with DAZ is already in place. We have always allowed the distribution of such clothing models, even when those clothes compete directly with similar clothes for sale at DAZ. I cannot speak for the positions that other model owners may take.

1. You say you have allowed people to Use Michael to make clothing... you're certainly not meaning that they can cut up the OBJ file and make clothing, are you? Or are you saying that people can use michael as a template over which to draw new geometries not extracted from the original mesh?

Correct, and thanks for pointing out the distinction. Derivative models that directly incorporate parts of another persons model are always prohibited. DAZ is drawing the distinction only for derivative add-on products that use a DAZ mesh for fitting purposesas a template.

1. The Tailor does not in anyway copy any mesh from your characters and apply them to clothing. It stretches the mesh of the target to approximate the dial settings of the source character and creates a cr2 that can only be applied to the exact same target item whether on the creators machine or on the machine of someone that they have passed the cr2.

Correct. And this situation is not specific to The Tailor; many applications do similar things. No one is implying that rights to the original mesh are being challenged here. As you point out, the end user is still required to possess the target mesh. Rather, the rights to original morphs are being challenged. As a result, when the derivative files are distributed they must either be done so in a way that is either approved of by the original creator or in a way that requires the end user already has the original work in order to use the derivative files.

1. Why, with this concern, are you selling a clothing package for $14.97 that will permit anyone with Michael one to make him look like Michael 2? Are you yourselves by selling this package circumventing the need for peopleto buy Michael 2?

Yes, we are circumventing that need for some people. However, as the owner of the original data this is our prerogative. Again, anyone can make an agreement with someone else which modifies his own copyright and license agreement. You may also have noticed that many people (including us at DAZ) regularly create derivative models and morphs from their own products that may well compete with the product from which they are derived. Of course, it is the sole right of the owner of the original work to do this.

I hope this additional information and clarification about derivative works is helpful to everyone. And I hope it didnt sound too much like incomprehensible legalese. Thanks again for your patience and understanding.

In closing, I hope to be home and in bed as soon as possible, and DAZ will be out of the office tomorrow for the Fourth of July. I hope that this message provides some useful information in the meantime.

Sincerely,
Chad Smith
DAZ Productions

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.

Morph Manager, for example. This is a cool program that is valuable to the community and which DAZ fully endorses. However, there are ways (obvious, I hope) that it can be used which are specifically prohibited by the DAZ End User License Agreement, not to mention common sense. (For example, porting Michael 2 morphs over to a new .cr2 file and distributing that.) Does this mean that DAZ is against Morph Manager, or that we would only like it if we were making money from it somehow? Does this mean that when Morph Manager came out that we needed to clarify, or even change, our EULA? No, it doesnt. Morph Manager is a valuable tool, and people have seemed to understand why and how to use it without violating anyones EULA. If we had become aware at some point that they hadnt, then we would have tried to promote awareness on what is allowed and what is not.

Other examples, more analogous to the functionality of The Tailor include modeling programs, such as LightWave, Maya and Rhino, which have the ability to create derivative meshes or morphs easily. These tools are great; we have no intention not to allow and promote their use. However, if someone creates a derivative mesh from another persons product and then uses that derivative mesh to compete with the product upon which it was based, regardless of their method, then we all have a problem. If someone creates a derivative mesh from another persons product that may or may not compete with the product upon which it was based, then the owner of the original product will need to give permission for its distribution.

On the other hand, if something is not derivative of another artists work it should, by definition, be equally easy to create without using that work in the first place. This is the real issue. Does the original creator of a morph have the right to say how it can be used and what can be done with it? Yes he does. And if this market wants to challenge that then it will create a disincentive for all creators of original morphs in this community, because it wont let them exercise their right to benefit from their work and investment.

1. Entropic, concerning the issue of morph ownership, we understand that you are trying to establish that this right cant be asserted by the creators of these products. However, we were completely unaware that the Poser EULA restricts artists from being able to copyright their works created within Poser. Would you PLEASE elaborate on that for us since this potentially is a much larger issue than the transferring of morph targets with The Tailor ever could be. (You could imagine the fuster cluck that would be created if all developers were told that they have no legal way to protect their content.)

Regardless, you can rest assured that having worked in this industry for over a decade, creating and licensing models and morphs, DAZ is operating on rights that are very solid. No matter what Curious Labs stance is on protecting products created within Poser, that position has no bearing on things created in other applications outside of Poser, such as models, morph targets, U.V. work, and texture maps. The creation of these assets is governed by the EULA of the software in which they are created. Mirai, the product in which we create our models and morph targets says nothing about us not being able to copyright our original works created in that package. The same thing goes for the other 2D and 3D tools that we work with. Even if copyright were in question, we would still have coverage and protection of our original works with our own EULA.

