Attached Link: http://www.poserforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2625

I'm not a big player ini the poser market. Hell, I can hardly classify myself as a player at all! Still, there are some things that need to be known by ALL players, big or small, and I found out a big one today. See, DAZ (in their infinite wisdom) have a nice click-thru EULA that you have to agree to before installing V3, M3, etc. Well, I wonder how many of us have actually READ it? See, Sixus1 Media have come across one of the more sticky points in it and naturally enough DAZ have decided to play heavy. There is a line in the agreement that states that one cannot create a 3D model that is *substantially similar* to the one installed. This caught Sixus1 Media as they tried to release a V3 compatible figure known as Lilin2. Well, DAZ weighed in (in an *ever so nice* fashion) and now Lilin2 is no more (anyone remember Sara & the competition she posed for "the GIRL"?). Well, I decided to do a little investigation in the DAZ EULA after this... Lo & behold, it get's worse! See, one cannot distribute ANYTHING that uses part of the 3D model in question (be that joint parameters for us clothing developers, or the UV's for you texture artists) without prior agreement with DAZ. They may not have enforced this before, but then again - they may have and we simply don't know about it! What I find incredibly ironic is that DAZ refused to work with CL because of their EULA, when there's is draconian! I don't know what the old "problematic" EULA of Poser was, but the current Poser 5 (and I will assume Poser 6) version explicitly allows the use of the "restricted content" for use in creating clothes, textures, props, etc. There is no such provision in the DAZ EULA. So if you are interested in the statement by Sixus1 Media on the matter, go to the link above. If not, at least be aware that the DAZ EULA is a masterpiece of legal work. All the V3/M3/whatever compatible stuff out there is technically in breach of the license and as such DAZ can make you pull it whenever they want. Please note, I am not typically "anti-anything". I personally think that DAZ makes some great figures and supporting content. However, I will no longer spend time & effort creating supporting content for the DAZ figures when I have to rely on the goodwill of another company for it's continued distribution. This is not an emotional "I hate'em so they can burn in hell"; it is a business decision pure & simple.

This sounds like on of those tangles that would need an expensive court case to settle. I expect that there is a body of precendent to define phrases such as "substantially similar", but how much could be applied to 3D models? It's certainly an ask-a-lawyer question, and that's not in my budget. How many content creators could pay the fee from their Poser revenue? How many will just, as you intend, play safe? I hope you've misunderstood, but can I afford to take the chance?

Well, the thing here is that legal counsel HAS been sought and they said it is best to do as DAZ says in this regard. As anyone who has talked to Les at some point would know: he is not the kind of guy to give in easily. If he thought he had a chance at fighting this - he would. Unfortunately, after talking with the legal-eagles, he doesn't see it as an option (as he mentions in his statement)

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 01:47

What I didn't get from the statement was which feature finally tipped the balance - texture compatibility, clothing compatibility or something else? Was it a combination of factors which finally made Lilin too 'V3-like'?

The reason I ask is that there are a number of Unimesh texture-compatible items in freestuff (one or two in the marketplace as well). I'd imagine the MP vendors have been very careful about obtaining consent for their items, but what's the score on the freebies?

For what it's worth, I've voiced my concerns in that thread as well. Joseph the disappointed. :/

.

I already knew this, you cannot create anything that is from DAZ or any part of it. Says so even in readme files. The freebies can't use anything that is associated with DAZ products either, from what I know. Haven't you ever seen DAZ's copyright spattered on all their figures & textures??

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 02:35

Maybe they should start putting a Daz3d brand on the rump of every V3 texture. Seriously, though. This strikes me as wrong on a lot of levels. I could understand it if it were a PAY PRODUCT, but...

Birddie, in obvious cases, like actual Mesh pieces and textures, absolutely. But joint-parameters and UVs? Come on. CL has already stated that dial settings within Poser cannot claim copyright (not trying to derail this just a case in point). The JPs are meaningless outside of Poser, so are they not akin to dial settings? Ok, D/S can use them but then there's a case of the kettle calling the coffee pot black, isn't it?

.

I didn't understand a word of that post in that link, until I got to the very bottom and read: "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."

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Maybe they should start putting a Daz3d brand on the rump of every V3 texture. ahhh, but they do! Just becase you don't see it on your finished renders that doesn;t mean it's not there! But joint-parameters and UVs? Come on. Aren't the UVs stamped as well? Not sure about the joints. Don't you have to strip all the joints and any references to a DAZ fig such as V3 if you were to make a clone of her? I thought that was the case, could be wrong, I'm not a modeler so, I wouldn't know.

Since the model is different it does not have the same UVS just has the same borders on it so that V3 UVS fits to it! How can DAZ copyright the UVS of a completely original model/mesh!!! Ok I accept the joint-parameters system but this one? And I believe Lilin has a V3 morph she is not modeled after V3... pitklad

Having given the matter some thought, it has suddenly occurred to me that it is not actually a copyright question. It is a contractual question. It is the contract (the EULA) that stipulates this -- and is therefore enforeceable under those terms (less wiggy than IP rules). And, as noted, it really is a matter of their choosing to enforce it accordingly. So long as your items do not directly compete with their items, it should be fine.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

