Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 07 11:07 am)
Subject: Considering Work on a DAZ Figure? See this first...
Any way you cut it, there are many more figures out there besides the DAZ figures. Dacort's Natalia and Dina. Don and Judy (love em or hate em, hard facts are that Posette and Dork weren't all that beloved, until Traveler and Syyd waved the morph and texture wand over them. Similar treatment could easily breathe new life into P5's kiddies). All the toon characters. All it takes is a couple of pioneers to prove that there -are- sales there to be had, and others will follow. As for the clothing issue, screw it. P5 and P6 does dynamic cloth simulation. Not only does that get around the issue of JP's but one mesh can be scaled to fit a large variety of figures, making it considerably easier to offer a clothing set that has a truly global use. But again, it's going to take that first couple of success stories...
ehh.. looking back ive probably been a little harsh on daz - even though they have just as oppressive an EULA they flipped on CL for they apparently havent enforced it yet and i am acting like they do so regularly. chalk it up to a knee-jerk reaction due to too much caffeine today, i suppose. my sincere apologies for going off the deep end.
'but if they never intend to enforce them, then why not make a friendlier EULA?' I have a theory about that. Have you ever met a friendly lawyer? I figure that half of that stuff is put in at the insistence of legal-eagles using CYA policies. They never want to take the rap for anything that goes wrong, so they 'advise' companies to put in all sorts of 'just in case' BS. Just a theory, of course. mac
Plastic explosive!
IHMO what a fascinating combination of smoke and fire this thread has been. I have been wanting to post some nonsense but held my fire until this cooler person popped in and clarified things as usual.
What does it say about the Poser Community that the subject of intellectual propery rights seems to be the most interesting thing you can post about on this forum (easily beating out t*ts and *ss, it seems)? I don't know.
Also IMHO the second best post has been XENOPHONZ, "I'm looking forward to enjoying P6." A glad-heartening note in a conglomeration of ill-informed (as it turns out) but nonetheless interesting opinions. XENO, I await P6 Day like Ralphy did Christmas when he was sure he was getting the BB gun!
And when, on that day, I studiously read the whole P6 EULA with a magnifying glass, I just hope it doesn't say, "... by clicking on that box you agreed that you do not, never have, and never will use in this software program female models with ugly ankles under penalty of death."
What would I do with V3 then? And if I decide to make a product (like clothes) for the new P6 figures, I hope I won't have to call CL and ask permission (as it is said that I have to contact DAZ for their go-ahead). Just like if I want to make a dune-buggy out of an old VW (and sell it), I do not have to call Deutschland and ask somebody there for permission.
Legalese aside, it seems to me that everything we all make (from DAZ and CL to the lowliest of the lowly, such as myself) is derivative (in the true sense of the word). Neither DAZ nor CL invented 3D modeling. When DAZ finishes a new product, do they call Descartes and ask him if it's ok to use his spatial coord system? No, because Descartes lived long before the age of too many lawyers.
to quote : "To Sixus1 Users and the Poser Community at large, It was recently brought to our attention that by releasing Lilin2 with joint parameters and uv's compatible to those of V3 is in fact in conflict with certain aspects of the Daz EULA agreed upon with purchase or download of the Victoria figure. Based on our interpretation of the EULA previously, we at Sixus1 Media were not aware that the features built into Lilin would constitute any infringments. Please note that the model itself is not considered to be in violation of any copyright or agreement and no copyright infringment has taken place, only a conflict and misinterpretation of the intent and implimentation of the Daz EULA by Sixus1 Media. Obviously, this situation presented a great concern to us, thus a dialogue was opened with Daz through which we might gain clarification of the EULA points that were misinterpreted. After some discussion of the situation between myself and representatives from Daz in which many different options were considered, a compromise was not reached that would satisfy the interests of both parties in which L2 could remain in distribution. We had initially come to an agreement in which Lilin L2V3 would be RTencoded and require V3 to present in the user's runtime to unlock the files (Note: the subject of RTEncoding the figure was considered only as a means of "locking" the figure. NO PART OF V3 WAS USED IN THE MESH OF LILIN.). Then on further discussion with DAZ some understandings we thought had been reached were brought back into question, thus our deicision to pull the figure rather than fight a legal battle that would deplete both time and resources for a figure that we did not and would not make direct profit from. It is important to note that the EULA from Daz aparently does, after having it clarified by both thier staff and our legal council, grant them a great many rights over works that support or are compatible with thier figures. It was our assumption that building a figure that is compatible with another figure on many levels did not constitute any issue with the holder of said figures, and that it fell under the same kind of allowances as are common for clothing, character modifications and other types of add ons that are commonly produced. It was in this interpretation that our error was made and it is my hope that from the situation having arisen in the case of Lilin 2, the clarification gained from this instance will serve to prevent others from making this same mistake in the future. For the record, I would like to make it known that correspondence between Sixus1 Media and Daz representatives has been both cordial as both sides attempted to reach an amicable arrangment. I would personally like to thank Eric and Chad for thier professionalism and courtesy as we dealt with this matter. I am sure that many questions will be posed regarding what exactly all this means which Rebekah and I will be more than happy to answer in this thread. As many of you know, future installments of Project: Human figures had originally been slated for unimesh compatibility, however due to the situation with Lilin 2 we have decided to alter our plans for Project:Human on many levels. We at Sixus1 Media feel that it is best that we do not continue our plans for unimesh compatiblity in future releases. We prefer to maintain a very streamlined environment, both in production and administration, and offering unimesh compatibility, as we have found in the case of Lilin2, is an endeavor that offers up numerous issues that we would prefer to avoid altogether. The entire reason any unimesh compatibility was ever planned or developed was to fulfill the desires voiced by many, many users. While I understand many of you will find some disappointment in our decision to drop this compatibilty from our plans, I hope that you will all understand our reasons and support the future of Project: Human nonetheless. It was our intention to bring the 2nd generation Project:Human figures into the realm of compatibility before unveiling the 3rd generation figures. Both 2nd and 3rd gen P:H figures were intended for simultaneous circulation. However, as plans for unimesh compatiblity are now being scrapped, we are now planning an earlier release for the 3rd gen figures. With that release will also come a major change and evolution in the nature of Project:Human in the form of the Open Source Figure Lisence (OSFL). Details on the lisence will be released later next week along with the release schedule for the 3rd generation of Project:Human figures. Just to reiterate, the model itself poses no violation as it is 100% original. It was an error on our part to build it with UV's, joint parameters and "fit" morphs to allow it to accept V3 textures and clothing without first contacting Daz for thier permission. -Les Garner" now why did Les pull L2? read this line again : "t is important to note that the EULA from Daz aparently does, after having it clarified by both thier staff and our legal council, grant them a great many rights over works that support or are compatible with thier figures. " now, to answer Pengy and cooler - the EULA gives Daz the rights to affect the mesh and how it is further developed. A mesh which does not belong to Daz. think on that. Les pulled L2 rather than loose control of his work to another firm. fair enough I say.
