ummm new Daz3d Anna-Marie Goddard Digital Clone texture pack is now available, and while I understand that it's from a real person the EULA really has be perplexed and bothered. the EULA reads different than the other Daz EULA's and I'm wondering if it is. from my reading is says I cannot do porn picutres that would hurt Anna-Marie Goddard's image, and I cannot sell renders using her textures. is this right or am I just reading too much into this EULA? so far is seems that I would have limited commercial use of this texture pack with this EULA, more restrictive than other Daz EULA. Could someone clear this up for me please?

It sounds like you are pretty close, they don't want her image or possible influence used for gain, and considering she is a public figure and that is what she sells, I can understand that. I don't think I would buy it for commercial purposes. something like that is really only good for private fantasy. not that there is anything wrong with that. If they were offering some of my favorite actors or such I would be the first in line, but for commercial application the use is quite limited.

What if, since her package comes with morphs, are mixed with other morphs to create a unique character? Can that be used for Commercial purposes ?

You're right MachineClaw. There's even a special notice on the product page that the EULA has changed for that product. Basically since it's a real person, you can't do anything nasty to it (mentions something along the lines of not hurting it, like maybe putting cuts/scars on the texture?) or using it for personal gain. Seems reasonable actually. It's a real person making money off of images of herself.

I guess that rules out half the renders here LOL. No NVITWAS

In the Product blurb they also are asking if this is a product that they should carry forward. I lay odds 8 to 5 they will either be mosty or entirly female charictors. Though I would pay good hard cash for a good Sean Connery, William H Macy, or Richard Karn texture, among others. :) But that is my fantasy. Whats yours??

I don't get it. To me It looks similar to Vicky. Then the restrictions on it, while I can understand it, makes the package even less viable. Just one opinion. Have a nice Memorial Day. Adele

Well that's kinda what I got out of the EULA. So I wont be buying that package. If I can't do commercial renders and sell the prinouts there isn't any point for me. I understand that Actors often have stipulations about certain things in movies, body doubles for nude scenes, remember couple of actors had butt doubles, yes, they didn't want their butt filmed and had say in who could double de butt. shakes head but (with one t) if I do a fantasy render in say a Boris style with Goddard V3 fighting the Mil Dragon with a cut on Goddard and I want to sell the poster I guess from this EULA I could be in trouble. I think I want to make a texture pack with a EULA that says "this texture pack can in no way be used to make farie renders either commercial or private" Please, anybody reading this note I'm not bashing Daz on this product, or really EULA, I understand them, just understanding more and more about my rights as an artist to do what I need to do. thanks for those that have commented so far.

And who decides the picture you rendered and posted in a gallery somewhere on the net is porn????..... Why her agent and lawyers of course(be great publicity...been done before). I'll pass on that purchase. SWAMP

Yes, I will probably pass too....to bad it is really nice. Sharen

I want Beyonce Knowles textures and morphs for Vicky, and Rickson Gracie textures and morphs for Mike. :-) Hey, a dude can dream, can't he? I didn't happen to find the Anne-Marie Goddard EULA unreasonable. She's brave to try this out with DAZ, and as a celebrity's public image is legally a commodity, the EULA is as necessary as it is understandable. She's a real person with feelings and family and all that.

I will not buy a product, I can't use to sell a picture I've made. Just too many restictions on this. I don't even do porn. but the way I read it I can't sell a picture if she is a Fairy Goddess in a snowmoblie suit, with goggles and hat, gloves. :O) lol. I'll pass on this.

Love is Grandchildren.

Just a thought, perhaps cooler could step in and clear up the confusion on some of these points. I just re-read the thread and the EULA...hmmm, confusing. But that's legalese for ya.

"(3) sell any portion of rendered output that contains any portion of the 3-D Model(s) without prior written consent of Anna-Marie Goddard, her attorney(s), or other legal business representation." Cannot use her eyes in another work? I can theoretically understand why she would agree to this, but not whay DAZ agreed to it. With such a restrictive use, I doubt there will be much appeal to "professinals," and so I anticipate a limited sales return. For hobbyists, though ... Anna-Marie is (I think) Playboy's 40th Anniversary Playmate. Nekkid Playmate on my computer? To do with as I please? The possibilities stagger the mind. :p Which brings us back to the terms of use. I can see where Anna-Marie (and Playboy) would want to retain control over her image but, then, why should she want to participate in such a (restrictive) project? I will visit the Playboy Cyberclub when I get home and see if I can send Anna-Marie a message. Maybe things will become clearer if we know her intetions.

bookmark Would like to get some more info on this. I am not buying until this makes more sense to me. LOL!

Oh? OK. She's a Playboy PLaymate. I just assumed she was a model or actor or such.( I didn't know, there are so many out there who can keep track ) Boy, I really am gay aren't I. ;)

Re: Playmate. I am 95% sure that she is. Re: 40th Anniversary. Another 95% sure. My notes are at home. Yes, I keep notes. : I am a shareholder, so I try to keep current on all things Playboy (as well as all things current regarding my other investments, but I digress). I caught wind of something like this a few weeks ago (in general, not DAZ-specific), but I assumed it would be a more recent Playmate participating.

.

BTW..my comments are not meant to be derogative towards Daz or Ms.Goddard( as a former fashion photographer,I know how your image must be protected).I just don't see this as a workable project. SWAMP

Bookmark

This is a very dangerous EULA which makes the product virtually useless for most users. To use it commercially is out of the question unless you have written permission from Ms Goddard herself. That is pretty clear and obvious. No questions there. The dangerous section is here: You can't even make available to a third party (e.g. post in the Renderosity gallery) a picture that: "are demeaning, pornographic, illegal, slanderous, libelous, or otherwise damaging, potentially harmful to the public image of, vocation of, or overall psychological well-being of Anna-Marie Goddard" The question is, who decides? This is a legal mine field. Is it Ms Goddard herself who defines the meaning of the above sentence? Is she, or her agents or attorneys, going to keep an eye on the pictures made with this product? I have no idea what Ms Goddard herself thinks would constitute a picture that is "potentially harmful to the public image of" her. The EULA is a potential threat to anyone using this product and posting a picture on the Net (or sending it to a friend for that matter). And that threat will be there forever, since people might download the picture. What if the definition of "demeaning" or "libelous" suddenly changes in the eye of the people that might watch over this? I seriously doubt that this EULA will stand up in court, but the uncertainty built into it makes me strongly advise against posting any picture using this product. Buy it if you want to make picture for your own pleasure, but hide the picture from any third party who might get access to it. What is the definition of a "third party" in this context, BTW? Friends, family? I suppose so. I was not going to make any Anne-Marie Goddard porn anyway, but the EULA made my eyebrows raise a few inches...

The "rendered output" thing from post 8 was only in part. It says something about being used for comercial purposes such as "Anna-Marie Goddard drinks pepsi and you should too" .. Those are my words but it seems that that is what the first point is addressing. To me the problem is more the third which means I can't sell a picture that I did that uses the textures etc even if she is a background figure.

I hate to say it but if the EULA is as restrictive as it appears to be, I wouldn't touch this product with a ten foot pole (it'd likely violate the EULA to do so anyway) Nice idea, but far too restrictive to be of any use. I'll note that I understand the restriction and why Anna-Marie feels they are needed, but they make the product useless. 39.95 is an awful lot of money to pay for a texture and morph set for simply personal amusement. And given that I just don't find her attractive, there wouldn't be much amusement value. I really hope Daz isn't planning on continuing to make others like this with such restrictive EULAs. I'd rather see some more imaginative figures.

What DAZ needs to do is say something like You can do the following.... You can not do the folllowing .... Because .... Examples are always helpful.

Update: The item in question is now on sale for 30% off.

Since I started this thread I should have emailed Daz and asked them directly. I have now sent an email to Daz Sales and asked them to respond to this thread since so many of us have questions on it. Really really not a morning person, should have my caffene before posting, sorry about that Daz.

Morning person or not, you raised a valid concern. I myself am not (yet) a "professional," as I have nothing for sale, but there are quite a few professionals within the Community. Your initial post alerted all of us to potential professional problems, so I suspect there are far more of us thankful that you did, than not.

Just a thought. What if you don't put "Anne-Marie-Goddard's" name on your final renders? Who's to find out?

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

This is a quote from the EULA: "...or sublicense any: (1) rendered output or texture map of Anna-Marie Goddard combined with the body shape of Anna-Marie Goddard, or her name or initials for commercial purposes..." I think the intention here is to make sure you don't use the morphs combined with the textures and the name for any commercial purpose. I think this means you could use the textures without the morphs or the morphs without the textures and not use her name at all and be ok with it for commercial use. The only part that concerns me is in their last point (#3) they neglect to use this language and do not tie the mophs and textures and names together. Point number 3 is where there is still trouble lurking. If they correct the EULA and fix the language in point 3 I think it would be ok to use the product as long as you're not trying to sell it AS Anna-Marie Goddard. You could probably even use the morphs and textures together and call it "Jungle Queen Sheila" for example and be fine as long as you don't use her actual name. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for DAZ so clarification is necessary but this is the impression I got from reading the altered EULA (and I think it is a position that is arguable in court if they fix #3). Just my .02 Frank

This is the exact qoute that I was refering to "User may not in any case separately publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell, rent, lease, convey, translate, or otherwise make available to any third party via any means whatsoever, public or private, for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, or sublicense any: (1) rendered output or texture map of Anna-Marie Goddard combined with the body shape of Anna-Marie Goddard, or her name or initials for commercial purposes or in a manner which implies its endorsement or association with any product, service, or entity; " Hence you can't distribute or show her drinking a pepsi or coke in a manner that would show her endorsing the product. You just had to read it fully and posting the snipped version skipped stuff each time. just trying to clear up 1 .. 3 still has me kind of concerned though.

I already sent a letter to the feedback address about this. As an erotic artist, I'm very concerned about how I would be able to use this product, and as a moderator at an erotic art site; I wonder also, if I would be responsible for removing/reporting any EULA violations that I find. I agree; nice idea, but dangerous. Too risky for my taste; or my wallet.

Attached Link: http://www.daz3d.com

There are a couple of different points here that I need to make, and I'll try to be as clear and concise as I can.

1.) As for the posting of images or renders: You can post anything you want, anywhere you want so long as it's not damaging to Anna-Marie Goddard. For example: pornography, anything that is slanderous or libelous in nature, or otherwise derogatory about her.

2.) As, FrankJann mentioned: An error in the EULA that didn't get caught as we were working it out with all the different lawyers: The line about commercial distribution (point 3) being limited if the item being distribute included any portion of the product is inaccurate.

It is supposed to say (and is being updated right now) "you cannot sell any portion of rendered output that contains the original 3-D Model, as delivered by DAZ3D, without prior written consent of Anna-Marie Goddard, her attorney(s), or other legal business representation."

You can use this item in a commercial endeavor so long as it is modified to a reasonable extent. As GhostofMacbeth stated, anything that uses this digital clone in a commercial way to show approval or endorsement by Anna-Marie Goddard of anything CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT written consent. However, as Firebirdz brought up earlier in this thread:

3.) What if, since her package comes with morphs, [or is] mixed with other morphs to create a unique character? Can that be used for Commercial purposes ?"

YES, IT CAN. So, go ahead, buy her, make her look the way you want her to look, and then go about your business as usual.

Something else thats important for you all to know is that DAZ is not the entity responsible for enforcing the EULA, it is a concession that was made to Anna-Marie upon the request of her and her agents, they also agreed to be the ones worrying about policing these restrictions. Just FYI.

I hope that this helps answer the majority of your questions. Yes, these restrictions are beyond what we normally include with a purchase, but we are selling the digital representation of an actual human being. I don't know of anyone famous that would go for a project like this without taking such steps.

Thanks again for your patience with our store changeover. Everything seems to be settling down for the most part, only a couple of big things left. Btw, everyone's Platinum Club membership should be reinstated now, if not, please let our webmaster know.

Steve Kondris
DAZ Productions, Inc.

"1.) As for the posting of images or renders: You can post anything you want, anywhere you want so long as it's not damaging to Anna-Marie Goddard. For example: pornography, anything that is slanderous or libelous in nature, or otherwise derogatory about her." OK, back to the pornography thing...would I have to modify the model significantly, or just not say it's her? I've got work for hire that I'm doing, and want to be sure before I think about using her.