The problem is that this would have to go to court in order to be settled once and for all. DAZ is banking (probably correctly too) on that not happening. You'd have to go and check way back in the dawn of time (Poser 1 or whatever version started including Zygote figures) as to what joint parameter/uv information was made available to Zygote by CL (this includes the info in the manual at the time). As DAZ is the spawn of Zygote I'm sure information filtered down to them from CL. The JP information available today was not developed by DAZ alone - they freely usurp developents/discoveries made by 3rd party modellers incorporate it into their products and imply that it now belongs to them and is integral to their products. Even injection technology was (if I recall correctly) not discovered by DAZ. A 3rd party modeller (and I forget who it was) posted a rather heated message in the forum stating he contacted DAZ with the idea, was turned down, and lo and behold there it appeared in their products and he got not even a thank you. (This was maybe 3 or more years ago). If they succeed at this (and likely they will because nobody wants the cost/irritation of a lawsuit) they effectively put a ceiling on the quality of product available. Because 3rd parties have repeatedly shown they can do better with DAZ droppings but they're not allowed to (piss on the customer). This effectively insures versions 4 through infinity of any product because DAZ will improve the model as much as DAZ wants to, saving more for the future versions (purchases), and 3rd parties won't be allowed to do anything. Anyone thinking DAZ does not want the entire Poser market needs to wake up. If they were achieving this with knock down quality I wouldn't care, but when they rein in 3rd parties with debatable tactics it stinks. And then they whine about not having made back the money from the Bryce purchase, prices over there go up, but they "found" themselves in a position to buy Poserpros. Were they all sitting around one morning and stumbled upon the cash? Gee, must have been a fun meeting.

Um... You use all the "joints" when you make clothing ;) On the one hand, the LE Cr2 is redistributable, right? There are joints in there. UVs? Are you talking about the templates being stamped? You can create new templates by using UVMapper. So they could say UVMapper is breaking their EULA. Yeah, that's what I'm wondering narcissus - completely different model 100% but winds up fitting into the same "space" that V3 fits into UV-wise. Sorry, I see this moreso as directly against a prominant group of folks releasing a free figure line than protection of rights being infringed on. Otherwise when you make clothing your relying on the goodwill of a company to allow you to release it because according to their EULA, it's derivative - already stated by Eternl_Knight.

.

They tried to claim 3rd party modelled clothing also. A few years back and the shit hit the fan over here.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 07:15

Note that, according the way things are written (noted elsewhere first), that the problem occurs when you use figure joints in a figure or clothing joints in clothing. Using figure joints to make clothing, or clothing joints to make figures is more or less allowed under the terms of EULA. The reverse is not. As far as "stamps" -- note that all the fles are text files. Parsing them isn't hard, so "stamps" are easily removed. I don't think any of that applies. Again, it really isn't an issue of copyright difficulties, but a contractual one. The EULA is enforceable in a court without even touching on IP issues -- and, indeed, they wouldn't matter in the case directly. In short, the elements aren't usable not because they are protected by copyright, but because DAZ says you cannot use them in such a way, and because you agree not to when you install the product.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Which paragraph of the licence says you cannot make texture maps for the product? You are not copying any part of the original product in the creation of texture maps. Paragraph 6 forbid copying and Paragraph 5 forbids creating derivatives (except for renders and animations). Is it against the licence agreement to create any texture map that can be applied to a Poser figure, including DAZ's ? Keep in mind that Poser allows any, suitable or not, comaptible texture file to be applied to the Poser model. Just my 2c worth. Richard (who likes making textures)

Awhile ago, there was a version of Dina that would wear Vickly 2's clothing. Did DAZ have any problems with her?

This won't apply to texture work. Texturing is independent of the mesh and program settings. It might apply in some respects to pose files, morphs, MAT files, expressions, clothing, and anything else that requires either the core geometry or the CR2's basic structure to work. As for DinaV, it would depend on whether or not she was felt to be in violation of those terms to the extent that V3 is. DAZ did offer a means and a way for this figure not to be pulled. As a matter of business, Sixus chose to pull it. This wasn't DAZ stopping this. This was Sixus stopping it in order to avoid having a figure of theirs that required a figure from a competitor. As a derivative, that is well within the rights of DAZ under the terms of the contract. It does, however, make one wonder what the future of DAZ figure based products from Sixus1 in the future is. I liked the "open source figure license" thingy, lol. Since several folks have been talking about such a thing, it is interesting to see someone finally carrying through with it.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Attached Link: http://poserpros.daz3d.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24225&highlight=#24225

more interesting reading re: DAZ EULA...

There are two issues at question here. First is the copyright issue and the second the contractual "EULA" issue. Both need to be conosidered in light of these events. First, as far as copyrights go - DAZ reserves the right to stop any clothing content for their figures being distributed. First because one needs the JP's and secondly (though a more tenuous position) - one needs to base the clothing around the shape of said figure. So if you happen to make clothing that competes with one of their products - you're screwed. Same goes with textures as you NEED to use their figures to get these right (either by using a UV template or by painting directly on the mesh). The second issue, and this is alot scarier, is the EULA terms. There is a clause in there that stops anyone who has agreed to it (and that is anyone who has installed V3 which I'm guessing is 90% of the folks here) that you cannot create & distribute models that are "substantially similar" to any you have installed. This means that if you have installed V3, the Dragon, whatever and create something they classify as "substantially similar" - they are within their rights to get you to pull it from distribution (free or sold). Think about that, if one installs their new oriental dragon - one cannot really create another oriental ragon for distribution without DAZ knocking on your door (or at least reserving the right to if your model is more successful than theirs). Do I sound like I have an agenda? Well, yes I do. I don't want to see others fall into the legal quagmire created by DAZ as Sixus1 and others have (yes, there are others that have suffered from this problem!). And it doesn't matter what DAZ says "verbally" about all this either - what matters in court is what is written in that contract (the EULA). And that contract is not weighted in our favour... So while they can "say" they won't pursue us over textures, clothing, etc - it means jack-diddly until they put that text into the EULA we need to agree to before installing their products. And if you think that's asking too much - have a look at the Poser 5 EULA. It specifies exactly that - that one is entitled to use their "restricted content" (the figures, props, etc) for the purposes of making clothing, supporting textures, etc.