1. Although many people have stated that using a DAZ product as a starting point to create another product which competes with any DAZ product will be a problem for DAZ, this is incorrect. Please re-read our posts and review our policies and actions over the last few years. For example, we havent allowed people to use the Michael mesh to create a Michael competitor, and we havent allowed people to use our clothing files to create a competitor for those clothes. We have, however, regularly allowed people to use Michael to create Michael clothes, even when those clothes compete directly with similar Michael clothes for sale at DAZ.

2. Contrary to opinions that the free availability of a Michael bodysuit containing all of the Michael 2 morphs could not substantially compete with the sale of Michael 2, we have evidence that it has. In fact, this recent information, in combination with some private requests for clarification from DAZ, was actually what prompted our initial post on the matter. However, we also realize that this is a very isolated case, existing largely because of the number of people out there interested in Michael 2 primarily for the ability to create muscle-bound, spandex-clad super-heros. As far as other clothing items and figures go, we are not currently aware of losing many, if any, Michael 2 sales over them. Issues such as whether a clothing item is skin tight, or whether it covers up the whole figure are not the point, but merely some of the factors we consider in our decision of what constitutes unfair competition.

And now, having alerted many people to the basic principles and potential problems associated with this issue, we hope you understand that while we have enforceable rights here, we are going to allow matching our character morphs in clothing items as we have in the past, until such a time as we feel that it is bypassing the need for the characters themselves.

1. The DAZ EULA has NOT changed in regards to the ability to protect our intellectual property from the threat of derivative competition. For example, the user may not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works clause has been in every DAZ and Zygote EULA from well before we ever did any work for Poser. As some of you have pointed out, the EULA that comes with the specific product is the agreement that governs its usage. It is expected that a user read and agree to these EULAs in order to use the products. And if you dont like to take our word for what is legal or not, please archive these agreements for your own reference.

2. DAZ cannot be aware of and address every issue brought up online that may concern us (and we certainly cant do so in a timely manner). We simply cant know what everyone is doing all of the time. That being said, we absolutely wish that we would have addressed this matter publically, thoroughly, and long ago. We apologize for our tardiness, and will do what we can not to have this type of situation occur again in the future. Trust me, we dont like dealing with this any more than you do.

3. We also feel it is fairly obvious that a few extremely vocal people here have no sincere desire for us to address their concerns or answer their questions. When we have to expend DAZ resources trying to deal seriously and professionally with incendiary remarks from a few people who arent looking for feedback, but rather an opportunity for some cheap shots and a little intrigue, this makes the pink ponies very, very sad. So please, can we drop the sensationalism and scapegoating, ad homini and non sequiturs? Not to mention the conspiracy theories of how the timing of DAZ brokering The Tailor, making posts concerning the EULA and acquiring PoserPros is part of some evil plan. And for those of you who need to ask, yes, this was just coincidence.

4. Finally, let me restate that in our opinion the best way to run a successful business in this market is to create opportunities for others to add on to our work. We feel that a symbiotic relationship is possible and is best for everyone.

Patent, copyright, and license enforcement allow innovators to be rewarded for their work. Do we want to make this system more difficult in our community? Poser development is only viable when we, as a community, make it viable for those creating the workboth original work, and add-on work. If we reward those making add-ons at the expense of those making the original, we will chase many of the developers away from this community, because it will always be easier, less time-consuming and less expensive to create derivative work than it will be to create original work.

Ultimately we need to protect our investments in our developments. We are also publically representing and protecting the interests of all developers. (There are many other morph-based products out there, and were discussing a general principle in a specific way.) There are many people behind the scenes encouraging us to establish a stance that will help to protect their rights as well. For them and us, we need to hold strong. With this being said, in the interest in community peace, we are willing to suspend our stance on the distribution of these DAZ-made morphs on the bodysuit or other clothing items for our figures until the applications that are being developed to aid in the legal transfer of these files have been developed and distributed. (We have been informed, as has the public, that MartinC and Russell Cook are both currently working on such products.) Make note that we retain the right to protect these morphs, and have merely announced temporary permission to distribute these files until such time as an option is available for encrypted distribution. Additionally, we want to make it very clear that people are not allowed to use our proprietary figure model morph targets to transfer to other figure models and then distribute them to others. (For example transferring Michael 2 morphs onto Michael 1, or onto the Poser 4 male figure, or onto the Dina V figure.) Obviously, people will still have to contact the developers of non-DAZ-made morph targets for permission to use them in this manner.

Well, thanks for wading through this huge post, everyone. As difficult as this whole situation has been, we still feel that weve made progress here in promoting both The Tailor and PoserPros, which was our devious plot. (Just kidding.) But seriously, we hope that our concession in this matter will make things easier for the community. And we hope that our posts on this subject have created awareness and a better understanding of what the DAZ EULA means.