"now why did Les pull L2?... Les pulled L2 rather than loose control of his work to another firm."
There are some things I still don't understand.
The joint parameters, falloff zones, ect weren't just "kinda close" or "almost the same". Every joint that was checked was an EXACT duplicate... as in copied, out to 3 decimal points. cooler
...well so what if the skinned figure is that close? If it's original mesh, and supposed to wear Vicky's clothes wouldn't it have to be that close? Movida
ehh.. the whole thing is a complicated mess if you ask me. i feel... uncomfortable just having made clothing for daz models now. like i dont even own my own work. reading les' eloquent statement i definitely see things from his perspective as well - it can all be very confusing. i just dont understand this huge mess were in. perhaps i need to start working on my own mesh and that way i can just do what the hell i want without having to worry whose legal tentacles i may be stepping on. its daunting to say the least.. makes you want to go back to just making run-of-the-mill caucasian vicky textures like everyone else.. but then again those arent safe either, huh? if anyone from daz is reading this: how about creating a fair EULA for your products - in english - that actually encourages content-creators to work with your products rather than terrifying them. original mesh creators: let this be a lesson, i suppose. be nice with your EULAs and more merchants will be inclined to create add-ons. after this im pretty sure all of them will be putting your EULA under the microscope. cheers, -gabriel
OK ..
Each major Poser figure is shaped differently. And because they are shaped differently, each of them has different joint parameters. The joint parameters define a joint's center of rotation, how it behaves when it bends, twists, or rotates, and what parts of the joint stay stationary, what parts bend, and what parts blend between the two.
Basically, the reason that one set of clothing doesn't usually fit another character is because the joint parameters are different. So, in order for Vicky clothing to be 100% compatible with a model, the model has to have the same basic shape and the very same joint parameters. That way, the clothing will fit the same when you pose it.
Sixus thought he was OK by creating an original mesh ... but as you can see from the above pic, the V3-compatible version was indeed remarkably similar in appearance to V3.
Hope that makes sense.
Message edited on: 03/18/2005 19:58
Despite this cooler person's post, I'm inclined to agree with the statements earlier that this is a contractual issue. Trademarks involved in it make things considerably more difficult to deal with, but they wouldn't cover the program settings. The program settings (these jp's and whatnot) are, according to the intellectual property attorneys I have spoken with, not covered under copyright. The morfs and mesh are covered as software, the textures are covered as images, and the trademark will cover the likeness (which, in this case, they all agreed, after seeing this cooler's post, that trademark infringment is highly likely and all of them would have pursued it as an actionable item). However, all of them deferred me to a contract law specialist who works on copyright cases frequently and downplays that role here, because the Eula takes precedence over everything else. It comes first, foremost, and separately. The person they referred me to is the one that says the Eula, by itself, would stop this so long as the information in the original file is used in the new one. Therefore, based on the above information, it appears at this point that a possible breach of contract and possible trademark infringment have occurred in the creation of this specific character. That is a rather interesting situation to be in, and I, for one, do not find any fault at all in the manner in which it was handled by the parties involved directly. Outside of them, however, I will reserve judgement and mock accordingly.