Actually ynsaen - the textures are derivatives of the mesh as the UV's dictate the placement of textures. Without the mesh or the UV's in question to base the texture on - you are stabbing in the dark. As such, textures can be classified as derivative products.

The whole description of this situation is too vague. First, it appears DAZ was the baddie by saying it violated the EULA. But Sixus said it was their decision to pull the product. Second, there should have been no doubt from the start. They should have asked DAZ about it from the start. Third, DAZ can't have a blanket policy denying such projects, since VinaD was able to wear Vicky 2's clothes and use her textures. Did DAZ agree to allow her, or did they reach an agreement with DAZ?

Well it appears that the figure was going to be RTEncoded and then different circumstances were brought up that made this undesirable - from reading the text posted at that link.

.

Re #22, Textures You do not always need the figures to get it right, you may need the figures to ckeck it out, however some textures like leather and denim just work naturally and sometimes it doesn't mater if there are seams etc visible.

oh!and don't forget Don&Judy take V2-M2 textures is this "illegal" too??? pitklad

damn -- two and a half year old thread, lol. Now that's archive diggin... That said, I'm going to disagree with a couple of your points E_K. "First because one needs the JP's and secondly (though a more tenuous position) - one needs to base the clothing around the shape of said figure." One does not need the jp's. You can arrive at them independently seperate of the figure and on your own entirely within the constraints of the program. How do you think DAZ got them? Working without them is harder, yes, and slower, yes, and reduces the potential rapid fire profit one can make from them, but, well, eh. One generally does need to build clothing around the shape of said figure for greatest ease. Hmmm -- dynamic clothing in P5 and P6 sorta put that off a bit, though -- now you only need to rough it and then let the program do the work. Also, that section does not prevent you from making a figure, as you interpret it. It stops you from making a figure which is derivative of their figure using the mapping, program settings, mesh, or texturing of their figure. What you are expressing is that by installing v3, a modeller gives up the right to make human female figures with tiny heads. That's incorrect, as you have to take into account the whole meaning of the section and the parts of the whole EULA pertinent to that section as well. As for the Poser 5 Eula -- walk on eggshells there -- the one that was there before that one wasn't near as friendly.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

"Actually ynsaen - the textures are derivatives of the mesh as the UV's dictate the placement of textures. Without the mesh or the UV's in question to base the texture on - you are stabbing in the dark. As such, textures can be classified as derivative products." That's a reach -- and a long one in the wrong direction. It's based on not understanding the legal use of the word derivative as it applies in these cases. Seriously -- textures are not derivatives of meshes. Now, the UV Map itself, if one created and owned by DAZ is used, may be used to create a derivative work but that still doesn't make it a derivative of the mesh -- only of the image of the map.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

"oh!and don't forget Don&Judy take V2-M2 textures is this "illegal" too???" Most likely not. Odds are they arrived at the uvmapping independently, using a resource outside of the originals. The basis for this is that the mapping is not exact, and is slightly tweaked in different places.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Someone should lookup and post the original Poser 5 Eula. It was a doozy. Is it me, or does it seem like simply asking ahead of time would have made a world of difference?

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

Renderosity Gallery

This is so confused! I remember DAZ asked Jim Barton to encode the obj file of SuperModel Lori althouth it was a completely original mesh,UVS&JP!!! So this has happend before for less reasons then Lilin2... pitklad

Yeah, the original Poser 5 eula was heavy-handed but it was changed so that doesn't really affect the here and now. My initial reaction to that first draft back then was WTF!? :) You wanna dig up some doozies, let's pull up the one with DAZ and 3rd party clothing -or- DAZ and body shapes ... and similar situations over the last few years.

.

You know what I dont get? I don't understand the legality of restricting the use of a product. If I buy a mannequin from company A can company A forbid me from clothing that mannequin with cloths from company b? Can company A restrict me from making cloths myself for the mannequin? Can co A restrict me from selling cloths for the mannequin? I was always under the assumption that the only restriction to the use of the mannequin would have been that I could not buy plaster, make a mold of that mannequin, and reproduce it for sale. I foresee these copywrite issues going to court eventually and the copywrite holders loosing allot of their "muscle" when it comes to restrictions of use after purchase.

As stated before this isn't a Copyright issue at all, it's a CONTRACT issue. You sign, or Click-thru a contract, you are bound by it, no matter how lame it is. That being said Daz isn't all that likely to go around attacking merchants, if they get bit by bad customer response a few times. Daz is a company that seems to be VERY conscious of their image.

Contracts are broken daily. Sometimes you end up in court. Sometimes the little guy wins.

Yea but attacking every original mesh that can wear a characters clothes is kind of pushing it. I understand if he used V3 to make Lilin2 but not if he made an independent character that is similar to what they sell. C'mon. Restrictive is ok. Be restrictive to protect your interests. But don't be ridiculous.