Thanks Steave, you might wnat to stick around though, you know any answer will lead to more questions. :) Ok Now that we have more info. Where is the digitial likness of Sean, I m waiting. ;)

The Digital likeness of Sean will depend on how strong of a response we get for the current digital clone, tonymouse. ;) but I'd love to have a clone of him as well, and Harrison Ford, and that one actor whose name I always forget, he was in "Ronin" and I think "The Professional", always plays french guys it seems, always got some scruff, etc. Anyways, and for Momcat, from what I've been told, the only thing you have to worry about in commercial projects is making sure your work is using the model in a way that it does not appear to obviously be her. Adding some morphs here and there, not putting her name anywhere within your work, etc. those sorts of measures are what you would need to take. Steve

"or otherwise derogatory about her"....... "her agents, they also agreed to be the ones worrying about policing these restrictions".....now that's something that really scares the crap out of me. SWAMP

Thanks Steve >^_^

I trust Daz...but agents.... SWAMP

Well at least it is nice to know that I'm not the only one with interest, Harrison, Hmmm, that would be hot too. It is interesting that this is coming about. I recently have been working very hard on recreating W. H. Macy one of my favorite actors, perhaps a trend is starting.

Thank you Steve for clarifying some of the points. I like the premise of didgital versions of actors or models, but with EULA like this one for my commercial work I can't use them. I guess this is a trend that has just been waiting to happen, in the 'real' world I have to pay for models to sit and pose for paintings, or artwork, pay them for use rights or by the hour. I can see having in the future to do the same thing for Virtual use of models or actors liknesses and pay them for the use. I don't like change, it scares me, I guess I'll have to get used to it. Congrads to Daz on trying to break the mold and trying new things. This time I'm gunna have to pass.

Sorry but no freaking way... not even at 100% off.

Is it normal DAZ policy to put new things on sale when they first come out, or is A-MG on sale already to make the package more attractive due to the EULA flap? Not picking a fight, just wondering, as I have not (yet) bought anything from DAZ and am curious as to such promotional considerations.

It has always been their policy. Usually 15 -30 percent off for about 1-2 weeks. I can't think of any exceptions, I am sure there have a few I just can't think of any.

I believe the actor's name is Jean Reno. Good actor. No new Platinum Club items this week? Darn. ;-)

tonymouse: Thank you for your response. I am still fighting my P5 program. I will either get it to work (consistently), get satisfaction from CL, or go with another company. Once I get something that runs smoothly, I will set up a PC account and shop at DAZ. Not much point until I get a viable program. (Aside: Since DAZ has responded here, I see little point in me trying to contact Anna-Marie directly via the Playboy Cyberclub. I might do it anyway, just to see if I can, though, as I am sure she has some interesting things to say - from the model's perspective.)

Jean Reno was also the leader of the French commando team in Godzilla.

Hmm... a few more answers and people will begin to think this is a warez thread. :) I just bought the AMG set, just for the hell of it. With the Plat Club discount on top of the sale price, it's a pretty good deal.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

I took a look at the statements on the product page and came across this: "vocation of Anna-Marie Goddard or her immediate relatives". Her immediate relatives?

Wellllll...Sam,how does she look? I'm betting pretty good SWAMP

Havent't installed it yet. I'll report back later. :)

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

bookmark.

Do Steve Buscemi, and you've got my $39.95. :)

Thanks Steve for the info.

Ok; I bit. Mostly because I like her base face morph, and I really like the textures...but also because I really want to see how much nicer she'll look with about ten more pounds added to her, maybe 15. I think she'll make a great base for other characters with that eye shape and lip shape, plus I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but her cheekbones are higher. I've been hoping for a morph that will raise the cheekbones for ages now. That's been a pet peeve of mine on all the models. You can make the cheekbones smaller, bigger, shallow or prominent, but you can't raise or lower them...same with the jawline. I consider what I'm paying for is a nice texture pack, plus a differently shaped character face base. That makes it well worth the price I'm paying via the PC, and so long as she's not obviously recognisable, I can do pretty much whatever I want with her.

'and that one actor whose name I always forget, he was in "Ronin" and I think "The Professional", always plays french guys it seems' Steve, I think the reason Jean Reno always plays french guys is because he IS french. LOL. Either that or he's a helluva good imitator. Yeah, 'Ronin'.... good movie... with De Niro too. But JR was better in 'The Professional' (aka Nikita) mac

now if you did one of Devon Aoki or Debi Mazar.... :)

Debi Mazar!! ::swoons::

::taps foot impatiently:: I also decided to test out the payment via Paypal option. I hope the response comes soon. I wanna play!

THEY HAVE A PAYPAL OPTION NOW????? Cool. I have really wanted that. I can't get into Daz from my work computer. Sigh. Two more hours and liberation from work and back into a virtual spending spree.

Hey, I would like a Mel Gibson model!

Poser 9 SR3  and 8 sr3
=================
Processor Type:  AMD Phenom II 830 Quad-Core
2.80GHz, 4000MHz System Bus, 2MB L2 Cache + 6MB Shared L3 Cache
Hard Drive Size:  1TB
Processor - Clock Speed:  2.8 GHz
Operating System:  Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
Graphics Type:  ATI Radeon HD 4200
•ATI Radeon HD 4200 integrated graphics 
System Ram:  8GB 

Jean Reno is actually french :-).

Oh, if you'd do Harrison Ford could you add a younger morph that he would look like he did in the first Indiana Jones movie?

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

Perhaps she doesn't want her likeness to be featured in pornography that she doesn't get a cut of. Makes sense to me.

As I'm sure even the purest of us know, there'e porn, and then there's porn. Playboy? C'mon, the Rosity Poser galleries have raunchier stuff in 'em. I haven't seen Ms. Goddard's Playboy pics, but I assume they're relatively tasteful "cheesecake" type shots. That sort of thing might be porn to some, but it's not gross or degrading. I would assume that she wants to avoid seeing her likeness in harder-core stuff. Still, it's probably best to interpret the EULA conservatively, just to be safe, although I suspect that has made a very good point, as regards compromising already self-compromised public image. Maybe there should be texture sets based on porn stars so nobody will mind. Admit it, Rosity members, there's nothing you want more than that Ron Jeremy texture and morph set. xoconostle ducks and covers

I meant to say that Rattler had made a good point. Grrrr. Typos.

"there'e (sic) porn, and then there's porn" Exactly. "I haven't seen Ms. Goddard's Playboy pics, but I assume they're relatively tasteful "cheesecake" type shots." Such are the ones I have seen. I have not seen much of her work since, but I understand from those who have that she maintains a fairly conservative presentation, considering. "I would assume that she wants to avoid seeing her likeness in harder-core stuff." Most people would not, and I can certainly understand why a model would be harmed in such a fashion as it would make it all the more difficult to secure the right kind of work. "...there's nothing you want more than that Ron Jeremy texture and morph set." RJ would not need a morph set. :p

playing with virtual pornstar poser models?! oh good gewd. (secretly has a long list of texture sets that I would want haha!)

"Maybe there should be texture sets based on porn stars so nobody will mind. Admit it, Rosity members, there's nothing you want more than that Ron Jeremy texture and morph set" ::screams and hides in fear:: EEK!

I just wanted to take a few minutes and point out a few things of interest. I understand concerns that people may have concerning the issues related to the usage of the Anna-marie Goddard model. We have definitely stepped on a minefield with the digital clone project to some extent. In order to get AnnaMarie interested in the project in addition to offering fair compensation for her work and use of her identity, we needed to have ways to protect her livelihood and reputation. Hence the changed EULA.

The first changed area is the part about not using her for images that may damage her career. I understand that it may be somewhat vague as to what is or isnt damaging to her. I would suggest that people use her website as a guideline of the types of images that she is willing to do (or deems pornographic for that matter). If she is willing to pose for and publish certain images of herself on her website then similar images would be safe territory. I hope that concept helps in some way.

The second change is the commercial usage restriction. Overall we believe that the majority of the potential customers will not be effected by the non-commercial usage clause. Every live model that we talked to about this project was concerned about this area. They were concerned that their likeness, name and persona would have unlimited commercial usage for a low selling price. For example, if someone uses the AnnaMarie character in a game that generated millions of dollars and the character became the next Laura Croft. She would not be justly compensated for that usage with a small sales price of under $39.95 (of which she gets a portion of that). Another concern is that she not be used to endorse products or projects that she does not want to. If there is a project that requires her endorsement, persona and likeness then it is probably something that she should be compensated for.

We hope that people will see this project for what it is. Basically we are just trying to provide a very very realistic mesh using a live model for reference. If this is what you are looking for then this model is for you ( hopefully it will be:). This project will be a test to see if this type of thing worthwhile to continue in the future. I would also like to encourage those of you who have bought it to post a few images showing others the detail of the model as well as the texture maps. We really believe that this product is worth it. If not, you know that we will stand behind our 30 day satisfaction guarantee.

Sincerely,

Dan Farr
President, DAZ Productions

Thank you for coming to see us.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I wanted to thank AnnaMarie Goddard for being willing to do a project like this with us. She really has been a great sport and fabulous to work with. Dan Farr

I would love to read about her impressions of the experience. Do you think she would be inclined to write something from the model's perspective? (In general, not necessarily to post for us in here.)

Illusions, Good questions. I just got of the phone with AnnaMarie and discussed a few of these issues with her. I told her that I mentioned that people should use her site as a guideline (there are plenty on images in the non-pay area that gives a good gauge) and she was fine with that. Not to mention that it would be impossible for DAZ or AnnaMarie Goddard to prove that someone is creating digital images that are damaging to her if she has similar images posted on her website. The AnnaMarie Goddard digital clone is a morph made form Victoria 3, therefore the Victoria 3 morphs work quite well with the model. Creating images that are not in AnnaMarie Goddard's likeness should be quite easy. I hope this helps. Dan Farr P.S. One more thing, I asked AnnaMarie to come by this thread and introduce herself. Hopefully if she gets a chance she will stop in this weekend. Please be nice to her if she does:)

I, for one, would welcome her here. I am familiar with some of her older work and would like to have her compare/contrast - from the model's perspective - the differences in project length, camera angles, model fatigue, etc. I like to see past favorites show up in new and exciting ways. :D

So if we are going to make an outfit to sell for poser, then we can't use AnnaMarie in the promo image with the product because we are going to be making money off the product?

Poser 9 SR3  and 8 sr3
=================
Processor Type:  AMD Phenom II 830 Quad-Core
2.80GHz, 4000MHz System Bus, 2MB L2 Cache + 6MB Shared L3 Cache
Hard Drive Size:  1TB
Processor - Clock Speed:  2.8 GHz
Operating System:  Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
Graphics Type:  ATI Radeon HD 4200
•ATI Radeon HD 4200 integrated graphics 
System Ram:  8GB 

So, if I am understanding this correctly, the license isn't "nearly" as restrictive as it originally seems?!? If I want the eyeshape and the cheekbones, but change enough of the face, body, etc, than I can use the render for basically whatever? As it wouldn't "be" her, so to speak? I do mostly fantasy type stuff, so the porn issue wouldn't be a big deal. (Although I did see her layout, and it was very tastefully done, as mentioned before. And yes, I subscribe. :D My husband finds is quite funny that of the two of us, I have the subscription. :D) As long as the restrictions apply only to the mesh/texture "exactly" how we receive it, I don't see it as being really that restrictive, and will gladly spend that money on it. I find her features a great addition to my morph arsenal. :D

I WAS going to buy her...but now my platinum account isn't working. :( Guess I will have to wait a bit. Does anyone remember, it was the webmaster we were supposed to email, right? Poor guy (or gal). :D

the EULA: "(3) sell any portion of rendered output that contains any portion of the 3-D Model(s) without prior written consent of Anna-Marie Goddard, her attorney(s), or other legal business representation. Failure to obtain such permission will result in the User being held liable for any and all damages and costs and all other legal remedies available to Anna-Marie Goddard under applicable state, federal and international law." So I do my ultra Goddard "looking" woman fighting a mil dragon and print a poster and sell it, I'm gunna be in trouble. I understand the intent of the EULA to protect Goddard's image/likeness, however for commercial uses it's very unlike Vicky or Mike where I can create printable poster work and sell those. I'm still a bit confused. Sorry, I'm slow. If I use the Daz product to portray Goddard laying naked on a bed as fan art non commercial I'm fine, but the minute I try and sell the print I can't? SOOO is the Goddard Clone Package similar to Educational licences where you can do what ya want, ya just can't use it for commercial or profit uses? If so I can understand that but can't use products that restrict me as such and would have to pass on the product, however skillfully crafted the product is. I like that Daz is pushing the envelope and trying to do something new and creative at a low cost to users, however it seems to break the trend of commercial use that Daz has established so far with their other products. Vicky and Mike were done from what I understand as 'unknowns' in a similar fashion. Dan - What was the thinking behind the 'clone' project? I don't want to ask about the Daz secret code for business, not my question, more was it to see if a 'clone' of a actual person could be made for use with poser and we'll see where this goes? the product looks great, really, but the limited EULA restrictions make it hard for me to see where this product was intended. Would have made a killer freebie with the EULA like it is, but then, money doesn't grow on tree's I know. Thanks for all the great comments by everybody, interesting ideas coming out and being talked about. Copyrights, EULA, where this is leading, I'm truely facinated to see where this will take us all and our art.