Damn, Rendo timeout thing again. Firstly, let me clarify something. Nowhere have I stated that DAZ were doing something legally underhanded or that they forced Sixus1 to remove L2. Assuming, however that what both sides are currently saying is true - it would appear that the "terms" under which the continued distribution would be allowed were too confining for Sixus1 Media. Like myself, they probably looked at the cards on the table and said that it wasn't worth it. Anyone who is shocked and awed by cooler's post should really think about what was offered in the Lilin2 figure... V3-compatibility. So the similar shape, and copied JP's are kinda required. I has assumed that the JP's might have been tweaked a little for the slightly different default shape, but can understand why they were left as is. The fact that they were copied is not something I argued. Hell, niether did Sixus1 Media! I respect cooler's work, and have always liked the fact that he explained copyright issues in "laymen's terms". However, due to the fact that I started this thread for the purpose of informing others of the EULA restrictions, I feel it is a distraction from the main issue shrug Now we've had several people comment on the advice they have recieved from legal professionals, and note the fact that not one has disagreed with my hypothesis that one cannot legally create & distribute "derivative" products (such as clothing content). The only "official" post to the contrary was in the link to a PoserPros forum post by DAZ ini regards to their "intentions". As my legal counsel hass informed me, intentions mean nothing - what would matter in a court of law (should it ever get to that stage) is the EULA we agree to when installing V3. And, as it stands, it does not allow any part of the "3D model" the be distributed, given actions undertaken by DAZ both in this regard and others recent enough in memory for me to point to the merchant's in question - this includes the Joint Parameters. If I have spread misinformation of any kind - please point it out and I will be sure to retract said statements & apologise to all concerned. Until then, I will stand by the advice I have recieved in this matter, and that is to not attempt the distribution &/or sale of any products that contain information stored within the DAZ figures.
Eternl_Knight With all due respect you're not spreading misinformation but rather the information you're providing is incomplete. The DAZ EULA, or any EULA for that matter, is written for two purposes. To protect the product & inform the end user what they can & cannot do with it. In the case of DAZ, it's not intended to be a guide for merchants and free content providers. If it were supposed to fulfill that purpose it would have to be far more expansive, detailed, & confusing to the vast majority of customers, most of whom do not provide any add on content. DAZ does, however, provide such a guide in their FAQ pages. Do you suppose that we would even be having this discussion if Sixus1 had bothered to read.... "However, as always, the content of DAZ's CR2 (and other) files remains our proprietary data, and the use of this data in the creation of derivative, competitive products is prohibited. In the case of our human figures this means that the CR2 data may be freely used for the purpose of creating figure add-ons (such as clothing, etc.), but may not be used for the purpose of creating another humanoid figure, which could compete with the original. Please note that Geometry contained in the OBJ files may not be used to create any derivative model, add-on or otherwise." http://www.daz3d.com/support/faq/index.php?id=19
Cooler then how do you explain other figures able to accept V3 and V2 maps that are not rte-encoded? as to "DAZ does, however, provide such a guide in their FAQ pages. Do you suppose that we would even be having this discussion if Sixus1 had bothered to read...." leave the insulting tone at home please. a mistake was made. it has been dealt with and you being insulting does not help anything. I would expect your next post to apologise and show more professionalism.
That V3 and M3 EULA can only be found after installing the figures? Why would anyone want to attach themselves to a cart full of explosives just because the driver seemed like a nice fellow? It may be moving in the wrong direction. It may be moving towards an unseen cliff. It may hit a bump in the road and go boom. Maybe you are sitting high and comfy in the cart and not walking along the road, but not everyone wants a free ride. Carolly
Given: Daz has a right to their property.
Given: there is no COERCIVE monopoly here, no law compelling anyone to use DAZ intellectual property
Given: notheless, DAZ has a huge following (a de facto monopoly), acheived by marketing, confidence (mentioned above), professionalism, and because they tapped into a certain 'look' which makes people go mad. Plus, much as I despise V3/M3 more than Blackhearted, if that is possible, there are a few good things about the models.
Given: to fight this with a non-Daz-owned mesh/JP system that nonethless would 'take' Vicki textures and conforming clothing is a loser because: 1) DAZ would take legal action if the model took off sufficiently to be a threat and 2) the model would look/bend like V. WTF is the point of that? The only point would be to 'scoop' into a market forged fair and square by DAZ. Proposed: decline that temptation.
Alternate: win a new market fair and square, and attract away a good amount of the Vicki steamroller. How?
It's early days, as they say in England, but what if the mesh of Jessi is teriffic. What if the default morphs give the user power, real power. What if Jessi can be sculpted, body and face, with the included morphs, into something that will make the V-addicted market 'emotionally erect?' (Thanks steve martin.) What if you can get Pamela Sue Jessi? Posermatic took Judy+EJ and made Nikki, for heaven's sake. We could get NakedJessiInATempleWithASword and make V really mad. (please note: I would not personally participate in this last, I will be making my slim dancers and verismo characters outta J/J)
There is still the catch-22 noted above....vendors won't support with "porting" of clothing/textures because 'will this catch on enough to justify?' while sales of Poser6 will be slow because there are not enough add-ons. This is the Gordian Knot that must be broken.
Does anyone know if Jessi/James are STRICTLY P6? What if they can live in PPP? 3Dream gives perfect instructions to those owning licenses to both P5 AND P4 how to go get poser5woman.obj out of your P5 folder and put her in your P4 runtime and off you go! What if CL made J/J object files avail for a small fee to licensed P4/5 owners?
Vendors: would you port and or create new if you were sure there were no problem with contract/copyright violation attack from DAZ and you saw J/J start to gain momentum?
Key strategic points:
- Daz cannot legally protect the sex-look that currently opens wallets.
- Daz's prices are too high
- J/J are free
- J/J ARE Poser.
::::: Opera ::::
Message edited on: 03/18/2005 23:27
While it's true that Jessi and James look promising -- I wouldn't crown them with victory laurels just yet. They haven't danced for us. Once they do, then we'll have a better idea. In the meantime -- V3/M3 are proven properties. I don't intend to give V3 up any time soon. I'm far too heavily invested in her for that to happen.