Yeah... we have heard this one before. So many, many times, that it isn't surprising. Jim Burton with Lori was a good issue and commonly known, but there are other figures which have also been bound, gagged, and stifled merely because they were good enough to be competition. I have notes about several such cases, and will add Sixus1 to my list. Who suffers? We suffer. Lack of choice. Great... we get macaroni arms and slanted eyes and pinheads, and are brainwashed into believing that this is the epitome of female beauty... must be because all the marketplace stuff is for her. :sigh: This is a capitalistic country and DAZ is very good at playing the game of investing capital by buying out the products of others and removing all competition from the playing field. Our opinions as customers don't matter when rich men gather, whether it be the courthouses or halls of congress. The most successful and respected folks are the ones who know how to make money from the work of others. Another round of applause for DAZ. Me? I will not work on a product for DAZ, a product which supports a DAZ figure, or anything else where my sweat equity and skill go into their coffers. And, if I came up with a competing item I wouldn't show WIPs because otherwise they'd cut me off at the pass like they've done to some other folks I respect highly. If I dropped it into the market, I'd get at least a couple of weeks of sales before they cut in. I've downloaded M3 and V3, but not unzipped them. If their EULA could be read so as to be that expansive, the zips will go into the trash. I don't need them, even for free... I already have a headache. And if I did make product for sale, I'd be 100% certain that it wouldn't fit any of the DAZ figures. Carolly the Unamused

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

Hey does that mean that if I download and install DAZ studio that I cant have Poser installed also as it is a similar product?
Does it also mean that if CL downloads a copy of DAZ studio that they can't run Poser X or sell Poser X because it is a similar product?

Hey now that they installed it CL is bound by DAZ's contract.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 10:56

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 11:08

just curious..for those of us who have downloaded the character, what do, or can we do, with it?

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Judy, Dina, Elle, Maya Doll, Laroo... Just look around and you'll find plenty of non-Daz figures. In fact I REALLY wish people would do more for Elle!! Jim Burton doesn't seem to have felt particularly shafted since he seems to still be working with Daz. Vicki & Michael don't have to have slanted eyes. Heads can be scaled. It's just most folks don't bother to turn dials too much so you get a lot of similarity. Also a lot of people seem to have similar ideas of what constitutes beauty. If it sells, of Course you will see many similar things in the Marketplace. If it gets Views & comments you will also see more of it in the Galleries. So what does it show? What the "numbers" desire. The "majority" is what keeps the Top 10s and the Hot-Selling marketplace items in the top 10 and selling hotly. I'd prefer lots of choices & variety but I'm also realistic... As long as it's all above-board and legal of course. Daz is after all a business. They will focus mainly on what sells and they will protect their business.

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

Renderosity Gallery

I think part of Elle's issue is that Neftis had family/medical issues right after her release, and polymage has become a ghosttown since then. I reallyhope she's ok, and we hear from her again, because she's very talented, sweet, and I know she worked on Elle for almost a year before her release.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

That's terrible, I hope everything's improved for her!

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

Renderosity Gallery

Daz may rewrite their EULA in even more complex terms in an attempt to clarify this issue, but a simple rule of thumb is that a product is derivative if it has at least 5-10% shared content. In addition, if we buy a DAZ product, possession of that product can be used as circumstantial evidence, if we then try to sell any kind of similar product, so maybe that's what they're trying to say in a somewhat clumsy manner that's obviously causing alot of worry. Not exactly "anything you buy may be used as evidence against you in a court of law", but something like that.

Kinda makes you wonder if we'll see the Aeon products disappear? About Neftis: She had her own medical problems, and then if memory serves, her Mom had some problems, and she had to go back to Canada (from Australia I think) to assist her. I think we heard from her last about Sept. last year.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

The Aeon line is Dodgers. If Daz had issues with him and the Aeons I'm SURE we would have heard of it. :D Dodger RTE encoded them so I'd guess all is well.

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

Renderosity Gallery

I just hope someone does hear from Neftis soon. Strange to think no one has heard anything recently. :/ IDK sometimes I think there's just so much sickness lately. :(

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

Renderosity Gallery

"Kinda makes you wonder if we'll see the Aeon products disappear?"

I had the same thought, but some months ago DAZ' copyright agent explained to me that DAZ had no issue with the AEON figues, as they require prior purchase of DAZ products. The rte-decoding tech seems to be an agreeable solution to DAZ. I think I know what you mean, though. The AEON figures are proportioned to be compatible with clothing props for Unimesh figurs; in that regard they're similar to Lilin2. Seems likely that the key difference is that Lilin2 shares proportions with a DAZ mesh but does not require prior purchase of that mesh. EDIT: Oops, kinda repeated what Caly said there. :-)

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 13:04

Right, the rtencoding was to prevent users circumventing purchasing the core figure, usually V3. Now apparently, they wanted Lillin to be encoded so that users aren't circumventing buying V3... but... V3 the base is free, isn't it? So if there is no original geometry used or any of that, why enforce encoding it?

.