Well, I think it's an exciting trip DAZ has undertaken. While people may be reluctant to buy and use the product due to restrictions, I suspect there are people who will purchase regardless. And maybe even people who will purchase after a lot of these questions are laid to rest. And the concerns by Ms. Goddard are understandable. I wish DAZ well with this project. If for no other reason, I'm holding out hopes "William" and I will finally get the perfect Buffy (smile). And if not SMG, then (crossing fingers), Angelina Jolie. Hehe, I know I'm just kidding around, but what IF? What if it became trendy to be a DAZ 3D mesh?!?! I can just hear it now...Jennifer Aniston smirks to Nichole Kidman, "Yeah, but are you on a DAZ 3D mesh!?" Thanks, DAZ, for always looking for new paths to venture down. And thanks to Ms. Goddard for taking a chance other celebrities turned down.

bm

I'm truly fascinated as well, I'd really love to see this as a wildly successful product category that rapidly expands. I can just envision using a mesh with the toothy grin of Rebbecca Romjin-Stamos and the warm compassionate eyes of Anne Archer (for instance). Or Debbie Mazar, Laura San Giacomo, Laura (Mary Tylor Moore) Petrie, Or, or, or, .... :-) I'm planning on getting the AMG product on my next DAZ buy. I only wish they'd posted a pic or two of the AMG smile morph, or a link to a picture of the living model posed to match a promo pic of the mesh (sorry, I'm really not familiar with what she looks like, myself).

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=370441&Start=1&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&Form.Se

Cris Palomino posted two lovely images using Anna Marie Goddard some time ago. In her images, Breasts are showing. Here are the links: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=347765&Start=1&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&Form.Search=Anna+Marie&Form.Criteria=ALL http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=347892&Start=1&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&Form.Search=Anna+Marie&Form.Criteria=ALL Also, wdupre also posted an Anna Marie image too not too long ago at the link attached.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=347892&Start=1&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&Form.Se

ok I put this links in attachments

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=347765&Start=1&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&Form.Se

Here is the other by Cris Palomino

Good looking model...very pretty face. SWAMP

I have her now, and I'm working on a few quick things to show folks some details. I'll be posting them over at Renderotica later on this weekend, or maybe tonight.

The images posted (I have to say) look better than those at Daz. It is getting quite tempting to say to get her.

watching from the shadows

"Basically we are just trying to provide a very very realistic mesh using a live model for reference" - A wonderful idea, but why do it in a way that necessitated all the additional lawyering, restrictions, etc. Yes, there is the added appeal of a "known" personality and we all have people we'd like to see Poserized but oy vey, you have to morph them into "not them" (as defined by third party lawyers) for many purposes. Why not just use an attractive unknown model without all the legal baggage? I'm sure DAZ wouldn't have anything to do with porn stars, but in the long run, it might be less hassle for everyone. As for the sales appeal, more people in the sedate Renderosity family seem to be familiar with Mr. Jeremy than Im would have guessed, so I think the market is there - though hopefully for someone attractive and female. I really do hope this project is a success, it (real people) is a good idea but using mainstream celebs will probably always be a legal quagmire. I don't recall DSI having all these restrictions on Dina but of course Dina probably doesn't have the pinstriped army of sharks that AMG does. Nice try but I'll pass on this one.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

I am not a lawyer , but what i see and read is pretty much the same thing i get when i photograph a model. So its a pretty standard kind of agreement. Also from what i have seen of the renders its not like its a twin of her and easly recogniseable as her. Except for her moles and what nots. A model not wanting others to profit from her name and hard work is a agreement i can live with. I am wondering about the farie thing, were that came from because i see no mention of anything close to that.

I have purchased the Anna-Marie Goddard Digital Clone 20 min ago and I have to say its a great high quality product. I'm confused about the EULA too but I think it will be clear soon. I just want to say thank you Anna-Marie and DAZ for this great High Quality product. It is worth every cent. Chris

"It Is Useless To Resist!" - Darth Vader

I really like the idea of Digital Clones, but dislike the idea of strings being attached to their use. When I pay $30-$40 for a Poser figure I do not want to be bothered with analyzing a EULA, or always having to think about how I use a model. Even though the Ann Marie EULA would almost certainly never be a problem, it's the additional hassle it adds that I find objectionable.

In the future, DAZ should just stick to cloning "unknown" models who do not require a EULA to use their likeness. What do I care if a model that a figure is based upon is famous or not! I just want a high quality product - even if the likeness belongs to Jane Doe.

Ok,I saw the AMG clone in the DAZ store, and I think the textures are wonderful. If I were to buy the package at all it would just be to get those textures for use on V3. Frankly, I have no idea who Anna Marie Goddard is - never heard of her until now. I wasn't all that impressed with the body shape or the face - but those textures are to die for, lemme tell ya. BUT if I can't put them on one of the other V3 characters, then I have no use for any of the package as I sincerely doubt that I would ever use the AMG character "as is" for any of my projects. Kate (who wouldn't want a Ron Jeremy either - that man is disgusting... ewwww)

OK, I just KNOW I'm going to be sorry I asked, but WHO is Ron Jeremy? I guess I'll state my opinion too as long as I've tread into this thread (rhyme unintentional) I'd also like to see great textures without having to worry about deciphering a EULA. No offense intended to an obviously beautiful woman, but for the price, it's not a feasible investment. I hadn't ever heard of AMG and personally don't see the need for the hype, other than it is without a doubt a gorgeous texture and morph. But I'd rather pay a bit less money for an equally beautiful set that doesn't have a famous name attached.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

E-mail | Renderosity Homepage | Renderosity Store | RDNA Store

bm

OK, I just KNOW I'm going to be sorry I asked, but WHO is Ron Jeremy? He's a chubby but rather cough well equipped pornstar with a funny moustache. Please don't ask me how I know :P

LOL! Thanks Outi, I kinda figured that's what it was, I just couldn't help myself, I had to ask.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

E-mail | Renderosity Homepage | Renderosity Store | RDNA Store

how about a totally impartial opinion? The digital clone idea is a good one in many ways. How many people went daffy over the free "buffy" (sorry buffy, I dont remember your real name) morph recently done by one of the members here at rosity? However, the restrictions that are understandably imposed may make it an unprofitable venture for all involved. if thats not enuff of something to make you think...how many of you have ever heard lee say she was gonna pass on something? (lol..sorry lee, but you buy everything :P I mean anyone with a 36 gig poser directory has got to be a poser addict :P) As someone who has only in his entire poser existence only bought 2 things, this was what was to be #3 for me. Fact is, if I want something..I usually just make it...but because I like the texture (and I'd like to have a good texture for v3 beyond the model tex's) I really wanted it..but I have to say (with respect to DAZ and Ms. Goddard) that tho I understand to an extent the restrictions on the package, they make it virtually useless. my .02 BT

I think it's a great idea to have these celebrity lookalikes, but out of ALL the people you could have chosen... I mean, ALL, Dan -- why in God's name did you start with a porno star? Amazing.

Joey, She's not a porno star. She a model who posed (poses?) for nude pictures. Not that there's anything wrong with it either way. Frank

You know my problem with the EULA,is that it says nothing about how her image may be used.What it does say about non-usage is too open ended,and open to interpretation by too many "3rd partys" including family members. It should have readings such as"...if an image is to be used in a way that does not represent Ms.Goddard's true nature,it must then be altered to a state that no longer bears a close resemblance to or may be associated to Ms.Goddard...". Including wording such as this, would not only protect Ms.Goddard,but give better guidelines to all purchasers of her likness.The language in the EULA is strong and not too well defined,but this is a new and big step into the CG world for all. As for the biggest concern by most(but not me),is the non-commercial usage restrictions speaking as one who spent 10years in the fashion photography worldsorry nothing new there. If you think by paying less than $30.00 allows you to make money off the image and name of a Playboy model..(reality check time here)..your are flat out pissing in the wind. Go ahead and make a poster that you can sell..just change it a enough as to not look or be mistaken as to be the real Ms Goddard.For instance the links in this thread that Firebirdz gave are great looking images.the only thing,they look more like Cindy Crawford than Anna-Marie to me. If you have what it takes to make good money from a project that uses a true likeness of Ms Goddard,Im sure she would be more than willing to sit down and talk about it. I think Ms.Goddard, by allowing her image to be at the mercy of a mouse click by hobbiest,artist,professionals,and horny 15 year old boys,shows great courage. Perhaps one day she can saythats right..I was the firstGod help us all. SWAMP

Joey, ... I am sorry but dang you like to whine. So far every post I have looked at this morning you are complaining about something. And they probably started with a model because most people that use poser like pretty women and they sell pretty well. She is also comfortable taking off clothes. I am sure they might have a harder time getting Danny Aiello to strip and have every inch of his body photographed etc.

Exactly right, SWAMP. I am usually with you (silently) about 90% of the time, but you got this one 100%. As to the notion by other members that Ms. Goddard is a "porn star," I can only say: As far as I know, she has not engaged in any hard-core projects, nor (as far as I know) has she any intention of doing so. I do not recall any soft-core projects with her, either. If posing nude is considered to be pornographic, then please explain to me the "wrongness" of that as opposed to the "rightness" or acceptability of creating a nude scene with Vicky, etc. The type of image is the same, as are the reactions to said image. When Ms. Goddard posed for Playboy (as the 40th Anniversary Playmate), she wrote on her data sheet: "In my heart of hearts: I'm still a small-town girl." No doubt she has matured some since then, but by all accounts I can find, she remains her down-to-earth beliefs and her pleasant personality. This DAZ project is a first step into the 3D unknown. The uncertain reaction of the community, the risk DAZ is taking with so much time and money invested in the project ... Let us not forget the risks that Ms. Goddard is taking. This is a huge step for her as she continues her modeling career. Being photographed naked in a solitary studio; being published in an international magazine; establishing a personal web page; and now, being a point-and-click, life-like doll. For those of you who do not like the TOS, I understand. For those of you who do not like the specifics of the package, okay. For those of you who do not like Ms. Goddard's appearance, are you nuts? :p But, for those of you who do not like taking that first, bold step into the Unknown, then I guess you will just have to make doodles of it from the safety of your computer. When I get home tonight, I will be visiting DAZ to d/l my first ever 3D item. "Hello, Anna-Marie, and welcome to my world. What shall we do today?"

"If you think by paying less than $30.00 allows you to make money off the image and name of a Playboy model..(reality check time here).."
Thats exactly the point I think people are missing in this thread. This is a new type of product One is a apple and the other is a orange lets not get them confused with each other. This is one of the futures for 3D being able to replicate people into 3d. There are going to be restrictions to the useage of the models / texturing and ESPECIALY when there skin is being used for the texturing. The EULA is basicaly saying treat me with the respect i deserve or make allot of changes so nobody will recognise it as me. So far most of the models being used in the realistic textures have been no name amatures and I see very little recognition for the models. This is a big step forward for more realistic type textures . I look forward to seeing more of them .Yes the wording of the EULA could be a bit clearer but this is a new field and its going to take a while to work out all of the details. But lets not confuse the apples with the oranges .

I am sorry but dang you like to whine No, I just don't like stupidity. And this was a stupid choice, a real "let's shoot ourselves in the foot big time in the eyes of the professional 3D community yet again" kind of move. Sorry you see that as whining, but I remain amazed that out of allllll the people in the world we would consider "celebrities", DAZ kicks off this project with a centerfold model.

For those of you who do not like Ms. Goddard's appearance, are you nuts? Nope, just have different taste. The body shape on the promo renders at DAZ looks good, but the textures are nothing special (who needs another caucasian supermodel anyway?) and the face is ugly. At least in the promo renders, it is. Some of the postworked renders didn't look to bad. Together with all the restrictions...no thanks, DAZ. I'll pass.

Joey: I understand your position as to the type of person DAZ selected for this project, but models are more used to this kind of work than, say, actors or sports people. As a first offering, a model is fine. However, if all we get are models, then my excitement will begin to fade. I, too, would like to see different types of people step up for this sort of thing. After all, even my world is not populated with only Playmates, Supermodels, and High School cheerleaders. While I am not a fan of The Rock, his build would have its place in my world, as would, say, Dennis Franz. The trouble is: would either of them want to do this sort of thing? DAZ is probably going to get far more models than anybody else at first because this is what models do. Let us hope that other vocations take notice and also step up.