Sincerely,
Chad Smith
DAZ Productions

Well, after an extremely long day, primarly filled with meetings and appointments that had been scheduled long ago, we finally were able to check in on this thread. And now, literally hours later, after reading all the way through this thing, it's Tuesday.

So, I guess this is the point where I'd planned to respond. However, we need to go home and get some sleep so that I can get up in the morning, come into work, and respond to this thread, along with everything else that needs to be done tomorrow.

Good night.
Chad Smith
DAZ Productions

I understand your concern, Poppi. Thanks for the question. The fact is that we haven't changed our stance on this issue at all. Rather, as further developments, practices and tools have arisen in the market, we've had to explain the ramifications of these trends with reference to our same license agreement. As to what the license says, you can reference it in our FAQ section on the DAZ website, in its entirety. However, one of the clauses that applies to this is as follows: "User may not reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, or create derivative works from the 3-D Model(s)". Also, "3-D Model(s)" refers to any type of product. Thanks again for the question. Again, we'll be back on Monday. (My wife is going to kill me if I don't leave right this second!) Chad Smith DAZ Productions

Pretty good summary, as far as how this all relates to clothing made with The Tailor. Thanks for making that a little easier to digest. ;)

In reference to your question about free vs commercial distribution, you're right. We don't make any distinction there.

Sorry for taking so long to address this issue specifically. We apologize for the time you spent on the above catsuit, thinking that there would be no problems with its distribution, Ron. We know that you had no bad intentions with such a project, and that most of the people using your files didn't either. Thank you for you understanding. And thanks for actually pulling down all of your products in the interim, even when you didn't know our position, just to be on the safe side.

We hope that with this lengthier, more specific explanation you (and others) will now know which items could present a problem if distributed. And again as you mentioned, when in doubt, free to ask.

Thanks.
Chad Smith
DAZ Productions

I agree with you about Poser being so much more fun with ERC, Ajax. (Not to mention so much more useful, helping Poser to go well beyond the functionality intended by its creators.)

I just thought I'd mention that we at DAZ are also very grateful to Rob not only for his ERC work and tutorials, but also for his many emails and calls in the past which kept us abreast of his discoveries. (Even after his public tutorials on ERC, Victoria 2 and subsequent DAZ products would probably not have included ERC without his significant input as a beta tester.)

Anyway, it's fun to see all of the ways this technology is being implemented, and the different directions that you all are taking ERC. Good thread for interesting techno-babble, too. Carry on!

Chad Smith
DAZ Productions

Yeah, what could it be...
Oh wait, I work at DAZ. I already know!

Just thought I'd give you my opinion that this is the coolest "freebie" that we will have given out yet. (Although it's technically not a freebie. It will be a regularly selling product, only those who purchase(d) Michael 2.0 while on intro special will get it for free.

Chad Smith
DAZ Productions

PS- Maybe we'll be able to drop some hints as this thing progresses...

Hello everyone- I just browsed through this thread before heading home for the day, and thought I'd add a little bit first. (By the way, I'm not attempting to speak for DAZ in answering all of the questions that have been put forward here. AnneMarie may do that later.) I did, however, want to correct what seems to be a widely held misperception here. This "difference test" is not a technique used by DAZ to ascertain the level of plagarism in maps. That image was created and posted in another thread specifically because it was requested, not because this is some sort of "DAZ technique". Also, having been the project lead for Victoria 1 and her first maps, and being one of the people regularly involved in determining whether a map is indeed a DAZ-derivative, I feel confident in saying that the posted low-res maps do not do the similarity of the maps justice. The hands were chosen for a close up because they are perhaps the most obvious section. Hope this helps to clear up at least one issue. There are apparently many involved, but I'm going home now anyway. :) Have a good night, everyone. -Chad Smith DAZ Productions

Thanks for that addition, Jagger. You're right on, as usual. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with everyone the way you do. -Chad

Good question, Anthony. This method is approximately equivalent to distributing a vertex-only Obj file. It is useful only to those who already own the model; in the case of Victoria, it would be useful to anyone owning either Victoria 1 or Victoria 2. As such, this method would be subject to distribution under the same conditions as any other vertex-only morph (ie: only for transport of morphs that don't use V2 morphs as a starting point). Thanks. -Chad Smith DAZ Productions