I think the whole point of giving V3 away is a traffic builder..and not requiring the rtencoding eliminates traffic increase.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

i find it quite hilarious that daz is so psychotically overprotective of their models - models to whose success each and every one of us contributes when we create an add-on product or post a gallery render - yet they themselves are host to so many trademark 'oversights' its not funny. dont even get me started on that. the shitstorm they started over the CL license, the integration of mike/vicky into the face room, and the dozen others over the years... hypocrisy reigns in the poser community. all they are accomoplishing is that the moment a viable alternative to V3/M3 comes out as a base for the add-on pack creators merchants will flock to those new products and abandon V3/M3 to daz. considering their in-house talent works at a snail-pace and is limited to reselling subdivided zygote meshes this wont look good for them. theyre biting the hand that feeds them... and you know what pisses me off the most? there are so many more customer-convenient methods of distributing characters via CR2s. i could have distributed my entire latest character as one CR2 that loads in a click.. but i couldnt. why? because the distributable 'blank CR2' that daz allows us merchants to distributa has the damn delta channels stripped from it!! what is the point of having a distributable CR2 if all of the mil3 functionality is stripped from it??? what possible purpose are they serving by stripping the otherwise benign and useless delta channels from the distributable CR2 other than to inconvenience and cripple their add-on providers? that alone earns a big 'fuck you daz' from me, and thats biting my tongue. i bust my ass creating products that earn them many sales - my latest pack has made them quite a bit of money on SP3 since a huge portion of my customers said its the only reason they bought the model. the least they can do is not make my job any harder. they should have a license that allows content creators to create content for their figures as long as it doesnt eliminate the requirement to purchase the base Daz figure, and leave it at that. anything beyond that - and especially what ive been reading in this thread - only makes me eagerly await a figure that lets me abandon Daz and their products altogether.

I'm not an attorney but I have a hard time believing that a court of law (jury) would rule in favor of DAZ if Lilin2 did not share any geometry. If she does then I understand their position. I'll ask my brothers in law. One is a patent attorney the other is a state prosecutor. I'm sure they'll have a better grasp of the subtle nuances in the law.

Good point. When cooler advised of DAZ' stance on the AEON line, M3/V3 weren't yet free. The fact that they are now changes the equation, at least the one I'd mentioned.

Found one of the old threads. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=858183 You know it's not like Daz is set in stone either. :P They have changed things to suit people before. Vouchers anyone? ;) Just have to be reasonable about what you expect and how quickly you expect it.

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

Renderosity Gallery

oh - and by trying to protect the V3 body 'shape', ill tell you exactly what they are doing. right now, pretty much 90% of the marketplace as far as clothing and textures are concerned are for the V2/V3 mesh and UV maps. by trying to keep others from creating a shape that will wear vicky clothes, or a figure that accepts V3 textures, they are trying to safeguard against the inevitable that modellers will make a V3/M3 replacement. this is also the reason that V3/M3 is now free. beyond what i think is a hideous default body/face, i think V3 is an excellent model. its a shame that Daz's lust for profit clouds their vision as to who the real enemy is here - its definitely not the content providers and merchants who have been fueling the sales of their models for years now. unfortunately rather than realise this they just keep making it worse. id honestly like to see them protect a body style. they could copyright a mesh, or a morph from a mesh - but a shape? good luck. and if CL wants to play hardball - they own everything that daz has created for poser anyway (beyond the actual .obj) since their license claims ownership of all the poser file formats. id like to see either of these companies actually try to enforce their rediculously oppressive licenses. the content-creation market would dry up so fucking fast they wouldnt know what hit them, theyd both be cutting their own throats.

Sixus did ask a lawyer- remember he's not one to roll over for Daz. :D

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

Renderosity Gallery

'Even injection technology was (if I recall correctly) not discovered by DAZ' INJ/REM technology was discovered by Robert Whisenant, who works for DAZ (and is currently working on Daz Studio). He's the same guy who gave us ERC (along with Charles Taylor aka Nerd). mac

what really shocked me is the recent fiasco at commune. the nesterenko deal with.. damn i forget the characters name. anyways, he looked at screenshots of 'The Girl's mesh, and used that as a reference to create his own model. now naturally a mesh - or part of one - is highly copyrightable... but a mesh CONFIGURATION? im not aware of the full details but this seems silly to me. many tutorials, resources, 3D sites (like 3d.sk has mesh lines drawn on their models) generally recommend a certain style to their subdivision surfaces meshes... ie: a certain flow of mesh lines around areas like the eyes, lips, nose, etc. is modelling STYLE now copyrightable too? when did this happen? now dont get me wrong - i think looking at someone's mesh and making your own version of it - from scratch - is highly immoral (and again, i dont know the full extent of it, i havent seen a mesh comparison). but illegal? whats next? if Daz puts out a 3-piece suit for michael and i make one of a similar cut, ill find myself in court? i thought this was competition - and why you didnt post WIP images unless you were prepared to be beaten to the punch. im probably one of the biggest advocates for copyright enforcement with an iron fist here at rosity -- and someone who steals part of a mesh should have their fucking hands cut off. but a mesh style? id be interested to see a mesh comparison so i can actually understand the extent of this.

Actually he also used parts of V3 in Alexa like the feet, it wasn't just the GIRL face tracing issue. Plus he had done something similar before.

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

Renderosity Gallery

oh - and by trying to protect the V3 body 'shape', ill tell you exactly what they are doing. It's nothing different than what Mattel does with Barbie. What Disney does with Mickey Mouse. What Weber does with their grills.

I'd find it hard to believe that a person who had V3, for instance, loaded on their PC couldn't make a substantially similar model JUST because they had it loaded on their PC. Courts have ruled it's OK to reverse engineer (how do you think AMD makes an Intel-compatible chip?). Might just be a case of a "bully" EULA that can't be enforced. After all, they don't get penalized for a EULA that is unenforceable...they can only reap benefits from it.

except mattel doesnt depend on 3rd party content creators to drive their sales of barbie. if they did, it would be a very stupid move on their part to further alienate them.