Cooler, With all due respect, there are several fallacies with your statement. First, a merchant is an end-user. As one cannot download a "development" edition of a V3 download separately from the "normal end user" edition - both users agree to the same contract. To provide a clear couterpoint to your argument, the Poser 5 EULA explicitly states what can and cannot be done with the "Restrictied Content" that comes as part of the application. Their doesn't appear confusing to me, and plenty of people who are not merchants or content developers have agreed to that. Hell, this exact problem is due (from what I can see) to an inconsistency between what the EULA states and public action taken by DAZ. Second, while that quote is most definitely on the DAZ webpage, it is under the question title "How do I distribute add-on products for products that use INJ/REM pose files?" (I only found it by copy/pasting the first line into Google). As this is obviously NOT what the Lilin2 product was about (it is not an INJ/REM add-on product), it is reasonable to assume that Sixus1 Media would NOT have read it. Last but not least (and this is the one that affects ME directly), the FAQ page is not legally binding. If you have legal training (as I am led to believe you have by others), you know this as well as I. To me it does not matter whether or not you have said legal training, did or didn't know this, or are part of a grand conspiracy to rule the Poser marketplace (to go off the deep end). The fact remains, what really counts for us merchants is whether we can legally use said joint parameter data in our add-on products. Alot of Poser merchants cannot afford legal counsel, I can. And what they tell me is that until those "clarifications" of DAZ are actually reflected in a contract (the EULA or a legally binding addendum sent to the end-user), they mean nothing. Sorry to say cooler, regardless of past experience - this "clarification" of yours falls short of the mark. DAZ may not currently "intend" to sue add-on merchants for the use of their JP's. However, I cannot trust any company (be it DAZ, Sixus1 Media, or Walmart) to not consider every weapon at their disposal in eliminating competition. Currently the EULA is one such weapon. I am willing to be corrected, but until I see "legally binding" clarifications - I'm sticking to what keeps me safe: staying on the right side of the EULA as written and letting others who might not have the same access to legal counsel know why.
And, further, in the spirit of the Infinite Sum Game, if anyone CAN create models that indeed do not violate the property rights of DAZ but DO take the Vicki textures/clothes, more power to them, whether it be Sixus or any other vendor who takes PhilC's royalty-free mesh or Masha from TurboSquid and figures out some way to make her take the vast V3 texture and clothing libraries. But that is playing on the edge, or in a house of C-4 as noted above. ::::: Opera :::::
And.....THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME! It can be a matter of The Big 3D Expanding Universe.
Yep.
A universe that includes as many figures as the market can stand.
Which, I suspect, is actually quite a few.
The more variety, the better.
And anyway....it is a dubious assertion to imply that Vicki can dance.
Oh......she can do that, alright. Among other things.
Barbie's come a long way. Even Electronic Barbie.
But that is playing on the edge, or in a house of C-4 as noted above.
I've heard of glass houses. In fact, someone has posted one for sale in the marketplace......
But I have to admit that that the imagery of a "C4 house" is a new one on me.
That V3 and M3 EULA can only be found after installing the figures? ReadMes are available in a folder at the .sit/.exe first level, before you actually use the Installer to place the item in the program. When you actually click on the 2nd installer the "Agreement" pops up which suppossedly people read before saying 'yes" and then it actually installs the stuff to whatever folder you choose.
Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
Cooler the Faq page is not part of the EULA. sorry. the EULA has been looked at by legal experts and what you've quoted is wrong. I don't know where you are getting your facts from, but several legal experts agree on one meaning and you are the only person to say otherwise. and that includes Daz themselves saying the same as the legal experts!
Extract: "Last but not least (and this is the one that affects ME directly), the FAQ page is not legally binding." Comment: After reading this, I contacted my contract law person, and she was quite specific, pointing to established case law and Federal and Utah court rulings and established that yes, indeed, those FAQs are legally binding, and it is quite apparent they are intended to be so. It is not part of the EULA, true, but that does not make them any less binding. Statements of position on contractual clauses are admissible and arguable in favor of either party in civil cases. Especially in Utah. Indeed, even now, the AG's of both Utah and Arizona are working together using specifics such as this to sieze a trust believed to be mismanaged. She was guessing, however, as to the jurisdiction, not having a copy of the EULA readily available to reference the jurisdiction for it. In short, you are wrong on this point. ANd experts you have spoken to need to familiarize themselves with the laws of the locality of jurisdiction -- laws which are not uniform across the U.S. Furthermore, you seem to have read more into cooler's statement than is present. Nowhere in it does this person imply or state that merchants are not end users. Indeed, as such, they are equally tapped. Cooler does not make a distinction between the groups, and, indeed, goes to extra lengths to establish that there is not one. Extract: "Cooler then how do you explain other figures able to accept V3 and V2 maps that are not rte-encoded?" Comment: Answered well before the question was asked. Extract: "Anyone who is shocked and awed by cooler's post should really think about what was offered in the Lilin2 figure... V3-compatibility. So the similar shape, and copied JP's are kinda required." Comment: Given that, apparently, the figure is trademarked, that similar a shape as indicated in the post is a breech. Trademark, as I am constantly reminded, is a separate area from copyright with much tighter restrictions and tougher tests. I did not find it distracting, either -- the thread drift was consistently leaning into the area of IP issues, and that puts them to rest quickly. Extract: "note the fact that not one has disagreed with my hypothesis that one cannot legally create & distribute "derivative" products (such as clothing content)." Comment: Incorrect. It was specifically pointed out earlier that the license terms have a hole, and that hole is intentional. Clothing can be made from a figure. Figures can be made from clothing. The license is very specific about like content for the type of content it is. Clothing cannot be made from clothing. Figures cannot be made from figures. That would not agree directly with your assertion. Sit back for a bit, as well, and take a couple deep breaths. This company, to my jaundiced and out of the mainstream eye has enjoyed great success not because the figure is free, and not because the figure is particularly compelling, but because the people who have purchased it have made additional materials for it. That is the only reason this character continues to succeed -- the goods that make people the most interested are available only for it. Therefore, by ceasing to complain about a license that cannot be changed retroactively, and is highly unlikely to be changed in the future to any degree except perhaps to be more limiting, and putting this effort into the creation of a separate product, and providing the same support for that product achieved by the current one, you will achieve your ends in a better manner than this one. If everyone made their own figures, they would be reduced to the level of commodity within the community, and dilute the effective dominance of the present one. Unless, of course, you have additional motivations beyond changing the terms of EULA. Perhaps you are attempting to build interest and support for this new P6 figure you mention. Unlikely, granted, but something to consider. Lastly: Extract: "The fact remains, what really counts for us merchants is whether we can legally use said joint parameter data in our add-on products." Comment: Under the terms of the EULA: Yes, if the product is not competitive with the source of those JPs (i.e. Clothing from a figure CR2). No, if the product is competitive with the source of those JPs (a figure from a figure cr2). Has anyone ever noticed that we never really miss having leap day?