Hi, this is Chad at DAZ Productions: I just got a heads-up on this thread and wanted to take the opportunity to check in. Thanks for the compliments and feedback, everyone. I'm happy to hear that so many of you are happy with your purchase of Victoria 2. (As usual, there's a money-back satisfaction guarantee if you're not.) It seems that the issue that needs to be addressed is not product value and customer satisfaction, however. So on to the subject of distributing Victoria2-derivative files... First off, let me just say that we're in the process of posting this information (what's legal and what's recommended for those wanting to distribute these files) on our website in the F.A.Q. section. It should be available there later today or tomorrow. Also, I'd like to say that we do look forward to artists creating and distributing V2-derivative products. (We will be both creating and brokering some in the near future.) In the meantime, I'll give a quick run-down of some of the possibilities. (Many of these are redundant with what some of you have already mentioned in this thread; thank you for helping to explain these issues.) -Poses (.pz2, .fc2, .hd2) These can be distributed with morph channels included. -Characters and Scenes (.cr2, .pz3) These contain data exclusive to the Victoria2 product itself, and therefore cannot be distributed (with or without modification) any more than they can for other artists' Victoria1-derivative files. -Maps (binary formats) These cannot be distributed if they are derived from DAZ-sold maps either, though templates are freely availabe to use in the creation of third-party maps. Presuming that the map is made "from scratch" it is legal to distribute, though it should not be accompanied by a V2 .cr2 referencing it, of course. (We recommend using MAT Pose files, so that the map will be easy to apply to Victoria 1, 2, or any derivative characters using that model.) -Morphs (.obj, .cr2, etc.) Here's the tricky one, with 3 scenarios: 1) If you're distributing out a strictly V2 morph-combo, then Pose files will work fine. [See Poses, above.] 2) If you're creating out a strictly "from scratch" Victoria morph (that you can create from the freely distributable V2 .cr2 available on our website), then you can either distribute it in a Victoria1-derivative .cr2 file, or as a vertex-only .obj file. The V1 .cr2 file could be used itself by the end user, or transferred to V2 by the end user (especially easy with a utility like MorphManager). The vertex-only .obj file can be applied to either V1 or V2 by the end user, and is easy to create (in MorphSqueeze, MorphMasher, or a text-editor). 3) If you're creating a custom morph target using one or more V2-exclusive morphs as a starting point then there's only one way I can currently think of to legally distribute this. Others may be discovered in the future. You can dial up the morphs you wish to start from, and record which specific morphs you used and at what values. Then create your custom morph as you normally would. Once you have it, apply it to V2 at a value of 1 and then "inverse out" the morph values you used as your starting point. (ie: dial them negatively at the same value that use originally used. Remember that two negatives make a positive.) Then, export the new .obj, which at this point only includes the changes truly original to your morph, and make it a vertex-only .obj file. You can now distribute your hybrid morph as a Pose file accompanied by a squished morph file. When the end-user uses both together they have your character. Hope that helps. Like I said, this type of thing will be covered more thoroughly in the new FAQ section on our site soon. Thanks for the feedback everyone, -Chad Smith DAZ Productions

Oh there will be, Melanie. -Chad Smith DAZ Productions

Hello, this is Chad from DAZ Productions. This thread was recently brought to my attention, and it looks like perhaps it could use some clarification. (I can see how speculation on a new project like this would evolve; the information quoted from Steve Kondris was intentionally vague and contextual simply for the purposes of reassuring Michalki that we appreciate his feedback.) In any case, though we typically don't like to "leak" info on new products so long before their anticipated release, I'll just correct a couple of misunderstandings here: - We don't yet know exactly what form the final product (to which Steve referred) will take. - We do know that it will require the Victoria model. As a result, all morphs and maps will also work on this new character. The figure will, however, be more versatile and the default state will be more feminine. (Don't worry Imaginos, it could easily be regarded as an optional update for the current owners of Victoria.) - As it will incorporate much of the work already done for Victoria, this project will not be as costly as creating a figure from scratch. (Similar in some ways to methods others have used to create characters using the Victoria and Michael figures.) Hence, it is by no means "certain" that the product will be comparatively expensive. We had not intended to disclose any information at this time regarding this project, but are definitely excited about what it will do in making Victoria the defacto female figure for serious Poser and ProPack users. We appreciate your concern and anticipation for the DAZ product line. (I truly believe that Victoria and Michael are very wise investments for the majority of Poser users, and am sure that this will become the case even moreso in the future.) Thanks for the support and feedback. Chad Smith DAZ Productions

Yes, nearly all of Zygote's models "face" positive Z, and if they are symmetrical left to right then they are always mirrored on absolute X. This is easy and desirable in most modeling programs. (Our models are rarely centered on any axis other than X.) And yes, this is a Zygote preference and is not a given with any model by any means. Hope this helps. -Chad Smith Zygote Media Group

Thanks Jeff (and everyone else). We appreciate your help. -Chad Smith Zygote Media Group