" Actually he also used parts of V3 in Alexa like the feet, it wasn't just the GIRL face tracing issue.
Plus he had done something similar before."

i read something about the feet. thats natural though, they should crucify him for that. the only interesting part of the whole affair to me is the girl mesh tracing.
figure heads, especially, there are pretty much 'standard' ways of modelling them which result in very similar meshes. its a black and white issue that if you use V3's feet in your mesh it is illegal, and his doing it is inexcusible. due to his previous offences it may also be human nature to crucify him for anything else we may dig up on him... but...

when did emulating a mesh style become a crime? and if it isnt a crime then when the hell did daz get enough clout to make it into one?

i would never copy a mesh from a screenshot, id consider it immoral. however i wouldnt be shocked if someone released screenshots of their mesh which were then emulated by a competitor and released before the original creator finished their product. its a common competitive practice - and one that daz is nowhere near innocent of themselves (*edit: putting out their 'versions' of hot selling products, that is).

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 14:56

"Might just be a case of a "bully" EULA that can't be enforced. After all, they don't get penalized for a EULA that is unenforceable...they can only reap benefits from it." my thoughts exactly. such a shitstorm would erupt it would kill the daz figure addon market overnight. merchants would pull their stores and flee from the V3/M3 base models and never create anything for them again. if daz angered CL enough then CL could try and enforce their equally oppressive EULA on daz. i think its all a big bluff. until daz does something stupid im going to tentatively keep creating products for their meshes... but if they dont turn around their merchant/content creator relations soon then i will jump as soon as a viable replacement to V3/M3 comes along - and never look back.

except mattel doesnt depend on 3rd party content creators to drive their sales of barbie. if they did, it would be a very stupid move on their part to further alienate them. Agreed ... but the clothing and accessories aren't the issue here. Using existing joint parameters for a figure is a necessity to clothing creation. Instead, I think it is Vicky's "look" that is the issue. In order for a figure to be able to use Victoria's clothing, it would have to have a very similar shape and very similar joints. So, in that respect, it's the "look" of Barbie that Mattel is protecting, and the "look" of Mickey Mouse that Disney is protecting, and the look of Victoria that DAZ is protecting.

if its the default look.. bleh, they can have it. although i fail to see how they can protect it. the v3 mesh, definitely. but the shape? doubtful. in fact, V2 has a posette body version.. 'p4 vicky'. pot.. kettle.. black. as for the UV? yeah, good luck. my textures dont include their UV information, they are just - coincidentally - of a shape that happens to fit onto their V2/V3 UVs. now theyre going to 'copyright' the UV map shape? they have about as much chance of that as copyrighting a circle, or a square. the whole thing is one big pile of rediculous bullshit. perhaps they should invest the time spent writing up oppressive bully EULAs on finishing Daz|Studio instead - theyve been promising it for what.. going on 3 years now???

in fact, V2 has a posette body version.

Point taken. Then there must be more to the story ... and without hearing both sides I dont think it's fair for me to form an opinion. 8-) EDIT ... Hey, wait a sec ... being that Zygote/DAZ made Posette to begin with that seems to be OK.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 15:08

Blackhearted: in spite of my past jumping your shit g I agree with every dot on every i you've posted.

During the course of reading this thread, one thing entered my mind, and I'm asking this as a side part of a discussion, mostly out of curiosity more than anything.

A lot of folks have made third-party models that are VERY good. Take, for example, Elle, Natalia, and the progress we were seeing on Seraphira (how tragic that she was lost in a hard drive crash!). It's GOOD that the community is trying to make other models. Variety is a good thing.

The biggest problem with them has been lack of support. So to that end, I can see why people think that it would be a good thing to create a model that can use Victoria's clothing. And, being that DAZ made BOTH Posette and Victoria (that is a supposition, figuring that the same people from Zygote are the ones who later formed DAZ), I can also see why they could create a version of Victoria that was P4 compatible.

Sixus probably figured it was OK to create their own model and make it work with Victoria's clothing. That would make a figure that everyone could use as an alternative. But like I said, in order for that to happen, it would HAVE to look and pose very similarly.

It's a dilemma, and the only way past it is to support original characters with original clothing. Lady Littlefox has proven that it can be done quite successfully. Koshini and Ichiro have a fantastic following.

So the big question is, why aren't people doing this now?

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 15:23

mac, though isn't ERC born from what was already present in what we call a "full body morph" and is just applied to other dials rather than morph dials linked to the Body. Seems to be just new ways for an old trick ;) The "body shape" thing depends on how far that goes. I mean, if someone made a figure, gave it a pear-shaped body with a skinny neck, did they steal mickey mouse's body? I haven't looked at Lillin closely, but you could still be reasonably be off the mark shape-wise and fit into V3's (or whomever's clothes), especially if the figure was a little thinner. So how far, exactly, does the deviation need to be? Here are some interesting reads for you, going back towards the beginning (around two years) of this: DAZ Stance on the License Agreement protection thing: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=765731 Some more responses: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=791269 another interesting one (around the time of The Tailor) http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=765077

.

what i disagree with is how daz wants to have its cake and eat it too. look at the whole 'the tailor' deal. they SELL it, ffs, yet they dont want us using it to transfer morphs to clothing? wtf other purpose does it have? daz support one stance when it benefits it, and then in the next breath turns around 180 degrees when it decides that the opposite stance benefits it more. if theres one thing i cant stand its hypocrisy. they think they have the market by the balls now because the bulk of the clothing out there is created for V2/V3 and now they are trying to claim ownership of their 'shapes' to prevent someone else from stepping in and taking some of the market share. where i come from this is called monopolising. id like to see them try it. i dont think theyd get very far trying to protect such a generic 'body shape'... but even if they somehow did manage it they severely underestimate the weight content creators have in the community. if tomorrow the bulk of them shift to a new model base, then daz is pretty much @%#$ed right there - even if that model had a different body shape. old clothing becomes outdated, and if we wish to use it with a new shape - well, theres always the tailor. ironic that daz sells it. i think theyve been on top for too long with a stranglehold on the figure market with mike/vicky and theyve been getting a little too cocky, a little too pushy and bullying. i also think they take for granted all of the support there is in the community for their base models - and how little their in-house crew actually produces. biting the hand that feeds them is not smart.