Actually Eternl_Knight the Eula/licensing info isn't that hard to find. Click on the Support button on the bar on every Daz page. It drops down and then click FAQ. At the left you now see "Licensing". Click on it. Here are the FAQs I saw- What can I use DAZ products for legally? What is DAZ's End User License Agreement (EULA)? Is it legal to distribute a derivative of a DAZ model? What are the legal issues in distributing Victoria 3 products? What files can I legally distribute? How do I distribute add-on products for products that use INJ/REM pose files? Is it legal to distribute the Millennium Girls CR2? What are the legal issues in distributing Vic/Mike 2.0 products? What is Daz3d's Stance on the Distribution of CR2 Files? What is DAZ3d's stance on the distribution of derivative models?
Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
"Extract: "Cooler then how do you explain other figures able to accept V3 and V2 maps that are not rte-encoded?" Comment: Answered well before the question was asked." Where? please quote, since I ahve read this thread back to front and not found that information. also - "Comment: After reading this, I contacted my contract law person, and she was quite specific, pointing to established case law and Federal and Utah court rulings and established that yes, indeed, those FAQs are legally binding, and it is quite apparent they are intended to be so. It is not part of the EULA, true, but that does not make them any less binding" causes a false representation since this information is NOT present in the EULA as the user is presented with it and has to be specically searched out by the said user. if it to be legally binding should it not actually be IN the EULA that the user is presented with and not in a totally seperate location of which the user is not actually informed about? eg : nowhere in the EULA is a statement like "This Document is not complete, please refer to http:daz3d.comFaqEULAddons.HTML" sorry there is a strong case there of misrepresentation!
"Plus, much as I despise V3/M3 more than Blackhearted, if that is possible" i wouldnt so much say that i despise V3 (i havent installed M3 yet so i cant say anything about it either way), more like i despise the fact that 99% of the marketplace is modelled for V3's default body shape - which i think is so unnatural it borders on the inhuman. as merchants we are pretty much 'locked in' to modeling clothing with V3's default body as a base, and i think that considering the entire marketplace revolves around it some more time could have been spent on giving it a more natural and appealing shape. seeing people model corsets for her default body shape makes me want to cry.
Sorry to characterize your position, that was out of bounds....DaleB makes a good point above that if dynamic clothing gains purchase, significantly morphed bodies from the unimesh or from J/J will have no problems because merchants will be able to create, substantially, a one-size-drapes-over-all scenario, obviating both any worries over trademark/EULA violation AND the "support the default V3 Body Shape Only" syndrome. And a nod to you, who didn't just get mad...you got even and she's quite fine! ::::: Opera :::::
Last one for the night as it is getting late for me, and I have a family to spend time with :) As for the clarification & correction from jcbwms, I have forwarded said information to my legal counsel an expect a reply from them sometime tomorrow (hopefully). I may have misunderstood / mischaracterised her words as she mentioned the fact that "clarification" was possible, but "redefining" the terms was not. I beleive this is redefining the terms given the fact that the EULA states that NO distribution of the 3D model or part thereof is possible. If I am wrong, I will apologise as soon as she get's back to me. As for a "Poser 6" agenda - laugh I WISH I had a stake in the success of P6. Unfortunately, I'm an unknown and it is beyond reason to even think CL even knows of my existence as an artist! An amusing thing about the "legal hole" you state exists is that one could create clothing for V3 using her JP's. Sell that and a third-party could create a compatible figure from that. This doesn't sound right to me... However, I could be misunderstanding the line about "Clothing from figure, figure from clothing". The thought of taking a breather is a good one. I tend to get really narked when people do the "With all due respect..." thing. What it means in 99% of cases is that the other person thinks you're an idiot, wants you to know that, but won't actually say it straight up.
23, I believe. However, I'm told you have a history with the poster, so it may have escaped your view. And no, from what I've been told. It does not have to be in the EULA to be legally binding. However, to make it so, one would have to use the courts, and present it as evidence of interpretation. Nor does presence or lack thereof in the EULA make them any less binding. The legal hole was not noted by me, originally -- but by someone else earlier in the thread. Study of the Eula reveals that limitation, and based on the supporting FAQs, that makes it appear to be intentional. As far as the rest of it, well, apply a simple rule to forum posts and they suddenly cease to be something that gets your blood boiling, and it allows you to be much more mocking overall (mocking being my favorite sport). Not an easy thing to do when you first start, but after a month it is very relaxing, even. Take everything at face value. At face value, "with all due respect" means exactly that. If they are thinking you an idiot, their words in reply will always damn them down the road.