Well Joey besides being in Playboy she has also done guest appearances in episodes of JAG, Just Shoot Me, and Baywatch. Not to mention she is going to be in the new Austin Powers movie. Her fame for playboy alone make her a world wide celebrity so i am NOT understanding your post at all. Unless you constier nudity to be the same thing as porn , then what the heck are you doing here at rendersosity ?

casamerica: I caught your double meaning. :)

Unless you constier nudity to be the same thing as porn , then what the heck are you doing here at rendersosity ? Ah right, the stock response. Sheesh.

Well, my bottom line is that the texture is too expensive for me to purchase yet another blond. I don't know Anna-Marie Goddard and neither her profession or her personality are of great interest to me when I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy a texture. The professionals can deal with EULA problems....my only issue is how I invest my money for my hobby, and I already have enough pale skins in my collection (I am a pale skin myself so this isn't because I don't appreciate the trend...just that I don't need more). Too much to pay for the fad of the week.

I think there will be more personalities going virtual, but I don't know that it's necessarily going to be a good thing for people already complaining about the lack of creativity and imagination in 3D. Some of us (I'm guilty) seem unable to break out of imitation of each other, movies, television and comics and it is a constant refrain here (where can I get Buffy and Spike, where can I get a Star Trek imitation, where can I get a Matrix coat, where can I find a Stars Wars hairdo). The people who originally came up with Star Trek and the Matrix and Stars Wars were creative...everyone else is just making copies to make up for a lack of originality. And so it seems like an inevitable trend. The Keneau texture will probably be very pricey...and I won't buy him either.

What mainly results is that some of us run out and buy up the latest craze, get bored with our toys, and look for something else to spend our money on the next week. There are worst ways to play. I've no problem with it as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking we're breaking new ground.

There is a great little hot dog cart up on DAZ now that I am really attracted to. So even though other people will buy it, I'm going to get one too. Just because I can't imagine doing the job better myself. So I'm not prejudiced against the practice. I don't model or do textures so I am dependent on the imagination of others. But I'm not going to fool myself into thinking I'm being particularly creative by buying someone else's creation and playing with someone else's toys. I know the real originality is elsewhere and not in me.

And there are some very original people here. I don't know that they are using Anna-Marie Goddard textures. I don't know that they aren't. It doesn't much matter to me because, frankly, pin-ups bore me and that seems to be the main reason for getting this texture. You have the money to toss at her, more power to you. I don't. That's okay too. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh well. It's a holiday weekend for me. Hope you all have a good one. I'm getting off this thread now.

I still fail to see the point of the celeb image if one has to either remove any reasonable trace of the likeness in order to "safely" use the product for many purposes. I too love the idea of "CelebriClones" in theory but the devil is in the details and the EULA. If you render your CelebriClone in evening gown and mink stole does the fact that the real celeb is an adamant anti-fur activist mean it's demeaning, distressing and tort worthy? If an image of the CelebriClone kissing someone of another race upsets their parents do you get sued? CelebriClone eating a hamburger conflicts with the real celeb's Hindu faith or PETA affiliation - do lawyers come knocking? Too many questions. Ms Godard is lovely and the CelebriPeal and Playboy connection will probably make some money for DAZ and strain the world's P2P bandwidth as well but after the dust settles and the inevitable cease and desist orders go out to violators, I still wonder whether the name value is worth it. Heck, even Ron J. would probably have a special EULA, prohibiting renders of him with a hedgehog in the picture.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Ratteler, The right to control the use of her likeness is owned by Ms. Goddard, the copyright to the texture/morph set is owned by DAZ. So depending on the circumstances the answer to your question "Who will sue" is either DAZ, Ms. Goddard or possibly both. This from the EULA... "Failure to obtain such permission will result in the User being held liable for any and all damages and costs and all other legal remedies available to Anna-Marie Goddard under applicable state, federal and international law. Failure to comply with these restrictions shall constitute a breach of this License Agreement by User and entitle DAZ 3D to all Remedies under the terms of this License Agreement and all other remedies available under applicable state, federal and international law." As to you piracy scenario, the penalties are a great deal more severe than $10,000. This from the text of the DMCA... "Sec. 1204. Criminal offenses and penalties (a) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain--(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and `(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense." As far as "Model Laws" all the states have protections in place however they fall under different sections of state law. They will be atlernately listed as "Right to Privacy, Right of Publicity, or Unfair Competition". If a person can prove that their likeness falls under trademark additional federal protection can be provided under the Lanham Act.

There is no federal law protecting anyone's likeness Sorry, not true. Remember when Pepsi was using film clips from dead stars like Humphrey Bogart. They got slapped pretty hard for that by the stars' estates on the theory that a star's likeness is his commodity in trade.

Attached Link: http://www.unc.edu/courses/pre2000fall/law357c/cyberprojects/spring01/ROP/resources.html

Ratteler, I've been researching this, for an unrelated matter, & found that the so called "Right of Publicity" is more expansive than just the New York & California laws. The link above will provide you with a great deal of information. An excellent overview of the current legal scene, along with a list of the states that currently have statutes in place can be found at... http://www.cll.com/articles/article.cfm?articleid=10

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused with the Ron Jeremy joke. It was only a dumb joke. In no way did I mean to imply that Ms. Goddard is a porn person, nor would I seriously suggest that DAZ use porn stars for texture models. Just throwing some levity into a fascinating and important discussion.

Attached Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/integrity/Links/Articles/winick.html

There is an interesting paper here (link), specifically section IV. RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY seems to relate to this topic. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, DEFAMATION AND THE DIGITAL ALTERATION OF VISUAL IMAGES

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

"nor would I seriously suggest that DAZ use porn stars for texture models" Porn star Vickys (female) without genitals would surely disrupt the time-space matrix somehow. I vote for the classic Christy Canyon and please no Randy West!

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Having a family of lawyers I wanted to stay as far from the field as possible. Hence being an artist. now, depending on what I depict in a image that I create, physical traditional media or digitally, I'm subjected to legal issues etc. Recently I was reading an article where someone went and painted a picture in oil of a house. the owners of the house had signs up saying no paintings or pictures, because they used the images and photos for finantual gain and to keep up the lighthouse. so a legal battle insued. It hadn't be resolved at the writing of the article, I never found out what happened. Still scary. can't even paint a picture anymore these days with out a lawyer. I'm going back under the covers now.

Ah.. Come on Daz. Fess up. You guys just wanted to take pictures of Anna-Marie in the nude. You don't care how many models you sell.

It's one of those weird legal situations where death actually give you more protection under the law. Sorry, I have to disagree. Take footage of JLo in "The Cell" and use it in an ad and see how far you get. :)

That'll teach me to reply without reading the thread first :) I yanked my last comment because during the period where I too was "the kind of man that read Playboy" AMG was one of the few that gave me the warm and fuzzies, so I'll honour that memory and keep it clean :) But I digress... The new Sims expansion "Superstar" has both Marilyn Monroe and Christina Agulara, amongst others, in it, (not met them yet :) so I imagine they had to haggle with managers and estate lawyers too. In fact there was an entire article in Wired (cover story) about the boom in digitising sports stars, for use in computer games. Something that could never have been envisaged a few years ago. I think somebody has already put Jean Reno into a game, can't remember which one though. I still reckon though that, "the law is an ass" OK so AMG has family who may be offended, but then so do the models who's body and texture V2 & V3 are based on. I guess their lawyers just aren't as good, right? :) Now we know why Mike looks the way he does... :P later jb

"Take footage of JLo in "The Cell" and use it in an ad and see how far you get." I think people would just laugh at you then, least I would. Armchair lawyers. It really all points back to the EULA and what you agree to when you purchase the item.

Even if you ripped the meshes from the Sims or NBA whatever, they'd be too lores to have much appeal. Poser is a whole 'nother animal. While some prefer faeries and fantasy, the fun of 3D for many others is making it as real as possible and you can't get much more real than a real person. The market is definitely there but many lawyers will make mucho dinero in the process. I imagine that as with the VCR and the internet, the adult entertainment industry will be on the forefront here. I may be wrong but I doubt many big name "mainstream" folks are going to open their digital selves up to the myriad of potential uses a Poser type program permits, even with the EULAs. Now acting as your "virtual guide" to Yahoo, 3D beer ads, etc. would be different - more control and probably more money. Maybe Metacreations wasn't crazy after all, just premature. The rest of us will have to make do with lesser luminaries ala Dina Vanoni It will be interesting...

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

personally I like the AMG set and the EULA looks quite reasonable to me. As I want to use her morphs to make more realistic faces and bodies and will be using them in combination with other textures and morphs, not to mention modifying the texture itself... I have absolutely nothing to worry about regarding the EULA, and I'm glad for DAZ's clarification on the issue. My characters using the set won't look like her and won't be represented as being her either.

As I pointed out in the other thread, that's exactlky correct. As long as the final character doesn't look like, or claim to represent her, there really is no issue. If you want to really use her exact character for anything, that's where you could get sticky, but in general, how many of us ever use any product as is? I do wish all of the characters facial components were available seperately. I'd like more versatility in being able to mix and match them.

Ok, pointy ears and wings are enough modification ? What I do not understand: when I can't use her as she is right out of the box what's then the point in making a digital clone? Maybe I missed something in this thread or haven't understand everything (I am german, sorry, and blonde too LOL). .

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

This is what is written on the DAZ3d site... You may not distribute, sell, or otherwise make available to any third party via any means whatsoever, public or private, any rendered output which is demeaning, pornographic, illegal, slanderous, libelous, or otherwise damaging to the public image of, vocation of Anna-Marie Goddard or her immediate relatives for any purpose whatsoever. that is fairly vague but given how her own site looks, and the Renderosity TOS, its unlikely you're going to break that rule posting artwork here second rule... You may not use the product for any commercial endeavor in any manner which implies its endorsement or association with any product, service, or entity without prior written consent of Anna-Marie Goddard, her attorney(s), or other legal business representation. that means you can't use Anna-Marie to promote your commercial products in a way that constitutes a commercial endorsement. Well, DUH, I figured that one without needing a TOS. the vast majority of images posted at R'osity don't have a problem using Anna-Marie. Now as I produce erotica I would most likely have to be more careful... but since I am NOT using her actual likeness, only her morphs to help create more realistic and different likenesses to achieve better realism... I don't have any problem either. btw, I never use ANY package as I buy them, I always change and tweak them, make additional morphs for them, etc.

I think the most exciting thing here is the technology, rather than this particular application. Clearly, in terms of realism, full body scanning is the way to go for 3D characters. I can understand DAZ going with the celebrity angle in terms of making a splash and recouping their investment in the process. That of course means more restrictions on use and a celebrity tax on the resulting product. I hope that in the future, they continue to use the technology but provide a mix of characters, including some that will be less restrictive and hopefully less expensive because they are based on non-celebrities.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

I saw something on the beeb at the weekend, apparently the French are spending the year digitising a selection of the nation. Full body scans. Seems that the last time they did this was 30 years ago, and body shapes have changed since then. So the fashion industry is paying to build a new database so they that they can make clothes that will fit more people. Now that would be a thing to get access to eh? later jb

Now that would make for interesting discussion.

dag, just a passing comment/thought but I'd of love/(d) a digital clone of Dita Von Teese!