...you know? if folks would just build something from scratch and build up some support for it (coughKoshinicough), we really wouldn't have to sit here and put up with whines about how it's so unfair that you can't build a model to use someone else's stuff. Personally, Sixus over-reacted to the whole thing. All DAZ asked was that the thing be RTE/PCF'd for distribution, and V3 is being given out for free fer chrissakes. But no... the drama queens just have to come along and drag out the sackcloth and ashes over something they can barely comprehend (let alone understand), huh? Lookit: as a guy who actually helped re-write the P5 EULA, I can tell you right now that this isn't anything similar. The P5 EULA was basically mis-typed so that CL could (possibly) claim ultimate ownership of all Poser file types and by extension their contents. This case OTOH is one where pieces of somebody else's .cr2 was used to make a UV map. So, for all those who whined so loudly in here today about how DAZ is the Antichrist (or whatnot), does this mean that I can rip out parts of your commercial .cr2 files and do what I will with those parts? I think I'll start with some morphs... I could always find uses for those somewhere else, no? Why not just let me give 'em away, and share the wealth a little? Let other folks get some use out of other stuff they already have? Ah, but suddenly I'm willing to bet that these folks aren't so eager to allow such things, now are they? Didn't think so. /P

"Personally, Sixus over-reacted to the whole thing. All DAZ asked was that the thing be RTE/PCF'd for distribution, and V3 is being given out for free fer chrissakes." umm.. do you realise what youre saying? asking something like that basically cripples your sales right there. its rediculous. if there are two bags of chips on a store shelf, and one of them requires you to fill out a 5-page questionnaire before you can eat it, which will you buy? its about the same thing. when you are selling products their installation and use must be as simplified and spoon-fed as possible. asking a customer to go hunt around for a utility to 'decode' them, learn how to use it, decode it, save the new object, etc is absolutely rediculous just because the model shares the same shape as vicky. its like daz is now claiming ownership of it. the only reason it gets away with half the shit it does is because sixus is just a guy modelling these things from home and daz is a company with dozens of times the financial and legal resources as he has - so they can push him around. i would have called them on their bluff and told them to shove it where the sun dont shine - you cannot copyright a rough body style.

Oh well, we all have our opinions, don't we. I thought we were talking about joint-parameters not the full cr2 and I DO comprehend that. :D In fact, you may only need the joint centers (only two small x,y,z values per bodypart) and not all the blending zone information.

.

biting the hand that feeds them is not smart.

Then I repeat my question ... why aren't more people supporting the other figures?

Easy ... the relationship between DAZ and content creators goes both ways. Good content helps the sales and popularity of the DAZ models, and the quality of the DAZ figures is a large factor in the creation of content.

Content creators could just as easily create content for the other figures. But they don't. Why? Because they don't sell. And they don't sell because people don't buy the figures. And people don't buy the figures because no one supports them. Get the picture?

In reading the threads referenced to above, DAZ is trying to protect themselves from people circumventing the need for their figures. I don't see anything wrong with that ... they put hard work into them, why shouldn't they want people to use them? By creating a character that can use Vicky's clothing without needing Vicky, that is of concern to them.

To say that the content creators made Vicky what she is seems a rather strange way of looking at it. By the same token, the content creators can also turn Natalia, Elle, Seraphira, DinaV, and every other third party model out there into the next Vicky. So I repeat my question ... why isn't that being done now?

The answer seems obvious to me. A lot of people like the look of Victoria. THAT is what made her popular. And while a thinner figure could use Victoria's clothing, it wouldn't be 100% "right out of the box." You would have to morph the body, clothing, or both to get into the scantily clad temple-worthy armor. For a figure to be 100% compatible with Vicky's clothing, the body would basically have to look the same and bend the same as Vicky. So then, why not USE Vicky? Doesn't that seem strange? I want a figure that fits into Vicky's clothing, but I don't want it to be Vicky.

It seems to me that taking a proactive stance on this, and DOING something to do away with this perceived "monopoly" that DAZ has would be a more positive way of handling the situation.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 16:24

id be interested to see just how much of the 'original daz' products are reverse-engineered from old metacreations content. such as how much early versions of V1 used of posette's CR2, how much the clothing used, etc. somehow i doubt that daz started at 0 for everything they ever created.. and if they didnt then its yet another case of pot calling the kettle black. i think what infuriates me the most about this whole issue - and why im randint against daz right now - is that they are bullying around the same content creators that help pay their paycheques each month, and help further bloat the sales of their base models. how many sales would V3 have if the only content available for her was the daz diaper bikini and clothing pack? the daz texture?