Attached Link: http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=16133&sid=4a26a22c5b4453c3da457bdcb12b8493
WARNING. Long winded post.Sometimes peoples agenda's are not always clear. Cooler's agenda is crystal clear. He has been the biggest proponent in this community to protect artist and developer rights than anyone I know (not just for DAZ). He is personally responsible for removing hundreds, if not thousands of illegal wares copies of Poser, and Poser-ready content from websites around the world. He has done this voluntarily for years. Wares kitties and copyright infringer's hate him and artists love and appreciate his efforts. Please re-consider attacking him personally and re-direct your frustrations at me in behalf of DAZ. After all that he has done for the artists in this community he surely does not deserve it.
My agenda is also clear and that is that I am a part of DAZ. I use my real name and don't post things under an alias (although admittedly I have been tempted at times). I have been involved in the content development for Poser from its very inception. I was the one (representing Zygote) who first proposed to Fractal Design the idea of creating an add-on model product for Poser. That product ended up being Parts and Props for Poser 2.0. My business partner, Chris Creek is the one who did the majority of the modeling for the Poser 3 and Poser 4 figures human figures. It was he and I who feeling that we were unable to grow our development in this community sufficiently under the Zygote umbrella who proposed spinning off DAZ. This is not a hobby for us but our very lives and livelihoods are completely intertwined within it. I believe that we have as much at stake in the community as anyone. DAZ has literally invested all of it's resources into development for this community. We may not be the owners of Poser but that doesn't mean that we are any less concerned about the growth and success of this community than anyone.
I mention the above so that you know exactly where I am coming from and what my agenda is. Victoria is DAZ's most valuable 3D model. We have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in her development and marketing. She is our flagship and likely the key to our success or failure as a content company. So if we have a license agreement that protects her from being copied and used in competition against us is that such a bad or draconian thing? Should we not retain the right to protect against that without being publicly slammed by some of you? I believe that anyone else in our position would have done exactly the same thing.
We did not go after and try to damage Sixus1 for their mistake. We simply asked them to encode the model to Victoria 3 (which is available for free from DAZ). Our purpose for this is to let people would know the model from which their model was partly derived from. We also did this to hopefully prevent others from unknowingly making a similar mistake. We did not ask or encourage them to remove the model and in fact tried to encourage them to keep it up. They pulled it for their own reasons.
If artists and developers don't have the right to protect original works, then what incentive is there to continue developing. What is our incentive to continue to put significant resources into future developments if we will be slammed for trying to protect those developments.
We are currently developing Victoria 3 Pro (working title). We have spent thousands of dollars hiring live professional models (of different body shapes) that were scanned and photographed to provide real human shape and texture information. We have spent thousands of dollars to use the scanning facility to get that true to life human shapes (not artistic representations but actual human shapes). We have invested thousands of dollars in payroll for artists to work with those shapes to provide Realshape morph targets. This is a very demanding and tedious project and it continues to go on. Without the knowledge that we have legal (and moral) right to protect those efforts we would have no incentive to continue to innovate.
We hope that developers (whether at DAZ or elsewhere) will support this new project. As always, we will retain our current position of encouraging development for this figure. We recognize that the success of failure of this new figure lies heavily on the support of outside developers. Any developer that may have concerns as to how they can legally develop for this or any other DAZ models may contact us directly and we will gladly put in writing for them what we have put in writing on our website (and in several forum posts before now).
I hope that some of you may better understand our position. I don't expect everyone to categorically agree with it, but I do hope you will try to understand it. I am hopefully going to go to bed now but will try to check back again tomorrow. I do want to personally thank those who have supported and developed for Victoria, or any other DAZ products. We realize your contribution in the success of DAZ and our products.
Sincerely,
Dan Farr
President, DAZ Productions.
P.S. Attached is a link to a post on the DAZ forum that addresses some more related copyright issues.
I just don't see any reason for all the controversy here. Victoria 3 is free, so anyone can get her. DAZ isn't trying to squash Lilin2. DAZ requested Sixus use RTEncoder to require that the user have Vicky 3, a free character, to make Lilin2 work. That's reasonable, since no one needs to pay any money for Vicky 3.
Julialynn,
Thank you for asking. Absolutely feel free to continue using her as you have before. The concern that we have had was with the distribution of the model and not the personal use of it. And if others would like to use it to and don't have it, maybe they could appeal to Sixus1 to distribute an RTE encoded version.
Constantine 1234. I appreciate your understanding and support of our position on this. It really means a lot to me and DAZ. I hope others will feel the same way too. The fact that she is free only makes it easier to find a reasonable resolution. Also by the fact that she is free, it doesn't mean that she is any less valuable to DAZ.
Warning. Another long-winded note is coming.
I am surprised that there has not been a lot of replies to the post that I made yet. Either everybody had either gone to bed before reading it or it put a lot of people to sleep :) I just got 3 good hours of sleep in so I am ready to go again (not). I really don't feel that this has to be turned into such a negative situation for anyone.
I wanted to put the shoe on the other foot with an example. CL has the much anticipated release of Poser 6 on Monday. Poser 6 contains the new characters Jesse and James. Jesse and James appear to be a very important reason for the upgrade value for many new users.