OOOOOOOO ...... Dita would be AWESOME !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o) Thomas

Very interesting topic... "are demeaning, pornographic, illegal, slanderous, libelous, or otherwise damaging, potentially harmful to the public image of, vocation of, or overall psychological well-being of Anna-Marie Goddard" So, have we heard back? Can I make any render I want or am I restricted by the EULA? Could the typical "nude Vikcy in temple" image be "potentially harmful to the... psychological well-being of Anna-Marie Goddard"?? This is really mind-boggling. DAZ offers a model for sale, but we can't use it to make renders, we can't use it to make commercial artwork. And some people are just glad to be able to make pictures with a Playmate of their own. Why don't they come out and say: "We make Poser products for your own personal enjoyment... if you catch our drift." {"Anna-Marie Goddard drinks pepsi and you should too"} And what about, Anna-Marie used the new V3 bikini, and Neftis Hair, both for sale in the Marketplace? Is that a "commercial" render? {Now we have the even uglier concept! What happens when a pirate get a hold of the texture nd morph set?} To see the answer to this question, just take a look on any p2p network... I'm sure it's out there by now. And if you're a "serious" pirate, you probably have a well-funded lawyer to handle issues like this. He can keep the case tied up in court long enough for you to make plenty of money (or until AMG or DAZ is out-spent and drops the case). And the comment about how sports games use the athlete's likenesses? 1) It's called "licensing"- for a fee, the athlete is included in the game. This, in turn, increases the value of the game since it has a "real athlete" in it. Think about it: which would you rather buy... "Sport Car Racing" or "NASCAR 2003 Sports Racing; now includes all the 2002-2003 drivers on the circuit!". 2) You can't make renders, images, etc from likenesses in games: the meshes are too lo-res and can't be separated out of the game. {Ah.. Come on Daz. Fess up. You guys just wanted to take pictures of Anna-Marie in the nude. You don't care how many models you sell. } Someone wants to take pictures of an ex-Playboy Playmate? Nah, I don't buy this theory. And getting off the subject a little... If AMG was a Playmate back in 1994 (when she was 24), then she is now almost 34. Um, why did DAZ choose a 34-year old model to base their character on? Not that there's anything wrong with 34-year old models, but were all the 18 year-old models not available? What about all the 20-something models? And here's something to consider: Vicky 3 is based on ex-Playmate Natalie Abramov. They hired her, brought her into their studio, and took pictures of her to use as their new Vicky character. Did DAZ "blur" the likeness enough so she wouldn't complain about her likness being used in people's renders?

If Abramov was a Playmate, it was in a foreign edition. "Did DAZ "blur" the likeness enough so she wouldn't complain about her likness being used in people's renders?" It may not have been as big an issue for her as it apparently is for AMG. As to "why a 34-year-old," well, why not? Some people in other threads are wanting a bit of variety in the packages offered: different skin tones, older people, larger people, animals, etc. Perhaps DAZ went with her to give us the chance to have a mid-thirties character right out of the box - even if she is still a white model. Too bad DAZ is having so many problems, or I would be all over this by now.

Hi Guys! (and Girls!) Dan Farr of Daz mentioned I was going to stop by the forum, and so here I am. It took me a while to read through (almost) all your messages; my God this has brought out a lot of you to talk about this! Well, anyway, all the points Dan brought up are right. But, you obviously still have concerns and questions, and I think one of the problems is that we on our end don't know yet what to expect; what all is going to come out of this. Therefor as a "public persona", I do have to protect myself of course for the worst case scenario, and Daz has been wonderful in assisting me with that as well. I think as worried as many of you are regarding the EULA, it is only to protect myself from something that I absolutely cannot and should not agree with which many of you say you understand already. I think you all are nice people that really won't want to do something bad or take advantage of me. As long as it all stays in good taste and you're making something nice and pretty, I'm all for it. If somebody has made something great out of my morph and published it here on the forum or somewhere else, will I sue right away? Of course not! I'm from Holland, we're not as sue happy there as people here. I in fact would love to see it, so I'd appreciate you show me the images you've made. If you want to show of your art of me on a website to promote yourself or something, cool and fine, I'd just appreciate a banner link back to my site (www.annamariegoddard.com). The only few things that I'm worried about though is that first of all the biggest thing; don't make something demeaning, degrading, awful or pornographic (no explicit wide open leg shots) with my name attached to that. (If you're not sure if something is too explicit or anything else, just email me the image amg@annamariegoddard.com and I'll let you know, and please respect my answer). So, that's the most important thing to me; don't use my name with it. If there's something that you want to do commercially with your art and want to use my name, we can talk about it and probably come to an agreement, no big deal. So, don't let this hold you back or think I'll be suing right away as I won't, unless again it is something that is absolutely, positively not tolerable (and I think your gut will tell you if it is). As long as it's not commercially sold, it's nice and cool, then you can use my name with it, I don't have a problem with that. It is and stays a morph made of me, so it is not actually me as I am in a photograph or video, so it's all cool. So, if we can all stay in these boundaries of doing something nice with the morph, go right ahead! It is me, but it isn't, you get my drift. If you use some parts of me, and parts of "Victoria", go right ahead. I don't think at that point you'd want to name it "Anna-Marie" anyway, right? If the image doesn't look like me anymore, but let's say it has my breasts, my mouth and my navel and you sell it, will I sue you? No. Bottom line, don't worry, we are not looking to sue anybody (and Daz won't either), just respect me, be creative with me in a nice way, ask me if you're not sure about something, work out a deal with me if you have a great idea to make me the next Lara Croft and you do want to use my name, and if we can all stay cool, there are really no worries. I'm actually pretty easy going ;-) xoxoAnnaMarie p.s. DAZ is working on a revised EULA that reflects this/my position.

Thanks for responding AnnaMarie. I look forward to the revised EULA. I'm still unclear for commercial use and maybe this will be cleared up in a revised EULA, if I use the 'clone' Daz package in a picture that I sell commercially, do I have to give credit to AnnaMarie and Daz or either? If I create a poster to sell using the 'clone' package and title it Sally, but it uses the AnnaMarie 'clone' package with no modifications out of the box so to speak, would I have to ask for permission even if the titled artpeice has no indication of 'who' the picture is of? No disrespect but the AnnaMarie web site is a pay site, and as an artist I do not want to have to be an advocate for a site as such and be attached to that site just because I did a picture. Many Freestuff items and 3d models require that they not be used for commercial use, but credit given, or a site link, banner etc. I can understand this as giving credit and pointing to the source. As a purchased payed for product there is nothing that says that this kind of procedure can not be done, though generally in the community for commercially bought products its frowned on. For me I think I have to stay away from this product because of these kinds of issues. A real shame. I like the quality of the 'clone' product and the effort that went into it and the textures. The hair on the back of my neck just wont go down. maybe I'm just being paranoid and overly protective of my rights as an artist. goes back to the corner to rock back and forth :)

wow, thank you Ms. Goddard for taking the time out and post. You are lovely and your Digital Clone is really fantastic, at first with the EULA, I'd wondered if I should have purchased it, but from this thread a good deal has been cleared up. :)

You have to protect your name and image so all that is perfectly understandable. I think what most are concerned about is the use of the textures alone, perhaps without the morphs and the EULA covering that. I personally think that your and Daz's main concern, and the reason for the restrictive EULA is specifically images that portray the figure as you with all the morphs and textures, etc, etc, and the EULA they created is necessary in that respect. Most build on the morphs and textures anyway and the characters don't end up looking like the original character. So now that everyone knows that the EULA isn't going to restrict the use of the package when it isn't used to look like you for commercial purposes or if only part of it is used, the situation should be fine.
I'm thankful the discussion was brought up and Daz and Annamarie have responded as the textures alone are worth the sale price.

...... Kendra

AnnaMarie, Thanks for sharing your perspective on this issue. It demonstrates a certain generosity (not to mention bravery) of spirit to wade into this discussion about the use of your digital "clone." As a clone--err twin, myself, I understand the strange psychological condition of viewing/speaking of someone/something that is both like and unlike you. So I applaud your bravery. So thanks again. And thus, I hope your appearance ends this round of the "Clone Wars." Sorry! Couldn't resist. thanks, --lb

Attached Link: http://www.renderotica.com/portal/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=1788&forum

Thank you, Ms. Goddard, so much for responding to this, and for being one of only two (that I know of) brave women to allow their name and likeness to be shared in such a revolutionary fashion. I would also like to invite you to read my review of the product, and possibly participate in the resulting discussion, over at Renderotica. Renderotica is an adult graphics community, and as such, has a special interest in the use of this product as it pertains to more sexually oriented artwork, and adult subject matter. There are many in the adult graphics community (as in any other community) that like to push the limits just to cause a commotion. The majority, however(just like anywhere else) are friendly, helpful, laid back people who enjoy their chosen form of creative expression. Sincerely, Cassandre C Laurie (Casey, or Momcat) ::wondering just how many IMs Ms. Goddard will have receieved in the time it took me to write this response >^_~::

Hmmmm, well Anna-Marie, I also thank you for taking the time to speak to us...and you may not be aware of this or maybe you are, and I am going to try to be as careful as I can when wording this so not to offend anyone: Let's say this using myself as an example, if it were myself and I was conserned about this and ruining my reputation or hurting my family - I WOULD NOT DO IT.....why, because we all have to know this IS going to get out, and used by someone who WILL try to damage you or your rep. If I was a public personality, I would know this....that is why I get confused. If you are worried why would you do this? You know that there are people out there that are going to mishandle this? No disrepect intended but I want to say...DUH....I am sorry really I don't want to hurt you or what you represent but sometimes I just wonder what is in people's brains. Humbely yours....Sharen

It's nice for a change to hear from the real person involved on this specific issue. I don't think it matters how nice a person or a company is however, the language of "legalese" is ALWAYS going to sound cold, impersonal, and a bit threatening. Obvious from their responses, neither DAZ nor Ms. Goddard are like that at all. Stepping away from the the strictly personal issue and back to the legalese thing... in reading all these posts, five (giver or take) words kept recurring to me over and over... THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLINT :) and lastly just want to say if DAZ wants to make a nekkid faerie model I'll be glad to pose(r) for them lol And honestly I don't give a rat's patootie what you do with the images, as long as I get my check. $o) The one and only inimitable THORNE, with tongue in cheek as always =};-}>

what a joke. why buy a texture if you cannot 'use' it? no offense, but im not so overly impressed with this product to shell out $30-40 for it then have to consult a nonstandard and insanely restrictive EULA every time i think of using it. the texture doesnt look much different than the standard V2 or V3 texture, as for the face morph - it bears a likeness, but someone could create one quite easily anyways, given the poser toolset, with no legal restrictions on its use. now im going to step on some toes - but its never stopped me before and ill say what i think. the only selling point for this texture/character is the fact that its a likeness of someone semi-famous - a media wet dream. its a branding ploy - the only thing selling this product is the name. and since you can only use the images you create for personal use, and not commercially or in anything suggestive (or anything not 'pretty', lol), what purpose does it serve? if you want to wank off to images of anne-marie goddard, your money is much better spent picking up her latest spread in playboy or penthouse - at least youll get a better likeness. as for the whole 'damage to reputation' issue? please. i think its conceited and rediculous to think that the likeness between this vicky 3 texture and character and the actual annemarie are so strong that people are going to mistake them for one another... and that any 'damage to reputation' will result to her pristine reputation from suggestive poser images created with it -- lets face it - its not like were talking about the digital likeness of the pope here. cheers, -gabriel

Exactly ! Sharen

did read the tread but at first i'll think the texture is much to expensive there are better textures all over the marketplace here. But if their is a Faerie from thorne I'll buy it LOL I'm from Holland a real Dutch girl and that means that I can't spend that much money for something I think it's not so special. Ang

From several later threats on AMG, I've got the feeling that owners of this package are having some problems bringing the out "true" likeness of AMG in their renders. It still requires some amount of tweaking on the user's part. Cris Palomino did a great job on her, but Cris is a postwork god. the texture doesnt look much different than the standard V2 or V3 texture After all the postwork, you wouldn't even recognize the original texture half of the time. as for the face morph - it bears a likeness, but someone could create one quite easily anyways, given the poser toolset. I've seen some amazing face morphs done by some members of this community. I had my CC ready but I found myself going pass the AMG package and bought the Demon Dogs and the Gargoyle Hound...

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

Hallo Dolfijntjes, Engeltje Hoe gaat it? ~Waiving at dofijntjes~ I ben niet van Holland, maar I kan een beetje Netherlands spreken :) JV

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

"I found myself going pass the AMG package and bought the Demon Dogs and the Gargoyle Hound..." thats hilarious, in an ironic sort of way. certainly a blow to someones ego :)

I bought the Demon Dogs, the Gargoyles, the Hounds, and the Hot Dog Cart. I think I still came out less than the AMG texture. I'm a happy camper. :)

I bought the Demon Dogs, the Gargoyles, the Hounds, and the Hot Dog Cart. A Hot Dog Cart, Dialyn? I am not even gonna attempt to ask whatcha gonna do with it. Um , Either you got your Dogs crossed, or you are one "interesting" individual Bahahaha!!