What if one to two weeks after the release of Poser 6, DAZ released J and J Unimesh? This could be a unimesh model that looks identical in shape topology to each of the models and could wear all or their clothing and hair items (because we would have morphed the mesh to their shape and copied their new joint parameters identically). This model could wear all of the new clothing that is being developed for them by the artists at RDNA and other places available in CP. We could give her out for free to anyone. If reason number Jesse and James were the main reason that some people are upgrading, we could circumvent the need for them to do upgrade. Both characters could have the option to wear either V3/M3 texture maps (that many people may already own) or Jesse' and James' textures because we would have two .obj options each accepting one or the other set of UV coordinates. The users may not have to pick their favorites because they would have the majority of both in one character. With the tools and modelers at DAZ, we could do all of this in a small fraction of the time that it likely took the original developers to create Jesse and James (because the majority of the work was done by them in the original modeling and rigging that we could benefit from).
Do you think CL would be happy for DAZ to do this? Would it be protected under the terms of their EULA if they weren't? Would they try to stop us from doing it? Might it negatively impact the potential developers market for the new models and help maintain V3/M3 position in the market? Would this community perceive DAZ as the victim or the bad guys if we did this and were asked to stop distributing these models? Would CL be perceived as the Victim or the bad guys if they stopped us from distributing these models? Would they simply just encourage us to use the RTE encoder so that it at least requires the recipient to have a license of the new models first? I really don't know the answers to these questions but they are good ones to consider for those who are upset at DAZ for attempting to protect our rights.
I hope this example helps in some way to clarify our position and will not stir things up further.
Sincerely,
Dan Farr
President, DAZ Productions
Good posts, dan. Hopefully, people will be able to see it from your POV if they try putting the shoe on the other foot too. I'd just like to echo what dan said about cooler. Cooler now works for DAZ, but for many years before that, he spent all his time chasing down pirated poser warez of ALL types, and getting the offending sites closed down. He's posted a lot of solid legal information on poser sites, and I've NEVER seen anything offensive or insulting from him. mac
You know what. Over at Sixus, there is none of this controversy. Yes people are disappointed, but they are using this set back to develop and toss about new ideas. This is the only forums where it is a big mess with unfound accusations being thrown at both sides. Sixus1 felt it was in their best interest to stop distributing Lilin2. END OF STORY. At no time did Les or Rebekah slam Daz for this. The fact that people are using this as an excuse to attack either side is plainly shameful. And people wonder why this is my least forum to post to or even read... More drama than a Soap Opera season.
danfarr, I just got some sleep too, and am ready to go around a little, even though my posts so far are somewhat to the side of the main thrust here. As I did above, let me start with stipulation of your entire post 138 and 141. You have absolute right to your property. Also, for this post, let me hypothetically put aside the Sixus case. My wider question is this: what about this 'substantially similar' clause? Why do you feel it is necessary to include that language? Would it not be sufficient to stay with objective violation, as pointed out by blackhearted in post 98 above? The way you have the EULA structured, including it's 'consent when you download free Vickie including the FAQS' and with this omnivorous 'similar' clause, frankly you DO make people paranoid. It feels imperialistic, like you wish to go beyond protecting your property and preemptively intimidate others from entering the field, in fear that they will be subject of a suit by you if they somehow slip under the penumbra of this wide, wide EULA. Perhaps you can use this hypothetical in illustrating your response: what if someone starts with an original mesh and bones (working title Donna) but with the deliberate intention that the vast body of third-party textures could be fitted to her? "Included with Donna is a utility that lets you use any texture designed for Victoria." Not the morphs, not clothing with structure copied of any Unimesh structure...just the textures? What would be the position of DAZ with regard to that? ::::: Opera :::::
"I am surprised that there has not been a lot of replies to the post that I made yet. Either everybody had either gone to bed before reading it or it put a lot of people to sleep :)" went to bed :) dan, very well-put response - and im starting to understand your side of the thing as well. i think youre missing my point, though. not necessarily the point of this thread - since i didnt create it, but what i was trying to say about 3rd party clothing. when we create clothing and textures for vicky, steph, michael, etc then we are - in a way - entering into a business partnership with you. the success of our clothing depends on the success of the character and in a much smaller way the success of your character depends on the amount of support from the community. this is perhaps why people are more inclined to produce for the daz models rather than others - because most have excellent reputations and are pretty much a safe bet that theyll succeed. but youve stated that daz's success pretty much revolves around V3/M3 - your flagship models. i hope youll admit that with only daz in-house products to support it, V3/M3 may not have fizzled out but it definitely wouldnt be anywhere near the success it is now. well - my point is this. we create items for your products. and from what i see in this thread according to your EULA once we choose to support any daz models you pretty much own whatever we create and they are forever tied to the daz base they were made for (unless we remodel parts of clothes or remorph them - but textures are pretty much set in stone, and no i dont consider apps like the 'texture converter' viable options). thats kindof a lopsided 'business partnership', dont you think? at any time daz can yank the rug out from under our feet. even though it hasnt, or its intentions arent clear, its holding the hem of the rug in its hands and can do so at any moment. if daz treats us like @%#$, or decides to add even more oppressive revisions to their EULA, or decides it just doesnt like some of us and revokes the right for us to sell add-ons for its products then its not like we can just pick up and move our products elsewhere, huh? they pretty much either stay supporting daz or they get deleted (or so much work goes into converting them for a new model that you might as well just make something else instead). i think this is what makes me nervous. so can you explain a couple of things to me please? 