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

I am going to go get the Gargoyles, I think they are done very nicely....I didn't see the hot dog cart, but I think Mike can do that one for me....Sharen

Ok maybe im missin the big picture here guys but whats the big deal? DAZ has made a texture from a celebrity. this pack has an insanely restrictive EULA thats makin ya'll think twice about buying..... ummm im lookin at the promos here and i dont whats so special. Judging by these promos this is not a texture i would buy, ive seen better from DAZ...shoot honestly i liked the default V3 one they put out a lot better. For that matter, ive seen much better here at rosity (esp by a ahem a person we all know and love but i get to cuddle evil grin)and for much better prices. Thats no offense to Ms Goddard, she could have the best skin on the planet, but that doesnt mean DAZ will make the best texture on the planet from her. shoot i think Halle Berry is the most drop dead gorgeous woman alive, but if they used her and the promos were similar to these, i wouldnt buy it either. again im only judging by these promos, but i really just dont think this is such a good tex. Just cuz you have access to hi-res photos, let alone ones of a celebrity, doesnt mean you'll create the most photo-realistic texture from them. creating a good hi-res texture is more than just pasting together pieces of skin. even if it is celebrity skin. This is like goin out and seein this pair of Gucci pumps that will match perfectly with your new cocktail dress...and they're Gucci!...but they are a bit expensive and your husband will prolly kill ya... but they're Gucci!... so you HAVE to have them anyway no matter what.. Cuz they're Gucci!...but then you get them home and realize you will never be able to wear them because they crunch the hell out of your toes and give you mad blisters, etc.. oh but they are Gucci! So what, this texture is so special and worth frettin because it has a brand name on it? is it really worth it? just cuz its covered in glitter dont mean its gold folks. go look at the promos again...then go look at other hi-res texture promos DAZ has. go to our MP and look at some promos here. block out the brand name and take a second look. I mean guys you can go to Walmart and pick up a pair of pumps that will not only match your entire wardrobe, but feel like your bedroom slippers, no blisters, and look great in jeans, and even better naked in a temple holdin your sword. (and still have enough $ left over to take your girlfriends out to lunch.)

Every notice how kids these days pester their parents into buying high priced brand names when there are decent equivalents available for 1/4th the price. And, in the name of immediate gratification, the parents fall for the line, "but all my friends have it." So we have people who want the brand name texture. Frankly, if AMG is what your heart desires, then I think you should go for it. But if what you want is a beautiful texture and the brand name doesn't mean anything to you, there are others to be had for less cost and fewer strings. It's all up to the individual and what they want. I don't care. I've got my hot dog eating lizard puppy to keep me company. :)

"and still have enough $ left over to take your girlfriends out to lunch" or buy your SO a new LCD monitor to ease his eyestrain, another car amp, that special edition seven samurai dvd hes been eyeing, or a host of other wonderful gift ideas!

ahem no comment on those "wonderful gift ideas" you evil hamster....

Well... Sharen/SAMS3D, what a "duh" thing to say. As soon as you become a "public person", some people (unfortunately) are going to screw with you in whatever way they can anyway as which you and I can agree on that; will happen. Does that mean then that I should have regrets about being a public person? Do I have to be so afraid of those few people that will do that to me when I take on something like this? Can I not take any risk like this anymore? And I hate to call it that as in my opinion it really isn't. I think it was a very cool idea and I love people that are creative, so if I can be the first "real" person and the first "celebrity" that a morph is based on, then I like that, and I think others will too (as many of you have already expressed--thank you). I'm not worried at all. Eventhough it's not cool when somebody goes against my wishes and portrays me in a bad way; it's still a morph. It's not an actual photograph or video that I did, so I won't be ruined. I just need to protect myself in a way that I can to a certain extend in case things are getting out of hand, which I doubt will happen. It would be unfortunate, but still I have faith, and you can call me naive if you want, that most of you only have good intentions with this. So, that's why I did it, and I'd do it again. Anna-Marie

Thank you AnnaMarie. It's a pleasure to read your words here. I hope you come by and browse here, perhaps even visit from time to time. I think it would be cool if you were to try out poser yourself and begin using it for your own pleasure. Greetings Jerry

"I think it was a very cool idea and I love people that are creative, so if I can be the first "real" person and the first "celebrity" that a morph is based on" hardly. a little high on yourself there - you missed that by at least a couple of decades. one of the problems here is that too many people are in awe that the 'great ms. anna marie goddard' descended from heaven to reply to this post and state their disapproval of the license -- their incessant drooling over you and their excitement of having a 'real live' playboy model here in the forum is obstructing their thinking. theyre missing the point entirely. its a rediculous license agreement. if i created a morph and texture that looked exactly like you, and put it in freestuff tomorrow, theres nothing on earth that you could do about it... even if i named it 'anna-marie'. you cannot copyright a 'likeness' or the way a person looks, nor a common firstname - therefore it makes the entire license issue laughable. seeing as anyone can create a morph and texture that looks like you quite easily, yet NOONE on earth is going to mistake that 3D likeness for you, its a silly license thats very restrictive. and what scares me even more is that a license like this will serve as a precedent for other licenses like it in the future. THATS what disturbs me, and thats why im speaking out here right now. nothing against you personally, anna-marie. and how on earth do you intend to enforce this? i suppose youll want the complicity of the renderosity moderators and administrators to police the galleries and remove any images that you dont find 'pretty' and unoffensive? jesus.. they have their hands full already. there was a huge uproar last year when one of our ex-merchants, after having sold several hundred of a texture, changed her license agreement. any images created with the product had to be visibly credited to her and may only be posted under the username that appears on her buyers list of the product, and noone else. suffice to say she lost a very large amount of her buyers and an equal amount of respect over her stance on that issue, just as you stand to lose a lot of buyers with such a restrictive license (although its nowhere near as bad as hers). if i were in your shoes (which im not, i dont wear high heels), then i would revise the license to VERY strictly limit the use of your NAME - which you have every right to do. as for the model and texture - i wouldnt lose sleep over that. there are people out there who - as im sure you know - can create fake pornography quite easily by editing your photos in photoshop and end up with a far more realistic result.. i doubt theyre going to run out and buy poser and daz's likeness of you to struggle at the same. cheers, -gabriel

Gabriel, If people don't like the product, or they don't like the EULA, they won't buy it, and they will usually say why. This is all that is really necessary to effect change. There is absolutely no need to be rude.

LOL....I understand AnnaMarie that you have to protect yourself, and I understand what lengths you have to take to protect yourself, just like all us modelers, texture makers, etc. Being a modeler and a vendor I know the law and how others will use it and abuse it. Taking risks of others abuse is here. I will always and only speak for myself, if I create a model, I won't put restrictions on its use. I only ask that no one else takes credit for my work and does not sell it. I have to disagree with the restrictions that are placed on your digital clone. I understand why the restrictions are there, but I do not agree with them. Because of that I don't know why someone would do this? When we create models, I do not put restrictions on it's use, for 2 reasons, one I doubt very much we could police it, second why make it available only to hobbist. I do not debate wrong and rights because that is personal opionion to each. And I never stated it was wrong, I only had one question, why release this if you were the least bit concerned of it's use, and if you are not concerned why the EULA? I tried to state this before with dignity and respect and maybe you miss understood, for that I appologize for any disrespect you might have taken. Sharen

im not being rude. im just trying to make my point - if im coming off as rude then you have my apologies, i have a straightforward way of speaking which tends to come off as harsh to many. i say whats on my mind and try not to let word games or 'political correctness' get in the way. i would like to see the poser marketplace progress -- in quality, ethics, value to the customer, breadth of usability and accessibility to a larger market. im afraid of what sortof precedent this EULA will set for the community - its a definite step backwards rather than forwards. i LIKE the fact that if i purchase something from the marketplace i dont have to read the EULA every time - since its a standard license agreement that has been in place for a long time, and everyone agrees with. if merchants start trying to slip in new EULAs unnoticed (and dont tell me that the one at daz is highly conspicuos and no customers have bought the product only to be unpleasantly suprised to find out its restrictions, because thats highly unlikely) and add new restrictions and clauses to their licenses, it will become a growing trend that will take away the trust and faith of customers. instead of looking for what marketing ploys to use, what new restrictions to impose on the customer, and how to raise profits, we should be concentrating on giving more VALUE to the customer for their money... not increasingly less and less. cheers, -gabriel

Good points blackhearted and you're probably right about the "strictly limit the use of my name" (which DAZ is working on as we speak--they're in the process of revising the EULA). I cannot police everything, and believe me I won't. I have said that I don't want my name to be used with something that I wouldn't agree with, but if my name is not used, I realize I cannot do much about it and I won't. Life is too short to worry about stuff like this and I think you all take it way too seriously. Believe me, I've never sued anybody, never been sued (knock on wood) and I want to keep it that way. We're only "worried" about the possible few people, who will use my image, my name and then endorse a product(--either I agree with that product or I don't). Or make something very explicit and then use my name with it; my full name. It's stuff like that I think everybody in their right mind will agree upon with me that is just not right and not fair. Anything else, go right ahead, I won't stop you. No need to have an attitude with me though. Absolutely not necessary. AnnaMarie p.s. I only wear high heels when I have to. I prefer sandals too ;-)

"No need to have an attitude with me though. Absolutely not necessary." thats just the way i am - as anyone in the forum will attest, its in my nature. dont take it personal - im like this with everyone. with regards to the EULA, my gripe is with daz - not you. they should know better than to have tried to pull that in the first place, theyve been in this business for a long time.

It just occurred to me to remember that, whatever her celebrity, AnneMarie is a human being and a guest in our forums. And many of the issues and concerns on her side have as much validity as those of having issues and conerns on the other. Points well taken on both sides, and I think this topic will continue to linger here. In another year, we'll be amazed at what we are being offered in the way of realistic figures for the hobbyist and professional alike. And the issues of copyright and trademark, both for the celebrity and for the artists, will continue to be problems, as will the cost of replicating real celebrities...what does it cost, what is it worth, and how many rights do we have to someone else's appearance even when it is offered to us for sale? I personally think we're just all going through growing pains. I'm just glad to hear Anna Marie prefers sandals (I hope ones with low heels). Thank makes me (and my feet) feel much better. :) Take care all. And thank you, AnnaMarie, for having the courage to state your case. It's not an easy crowd. But usually something good comes out of all the agonizing. Not always. But usually.

JohnRender: There already is a 20 something model in the DAZ store. GRIM Just kidding... LOL

Well AnnaMarie, thank you for at least addressing this in person, most would not do that. Alot of us may have felt different right from the start if the EULA was not attached to this product, many of us might have probably bought it right away if not for that EULA. Blackhearted and I are involved in this kind of work on a daily basis, and I for one do take it seriously, just as I take our customers happiness seriously. I for one agree with his statement that it sets a presidence, and it will effect us probably more then it will ever effect you. There are no hard feelings here, I don't believe anyone was ever rude, just truthful. It is not meant to be rude. Most of us are professionals and we try to keep our statements as professional as possible in a public forum. Thank you again for taking time to address this personally. Sharen

Theres many texture/morph/character packs made from/of "real" people (and celebrities too) we do it all the time, its the best reference. Not everyone does celebrities due to uncertain copyright restrictions (off the top of my head i know for certain theres a really good and very recognizable Angelina Jolie morph here at Renderosity tho) but its been done. DAZ's V3, the 3d model for your texture was made from a professional model, morphed from her, texture as well. so hes got a point there. but skin is skin is skin, whether its you or anyone for that matter, so why all the restrictions? you feel that harm would come out of certain types of renders, so I guess what we are all really just curious about is WHY you may feel rendered pictures of your texture, morph or no, would cause you any harm to person or reputation. the commercial aspect i can see clearly, if someone intends to make money of your own skin i can see why youd want a restriction, or shoot at least a cut right ;) but for personal use, esp from the hobbyists that make up this community, thats hard to swallow because we are so accustomed to buying our textures and morphs and knowing we can use them to all our creative extents, no harm ever intended. So dont take all these posts the wrong way, or take them personally against you, when someone makes such restrictions to a EULA (you dont know about the ragings that went on about the Poser 5 EULA..whew..), the artists here take things liek that really seriously..no one lieks being told what they can and cant do, and even more so if they dont understand or agree to why they cant do these things. that (ugh dont even get me started) singer Shakira, apparently painted a picture of Monica Lewinsky suckin a carrot, or somethin of the sort, and sold it to one of her record execs, or someone of the sort. Im sure if monica saw that painting she wouldnt be thrilled about it either, monica isnt sueing shakira. and im not sure bout copyrights or rights to the person being painted, celebrity or no.. i mean if someone paints a pic of me naked bangin a tree (for the worst example possible..memories of Evil Dead..ahhh...)w/o my consent would i even be able to sue? if not who gives a fuck, just because they see someones painting, doesnt mean they think omfg Rio is a tree-fucker! or that everyone would assume some bad impression of me by seeing someons else painting... and if i WAS able to sue, why would i need to have restrictions telling people they cant make these pics of me, when i know they cant and i can bust their asses for it anyway? this changes i know for public personalities, as they become a sort of copyrighted trademark. which is why many art sites wont let anyone post pics of celebrities no matter how tasteful or well done. so this a lot of us know. and speaking of which id liek to know flat out is it compeltely illegal to paint a celebrity w/o their consent for that reason? either way that changes by your aadding your additions to the EULA, then whther its legal or not, by buyin that texture you MUST consent to the agreement, so if you say no, that means no, and if we dont liek it, we wont buy it. and a lot of people arent gonna like it, and tons of sales will be lost because of it. its nothin personal against you, im sure we can understand the reason for these additions, but as i said before, we take our EULA's very seriously, if we cant post what we wanna post, let alone post at all.... i think what we are lookin from from you since youve decided to join us, is maybe you can give us your perspective as a celebrity as to why you feel you need protection from these possible lude sorts of renders, or even just a naked render of the texture (a pic im pretty sure would hardly be recognizeable as you in our collective opinions, by comparing the promos to your photos, i dont see a resemblance at all, no offense), how you feel they would affect you as a person. We know now from you why the restrictions were made, maybe you could tell us why you feel they needed to be made, what this protection is for, and how harm to you as person or reputation could come from a 3d render of your product. we'd finally hear it from a direct celebrity source, as im sure we all really appreciate you taking part in this conversation, that was awesome of you to do so. ;)

hi anna thanx for trying to address some of the concerns of the people who want the texture/morph. I wanted it..still want it, but I won't touch it until the eula is fixed or stated in such a way as to allow me to do the very simple things I want to. the reason I want it (and the only reason) is to give the images I make of v3 modeling the latest "whatever I make" to show to people in the various marketplaces...or for freebees. Rest assured, no images of distaste would be made (I dont do virtual porn..or the like), but by the wording of the current eula using it for such simple promo purposes isnt allowed. btw, dont let the outcry or dissatifaction with the eula upset you or put you off. This community is a very versatile lot with a lot of different personalities. This gives it a lot of the strength it has. There are always "nay-sayers" and always those who will say "oh wow" and of course the whole grayscale in between. Some individuals always complain, some always praise, and some dont give a damm :P. I read all their posts because it makes me think and helps me see a situation from all angles. I hope you can look at this whole thing that way as well. when the new eula is up, someone say so and let us see what the new one says so I can go get this texture already! :P BT

You know, I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. Are we all panicking and paranoid because we're not allowed to make weird, perverted pictures with this new AMG figure, and then sell them for huge amounts of money? I mean.... come on, people! It's her face and her body. She can put whatever restrictions she likes on their use. And any one of us who makes a figure/prop/whatever can do the same thing. Now, most of us don't add ridiculous restrictions, because the market dictates that certain clauses in the EULA eventually kill sales. But that DAZ's business. You don't like it? Don't bother buying it. And, as for this crap about 'a dangerous precendent'. My Aunt Fanny! What dangerous precendent is it setting? Does anyone seriously think that the next public figure to agree to digital cloning would have a different EULA? Bollocks! Anyone who has a public image to protect is going to do exactly what AMG did. And a lot of people would want to make it even more restrictive. Read her posts again. She's not threatening anyone with lawsuits, not trying to act the primadonna. She just wants to cut the ground out from under the clowns that would. no doubt, try to make a buck of her, if this stuff wasn't in the EULA. In fact, if there are any primadonnas here, it's the ones shouting about our 'rights as artists'. "Don't you DARE put any restrictions on my creativity". Bullshit! mac

BT, I cross-posted with you. 'the wording of the current eula using it for such simple promo purposes isnt allowed' I hereby present you with a special diploma exempting you from my wrath. LOL. mac

I think Anna-Marie came off pretty cool. SWAMP

Yeah, swamp. I meant to say 'Thanks, anna', but I forgot. I can't imagine Chutney Spears, or whoever the next digital clone will be, coming into the forum to try and address our concerns. mac

"Are we all panicking and paranoid because we're not allowed to make weird, perverted pictures with this new AMG figure, and then sell them for huge amounts of money?" no. the EULA is so vague and all-encompassing (it could be twisted to include ANY image) that it pretty much gives the buyer NO rights at all to use a product they paid through the nose for. "harmful to the overall psychological well-being Anna-Marie Goddard, her assigns, successors or agents, or her immediate relatives" ??? jesus @#$*&! christ, have you read this? so, for example, if i post an image of anna-marie's 3d likeness holding a pair of scissors, and one of anna-marie's relatives is traumatised by that because when they were little they had an accident running with scissors, then i can be sued? "It's her face and her body" want to bet? how on earth can you 'copyright' a body style, or the 'look' of a person. noone else on earth looks like her? "And any one of us who makes a figure/prop/whatever can do the same thing." yes. have fun selling it. "Does anyone seriously think that the next public figure to agree to digital cloning would have a different EULA? Bollocks! Anyone who has a public image to protect is going to do exactly what AMG did. And a lot of people would want to make it even more restrictive." see above

Blackhearted, To all of the above.... SO WHAT? You don't like it... don't buy it. mac

nor shall i - im very selective with what i buy these days. only thing rio and i have bought this month are some of levius' photo reference pics and the temple ruins. "And, as for this crap about 'a dangerous precendent'. My Aunt Fanny! " unfortunately, i know better. if noone says anything about restrictive nonstandard licenses it WILL impact the community quite severely. if you dont see that, youre even more shortsighted than you seem.

I didn't even know who Anna-Marie was before this thread! :) I found the idea intriguing, but have to admit that I wouldn't normally use a 'clone'. I liked the textures/ make-up options though- the eyes are beautiful! And the new morphs looked promising, so I bit. The morphs can make a cute new smile, and the face/ eye shape morphs are definitely add variety to my Vicki. This is a set of morphs that give a more mature woman, and I appreciate that. Daz, I have to admit, your promos could be a bit more... enlightening. ;) Anyways, I did feel that some people have come across as a bit... harsh? Daz (Dan!) and Anna-Marie have actually come here, and answered questions, and are working on revising the EULA, and I think they're really trying to take what we say into consideration. It is fine to have doubts and questions, but there are real people on the other side of these computer screens. I was actually surprised at the whole 'duh' thing and implications. But things seem to be settling. :) To me it just seems, well, obvious that we shouldn't render her exactly as is and use her image and name to endorse Coke, Jeans, or some fantasy rape movie. Hopefully once the rewritten EULA is up lots more people will be happy. ;) Below is a Poser 4 rendered image. No postwork on her.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

i have noticed something pretty amusing though... ..if you paid attention to my posts im NOT attacking anna-marie in any way -- i have nothing against her, and im actually glad she did this because it will create some more publicity for the poser community, and things like this create growth. my posts arent directed towards her, but towards daz. but i wonder how many people would be 'championing her cause' if she were an overweight, middle-aged housewife or a hairy biker named jed.

noone else on earth looks like her? nor does this "digital clone" (which i also adressed here: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1259173) and shown by Caly's post... is till think it looks more like Vicki. Maclean: of course, we get that drift. Most of us are so accustomed to normal EULA's that we wouldnt think to have to read this particular one for any special notes of use or restrictions, so some people have bought this w/o knowing these restrictions, and are in general more confused than upset. we dont have to buy it to read it, nor do we have to buy it to disagree with it or think that its a bit over the top. we have a right to this opinion, esp in the prospect of, liek gabe has said, more people putting out more EULA's like this. we just wanna know our rights. DAZ obviously compeletely understands these concerns as well, or else they would not be revising it. they want us to like it. They want us to buy it. They see now changes are needed for the good of all. to clear the air and put an end to all this confusion.

hee hee hee! Anna-Marie was here! Can I get an autographed picture? Sigh....

Dangit - missed her first post by an hour. :( Perhaps the question in my title should be the start of a new thread, but I think it might help to shed some light on the issue of "intent," as well as to give us more of a feel for AMG as a person, as a professional, and as a potential Poser user. So, Ms. Goddard ... please tell us a bit about the project as a whole - from your perspective as the "live model" and as the "end result." Did DAZ come to you, or did you go to them? How long did it take to be scanned? Aside from the technology used, how did this "shoot" differ from your other projects? What kind of poses did you hold to allow the scans to cover enough? Would you consider allowing some of our works featuring you to be posted on your OWN website? Such as in a "Fan Art" section? Please feel free to address these and/or other aspects as you so desire. (,,,)><^..^><(,,,)

Well here's Vicki in the same pose- I removed the clone injections, and gave her her default skin. They're different. Try opening the 2 images in a new browser window and going back and forth. The thing about the clone vs Anna is that the images on Anna's site seem to be air-brushed. Especially the Playboy covers. ;) Plus the ages vary. The texture is good and the morphs themselves are pretty cool/ I didn't pick an angle that you could really see how different she is, but some others have posted her looking even more different... As for Vicki 3, she doesn't have to be a plastic Barbie. She has TONs of morphs and several great textures. It's not Daz's fault if people are too lazy to spin dials. ;)

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

yeah but if its supposed to be a clone, we shouldnt HAVE to spin dials to make it look like her. And by plastic Barbie i was refering to the AMG texture, not V3, we all know we can make V3 look anyway we want, that was the purpose of making her. look at the diff in the 2 pics you posted. one looks more like skin, one looks more like shiny plastic. they BOTH still look like Vicki to me. and of course they are different, i would never think DAZ would be so silly as to put out the same thing twice. and again is till say the default Vicki text is better, comparing your 2 images the default tex has more detail it seems to me, the only major diff in res or detail being the lips of the AMG tex which had a lot more detail and thus are the best part of the AMG tex imo, the only thing the default tex lacked. Both look like very similar textures, yet from 2 diff people. thats not implying the same material was used for both, if it was the same artist(s) making the AMG tex as the default tex then i wouldnt see any reason why there wouldnt be similarities, style is a factor of course. Just like you can see any tex here and generally automatically know which artist made it just by looking at it. My whole point being, theres nothing that stounds out to me to say that this AMG tex is so special. Its not very realistic, ive said it looks plasticated, it lack a lot of detail, no very hi-res, ESP when you compare it to their previous textures as you have. Im complainig about the product description DAZ gave this product. i dont think it lives up to it. it looks nothing like AMG, airbrushed photos or not, that wont change the shape of her face and features, if its gonna be called a clone i would think the morphs would out weigh the impt of the texture. Even tho any avid poser user knows you can drastically change a look of a charcter morph by changing the texture,even still ANYONE can see the fact that in those two pics you posted the AMG character STILL looks a lot more like Vicki. i still see no resemblence. i still see nothing that makes this package any more special than any other ive seen, other than having AMG's name on it. DAZ has done better textures, so have some of you here at Rosity. With access to a super model for reference and the resoureces DAZ has, I would think this product would have come out a lot better, a lot sharper, a lot more detailed, a lot more realistic, and look a lot more like her as it says its supposed to.

I wonder if "AMG" (the product) was rushed to be released in conjunction with the changes at DAZ's store?

just got to say Blackhearted is the only person making sense here. while the idea of a "digital clone" is interesting, I think DAZ has misrepresented themselves. for starters, this doesn't even look that much like her. its a passing likeness, but if someone showed you a render of this character I highly doubt you would scream "OMG its Anna Marie Goddard!"...not like anyone has heard of her before this. I'm sure anyone using the right textures and props could render a likeness of any famous person, including Anna Marie. in fact, I think quagnon did a far superior job with his Britney Spears character, if we're going to throw around the word "clone". IMHO, the poser community is a well-heeled, savvy crowd. there is surely no shortage of high quality, photorealistic textures available here on rosity and elsewhere. so what is the selling point? Daz is marketing this all wrong. They need to find all the Anna Marie fans (starting in the netherlands I presume?) and let them know that they're favorite star is available for purchase.