1. there are 'distributable' CR2s of models like SP3, V3, etc which are basically a CR2 that us content-creators can use to distribute new characters. why were the delta channels stripped from these 'distributable' CR2s? does daz know that that pretty much makes them completely useless for developers? was this an oversight, or deliberate? if it was deliberate, what possible purpose did it serve other than to inconvenience the 3rd party morpher/character creator? 2. Posette shipped with Poser. V2 had a VickyP4 morph that was pretty much V3's head on posette's body, and allowed it to wear all posette clothing. please explain to me the difference between this and what sixus was trying to accomplish with lilin. also keep in mind that at that time, there were pretty much two poles of content creation: one side created for Vicky/Mike - which were then retail models and not everyone had them. the other created mainly free items for Posette, who represented the whole 'keep it free' mentality and you could call the 'flagship' of the freestuff community back then. if you ask me, it was a pretty underhanded move by daz to at one swoop appropriate all of the freestuff that was made for posette - much of that freestuff made specifically because posette was not a retail model - for its retail model. now wasnt lilin intended to be a free model? so, if you look at this issue from this perspective, its almost like.. karma, that something like this would come along - its an exact reversal of the situation that involved daz's P4vicky. so yeah, to me it seems very hypocritical. even if daz had some part in the making of posette at some point along the line its no excuse. i still think its underhanded to 'appropriate' all of the items created for a non-daz model by including a morph in that daz model that duplicates the functionality of the non-daz one. so why the double standards, dan? cheers, gabriel
ehh. re-reading my post (while i waited like 2 min for it to post, bloody slow dial-up)i may have used some strong words. underhanded, etc. anyways, you know what i mean. i definitely agree that lilin seems to have went too far in that it seems to be not just a character that supports V3 clothing but one that tries to replace/duplicate vicky. that would be a big kick in the @$$ for daz who spent so much time marketing and developing it.. although since V3 is free i dont see why people wouldnt just stay with the original. but.. my point is that in case some other figure comes along that will wear most V3 clothing yet isnt an exact duplicate (and yes, it can be done). i understand why you at daz might not like it - but it is something that you have done yourselves in the past. its that double-standard im pointing out.
To be perfectly honest (which I try to be)......I sincerely wish that this sort of thing would just go away.
This community is always obsessed with the latest conspiracy theory du jour....and the evil corporate entities, run by evil individuals -- behind the myriad conspiracies.
Obviously, their evil intent is to take over the world, and to make mind-controlled slaves of all of us.
Whether the target of choice is DAZ, Curious Labs, or Renderosity (Bondware) itself....it gets mightily tiring to read half-baked accusations coming from individuals who frankly don't have a clue what they are talking about. They just adopt the worst possible interpetation of events, and then run off wildly -- hurling ridiculous insults and accusations all the while.
Dan Farr --
Thanks for coming in here, and clearing matters up so eloquently.
Hopefully, that puts this one to bed.
Unfortunately, I think that it will do nothing to stop the next "conspiracy" thread......whether it's aimed at DAZ, CL, or Rendo.
It's just too much fun. A bad habit, but hard to give up. Like smoking cigarettes.
Of course, the first step towards getting rid of the cigarettes is for people to finally acknowledge that smoking is a bad idea. Until that crucial acknowledgement occurs, then the smoking won't stop......
And all of us non-smokers out here are forced to breath it in, whether we choose to or not.
.......the second-hand smoke makes us non-smokers cough, too. It poisons the atmosphere for everybody.
Hi Dan!-
Gee, so much I-hate-DAZ stuff.
Let me say, first of all, I-am-not-a-lawyer, and while I've had my ups and downs with DAZ, I agree with their position 100%. I know firsthand what it is like to have my hard work "borrowed" by others, to produce a product intended to steal sales from what I made.
Let me also add that given the current state of the art, I don't think it is possable to make a fully non-derivate figure that can match Victoria III's value for the money. DAZ has a ton of time invested in V3's mesh, textures and especially morphs, and it would really be impossable to match that for what DAZ charges for them. I can't really see what purpose another figure that has V3's shape serves, especially now that she is free. Why reinvent the wheel?
However, after saying that, just like Gabriel, I don't like V3's default shape very much. So what I did was make my own version of her, two of them in fact, and sell them (in effect) as an RTE version that requires V3 to install. Going this way lets me have a new, custom shape, plus my customers get the availability of the huge library of V3 body and head morphs and textures. Most of which they will have to buy, of course. As these are custom figures I make clothing to fit them, as they really can't wear V3's any more.
I also make clothing for V3, the plan for awhile has been to make sets for all three (V3, Glamorous Vickie and Ingenue Vickie), all with suitable morphs for that figure. You really have to match V3's standard shape in the version for her, and then include morphs to match what you expect the customer will use. You MUST have some suitable morphs in the clothing! If you make clothing to fit a already morphed shape it doen't fit as well.
I include a a full version of V3's CR2 with my figures, modifed as required (they have changed/extra JCM), including the blank injector channels. As I understand it V3's CR2 is fully redistributable as long as the V3 morphs aren't included in it. The reason the "Blank" V3 CR2 doesn't include the injector channels is because it is intended for clothing, and DAZ thought clothing doesn't need them, however mine does, so it has 'em.
Message edited on: 03/19/2005 11:48
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
well so what if the skinned figure is that close? If it's original mesh, and supposed to wear Vicky's clothes wouldn't it have to be that close?