I like the Lightwave promo shot, though the product is for poser, go figure. I'm one of the 'artists rights' people, or person shrug If I cannot use a bought product for doing my art and selling it using poser, I might as well just through out the computer and go back to oil painting. I have no desire to promot myself by using another persons name, but the current EULA doesn't even let me NOT mention the name and sell a picture I do, call the render 'untitled 1' and use the 'clone' package and your in violation of the EULA. that's a HUGE problem, aparently Daz is revising. Seems not so long ago that Curious Labs had the same problem with their EULA that was limiting and changed their EULA. Even a minority needs to be heard. I want to do professional level fine art renderings and prints, I started this thread because the 'clone' package seemed to be taking daz in a higher level character/texture product and I am completly interested in a package that is higher end. The EULA seemed so limiting that even hobbiests would have a problem complying with the EULA. I'm glad that AnnaMarie posted and commented, however the writing is in the EULA, and I don't take someones word for that they won't sue, someone wouldn't even way down the road. That's why EULA are important, they GIVE the buyer of a product their useage rights, hence my rights as an artist to use a specific product. "You know, I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. Are we all panicking and paranoid because we're not allowed to make weird, perverted pictures with this new AMG figure, and then sell them for huge amounts of money? I mean.... come on, people!" it's not about perversion, and the fuss is about not being able to use a bought product. Daz aparently 'gets it' since they are revising the EULA. I don't want to sell images of AMG, I want to sell my images, and if I use the 'clone' package, currently nobody can the way the EULA is written. THAT is what the fuss is about. Now, Daz and AMG have every right to do what they want, it's their product, but I have my right to voice my concerns and be direct about specifically what I want to do with the package. BTW which has not been addressed in any my posts yet. If I make a 50's calander with Vicki3 and sell it, the world is my oyster to play in no problems, but right now with the 'clone' package without using AMG name or even with the AMG name, I have to ask permission currently under the EULA. I'm rambling and ranting now, so I'll stop that. 'The Fuss' is real, and it is important to some, very important to my work, if it is not to yours, I'm glad for you but please do not bash on me for asking and stating my opinons and questions. Peace Out.

good point Red_Baron, that Britney morph was certainly more recognizeable as far as a resemblance comparison from ths on to the real AMG, as was the Angelina Jolie morph, and as for DAZ stuff goes who can possibly contest the perfect resemblence of Mike and Dan? THAT was a clone. ;) lol very well done, completely recognizeable ;) if Daz could do that then, why cant they do that now? Im with Gremalkyn in that this may have been a rushed product. and i only say that cuz i wubs DAZ and ive seen them do better, whereas the way they are marketing this, this should be their best product ever. Find me one person who thinks it is. I would thank that each product a merchant releases should be much better than the last. always progressing. always getting better. and certainly never rushing anything and sacrificing that quality and reputation. and i realy hate sayin poo about this product, because i always have such respect for DAZ and for that i know for a bloody fact this could have been a lot better.

I just wanted to be the 200 post....that's all SWAMP

.

'the images on Anna's site seem to be air-brushed. Especially the Playboy covers' And that surprises you? On average, it takes 2 weeks to shoot the playboy centerfold pic. They do innumerable tests before they decide who it will be, then they do several shoots, pick one nice shot and RESHOOT it.... then the computers boys start retouching.... And if you want a reason for all this hullaballoo over a cover, playboy has the highest advertising page rate in the US. That's BIG bucks. I know. I worked several times for playboy when I was an assistant photographer (and they're incredibly nice people). 'If I cannot use a bought product for doing my art and selling it using poser, I might as well just through out the computer and go back to oil painting' Yeah, but if you tried to promote a product using an oil painting of AMG, you would still likely be a target for a court case. One thing people in this forum don't seem to comprehend is that they don't have any more rights than the rest of the world. You pay $15 for a CD. That doesn't give you the right to sample the music and put out a disc of your own. So, if you pay $40 for a clone, should you have the right to modify it and make it sell your own product? I doubt it. We''re all so used to 'anonymous' creatures like posette, vicki, et al, and using them for anything under the sun, so maybe it comes as a shock to some of us to find that you can't do the same when you're dealing with a clone of someone who actually exists. Anyway, I'm all for open discussion and disagreement. It's healthy, and usually leads to enlightenment. And I do admire people for fighting for their rights to the bitter end. I just think that in this case, a human being's rights are slightly more important than poser art. mac

Two more things. There's an enormous amount of truth in the idea that this 'clone's' big selling point is that it's of a semi-known nude model. If it was some anonymous bimbo, no one would give a hoot. Secondly, I think there's a big case for DAZ to find some unknown nude model, do the full body scan, and put out a 'human clone' with no restrictions whatsoever. That would keep everyone happy..... maybe.... mac

I do not get the music CD analogy within this discussion. Poser Items that are bought for the most part you can modeify, put out new textures to clothing and sell renders of images that you do. That's the market as it is right now. you can't resell and item that you did not create I agree. my complaint all along with this EULA and 'clone' product is the selling of images that I create using the package. Just like I would V3, V2, Mike, another content providers Morph pack for one of those models. I can not think of any package that I have bought for use in poser that wouldn't let me use the product that I purchased in my images and let me NOT sell my images that I create. That is my contention, that this is different, and I'm not sure I understand so much WHY it is different. I understand that AMG sells her own image, her site is a pay site, she makes money off her image. WHERE does this put this product if I cannot sell an image that I create using it, that's what I'm getting at. if it's a hobbiest package and no resaleable renders fine, clearer understanding is what I'm getting at. I'm not trying to make money off AMG or her name, rather, making money off a art peice that I create using a texture and a morph that happens to be AMG, if you follow the distinction. I think it's new terratory that hasnt been explored much, new field. Another thing, the DAZ promo text SAYS... "Buy this figure and recreate all your favorite photos and calendars featuring Anna-Marie Goddard. Replace the actress in your latest projects with this replica human being to give them all a fresh new feel" Implying that I can make movies and and calanders and images, and I can sell them or do what ever, but the EULA specifically says that is not true. this distinction is where my hand goes up, I jump up and down, etc. haha. lot of posts keep asking why I would assume that I could make money off AMG's image with this package and I say, well, with all my other bought poser stuff I can, WHY and specifically is this going to be different. revised EULA will let me know I guess. goin out to smell the roses :)

Fair enough point, MC. The reselling of images of a clone is obviously something that's never been dealt with up until now. I'm not suggesting that everyone who buys AMG intends to somehow make money out of her. But it seems to me that as sar as she's concerned, it's the attachment of her name to the product that's offensive. But I agree that what she says in posts is not the law. The EULA is the 'law' at this point (always assuming it's enforcable). I reckon when DAZ approached her for this project and worked out the legal details, they weren't expecting such an uproar. Not good on their part. They should know the market by now. On the other hand, it's difficult to see who they could have gotten to do this with a less restrictive EULA. I still maintain that any public figure would have insisted on similar rights. Well, they're talking it over, so maybe something will change. Common sense would say something like 'You can't post or sell degrading images and tell people it's AMG' Um.... something like that. mac PS Kudos for having brought it up in the first place. To me, the biggest mistake DAZ made was not making this EULA extremely public information for anyone planning on buying it.

MachineClaw, I think what people are having a tough time understanding is that the largest problem with this product is the name Anna-Marie Goddard. You can make whatever image you want with the package and sell it wherever you like as long as you don't attach her name to the image in any way. The only potential wrinkle at that point is if the image you create looks so much like the real Anna-Marie that everyone would know it is her, and the image is in some way objectionable, you might have an issue. So... As long as you don't use her name and the image is not easily identifiable as her (and several people here are suggesting that even out of the box it doesn't look so much like her anyway), you're fine to do whatever you like with the product and even sell the images you create. It's all about the name. Frank

Sorry illusions, you are correct. I based my comments on my faith that DAZ is staying true to their word and updating the EULA. I totally understand people holding off on this until the EULA has been officially updated. Once that happens, however, I believe my comments will be accurate. Frank

I bought her and I don't give a flying **** about the EULA. If I make an image (non-porn because I don't do porn) using her and someone wants to buy it, guess what? I'm selling it. And I do have clients who I do renders for which are published in magazine and newspaper ads. I just won't use the name "Anna-Marie Goddard" on them. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And for christ sake stop whining about it! Someone really needs to hand out the chill pills around here shakes head And my judgement isn't being clouded by the arrival of a Playboy centerfold. Until this thread I had no idea who AMG was, and as much as I have respect for another individual, I really don't care who she is now.

"If I make an image (non-porn because I don't do porn) using her and someone wants to buy it, guess what? I'm selling it. And I do have clients who I do renders for which are published in magazine and newspaper ads." you cant. thats exactly my point, and the point others are trying to make here. "If you don't like it, don't buy it. And for christ sake stop whining about it!" if you took a minute to read the EULA thoroughly you would understand that youre sadly mistaken and you might start 'whining' about it as well.

Attached Link: http://www.daz3d.com

After talking further with Anna-Marie, the End User License Agreement has been revised to put in much more precise terms exactly what type of work requires written consent and what does not. Because Ms. Goddard has been so cooperative and willing to work with this community, we have now rewritten the new EULA included with this product (the new installers will be uploaded sometime this evening I'm told).

The further clarification of this EULA means that the only restriction attached to this product is the use of Anna-Marie Goddard's name itself. Anything that is commercial in nature or is used as an endorsement of any type CANNOT include Ms. Goddard's name without her written permission. Likewise, any pornographic or otherwise degrading and/or demeaning material created using this product, along with her name, cannot be distributed without her written permission as well.

If you are uncertain as to which side of the line your work falls, please feel free to contact her directly (her contact information can be found via her website www.annamariegoddard.com). She has told us she is quite willing to handle all such inquiries.

Thank you, Anna-Marie, for being willing to work with this community. And thank you, everyone, for listening to her and respecting her decisions.

Steve Kondris
DAZ Productions, Inc.

there we go, problem solved. thanks for listening :)

Steve thanks, and thanks to Anna-Marie for dealing in the unknown.

;) whew.

Well, thank goodness that's sorted out. So the name was the main problem. Oh well.... what can we argue about now? LOL. Illusions, I stand corrected on the public-ness of the EULA. I was going by comments earlier in this thread from people who seemed to have been surprised when they read it AFTER purchase. mac

God bless us every one, especially AMG. Now, roast goose and figgy pudding for everyone. - Tiny Tim Note: Goose provided by E. Scrooge, Esq. PC. All Rights Reserved. Any representation of Mr. Scrooge as a miser, skinflint or coldhearted chisler are strictly prohibited. No physically challenged children were harmed in the making of this feast. Please drink responsibly. Merry Christmas!

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

LOL...Imckenzie...you know I re-read this entire thread and a couple of times I came across comments regarding some of us as being cry babies or complainers.....(maybe not those words but you get my drift) and I am sorry, but I think this was a very important thread....if I for one had not complained and a few others with good points do you think they would have taken note and changed the EULA? Not that I am complaining now....it is just I feel this was a real important step that needed to be addressed. Sharen

if i created a morph and texture that looked exactly like you, and put it in freestuff tomorrow, theres nothing on earth that you could do about it... even if i named it 'anna-marie'. you cannot copyright a 'likeness' or the way a person looks, nor a common firstname - therefore it makes the entire license issue laughable.>> move to Germany. do a clone of Michael Schumacher, the racecar driver. Call it that. you'll be called by his lawyers in no time. You know why. He didn't put a copyright on his name. He has it trademarked... Anna-Marie could very likely sue with trademark laws too, but she seems a nice person and its unlikely she'd go after anyone that's not causing her any harm (unlike Michael Schumacher, who sues everyone under the sunshine and keeps an army of lawyers in business over here) just clarifying here, that the name usage EULA has to do with trademark and not copyright better to stay on the right side of the trademark laws, it can be VERY expensive if you do not...

"you'll be called by his lawyers in no time. You know why. He didn't put a copyright on his name. He has it trademarked... " i didnt say name it 'Anna-Marie Goddard, i said id name it anna-marie. you may be able to trademark a name in reference to auto racing, or playboy centrefolds, but you sure as hell cannot trademark a common given name. there are probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of anna-maries around the world. with your reasoning i could go and have the name 'Bob' trademarked... then run around suing all of the 'Bob's Diners', 'Bob's Automotive Repair', and other bob businesses, and even people named Bob in the world. id make a fortune. and you cannot copyright the look of a person, or their 'body style'. just as there are many people with the name anna-marie, or michael in the world, there are many people that LOOK a certain way. just because i have brown eyes doesnt mean i can sue everyone who creates a brown-eyed character in the marketplace. or just because im 6'1", doesnt mean that anyone who creates a character and states that height in the description must answer to my lawyers. yes, it may be named anna-marie, and it may look like her, but i could have created the morph after a woman i saw on the subway the other day, and named it after my great aunt anna-marie. however if i created a morph/texture that looked like her, and advertised it as 'Anna-Marie Goddard, Playmate of the Year' or whatever (i dont keep up-to-date with these things), then shed definitely have a case. i dont want to rehash this argument again - daz fixed it, the EULA is perfectly acceptable now, everyones happy - the customers, daz, anna-marie... but i will say that one of the most disturbing and rediculous parts of the old EULA was 'combined with the body shape of anna-marie'... umm, yeah. good luck trademarking/copyrighting a body type. no offense, but AMG isnt that unique - there is only a limited number of ways a woman's body can look and there are millions of women around the world that look just like that.

DAZ Said: I don't know of anyone famous that would go for a project like this without taking such steps I do, and she's a Suicide Girl. I'll talk to her. B^)

nooooooooOOOOoo!! this thread must die die die DIE! im still getting email notifications for it almost a month later :(