Blackhearted ... the old Metacreations content was made by Zygote. The same Zygote that DAZ was a spinoff of. It is highly likely that the people who modeled the Metacreations content are the very same people who used it to build up into Victoria.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 16:27

"By creating a character that can use Vicky's clothing without needing Vicky, that is of concern to them. " well, when 99% of the vicky clothing out there hasnt been created by daz but by 3rd party merchants then their draconian stance is a concern to me. with this new EULA they are not just trying to protect their character shapes but ensure that all of the clothing ever created for those shapes never gets used for anything else.

actually zygote still exists. its more likely that daz just licensed the old zygote meshes. this would explain why they have created few items that are totally new meshes and arent simply subdivisions or rehashes of those old original zygote meshes.

with this new EULA they are not just trying to protect their character shapes but ensure that all of the clothing ever created for those shapes never gets used for anything else. And when the content creators made their content for the DAZ models, was there any reason to think that they would ever be used for anything else but that model? I doubt it. So what has changed for the content creator?

Deecey, I'll be happy to look into working with alternative figures very shortly - I probably can make a firmer decision close to Monday. Though I do have my sight set on my own figure line as a strong possibility too. If I get past aliens, monsters and robots first. :D

.

8-) Good deal, Netherworks. 8-) I'm just playing devil's advocate here. A lot of people cry "monopoly" but we haven't seen much support for anything else but the DAZ figures. And that is not DAZ's fault.

I am put in mind of a thread from several years ago....the thread header was something like "The Endless Story That Never Ends".

At the time, someone pointed out that the title was redundant.

Well, that "endless story" ended.

I suppose that this one will, too. Eventually.

I'm looking forward to enjoying P6.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Me too, Xenophonz. :) Maybe it will end because of action that levels the playing field - that would be right nifty.

.

"I'm just playing devil's advocate here. A lot of people cry "monopoly" but we haven't seen much support for anything else but the DAZ figures. And that is not DAZ's fault." oh, they have nothing to do with it? im sure they released V3, M3 and A3 for free solely as a 'gift' to the community they love so much, and not as part of a marketing/business strategy at all.

There is nothing stopping any content creator from creating clothing for other figures. That was my point.

Xeno and Netherworks, I am also anxious about P6 .. and intend on supporting the P6 figures. I'm downright excited about them.

But that doesn't mean I will stop creating stuff for the DAZ figures, because I like them as well. To me, it is more variety. I'm psyched about it!

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 17:03

Big time catchup required here. Firstly, some people are assuming that the mesh has elements of unimesh in there. That is not the case. The mesh is 100% original. The problem DAZ has is two-fold. First, the JP's (by the very nature of V3-compatibilty) are very close on V3 original. Second it is a "substantially similar" figure to V3. The first issue is the scary one for me. See, DAZ can claim EULA infringement based on use of the same JP's. Which means that any set of clothing (bar the "dynamic" stuff) created for V3 can be pulled from distribution at DAZ's request. Now I read the "clarifying" statement DAZ made in regards to their EULA over at PoserPros. But guess what, having asked a lawyer about that - he said their "intentions" mean nothing when I agree to the EULA. See, DAZ is not required to keep the same intentions over time, only to keep to the same terms of an agreed upon contract. In other words, they can come after anyone they damn well please on the strictest terms of the EULA. The "substantially similar" part of the agreement is obviously a stranglehold maintainer as they know that 90% of all content is for their figures. Can't have the virtual monopoly falling apart because someone made a better figure that is compatible can we? Note that I'm not saying what DAZ can (& are) doing is wrong "legally". They are well within their rights to do that as whoever has installed V3/M3/etc has agreed to those conditions (knowingly or not). I'm simply making it known that there is an issue as I had intended to jump into the whole V3 clothing thing head first. However, the clothing content I have made will now sit on the digital shelf as I will not rely on the goodwill of a company for the continued existence of my products. some people mention that I shouldn't mention the CL EULA. shrug Well, I've only seen it's latest incarnation and it is pretty reasonable as far as "content" goes. The rest of it is typical for software packages. Hell, Microsoft makes any other license (software or otherwise) seem like a gift. Thing is, it doesn't matter what OLD contracts might or might not have been like. What matters is the terms in the contrats YOU agree to. DAZ's contract legally stops one from using their joint parameters for anything. It makes no provision for supporting content, no provision for compatible textures, zip, nada, zilch. It states that one cannot copy any part of their "3D Model" (by which they also mean the rigging, i.e. joint params) for distribution. Simple, if completely draconian. As for the textures issue, one CAN actually classify them as derivative products where the use of the mesh or a derivative UV map image (such as SnowSultan's seam maps) was REQUIRED for it's creation. The example of "leather textures" I will acknowledge are not really covered by this, but anything where you need to place the eyebrow textures correctly, the lipstick within the right region, etc ,uses the UV's for this purpose. As such, they can be classified as derivative products. If this were NOT the case, why would CL make an explicit mention of this exact practice as something they allow as an EXCEPTION to the standard rule? I work in the software industry for a living and so I am kind of used to crappy EULA's. But what really takes me back is their provision that one cannot create a "substantially similar" creation. That would be like Microsoft stating in their EULA that acceptance of it means one cannot work on developing "window-based user interfaces". Oh, and no offence Pengy - but as mentioned, what WAS in CL's license isn't the problem. The problem is what IS in the DAZ EULA. And your "they can barely comprehend (let alone understand)" is so typically arrogant as to be laughable! Only people such as yourself can grasp the fundamentals of a license agreement? Give me a break! What does all of this mean to me? Well, it means that (given the figures are as ood as they look) I will be developing for Jessi & James. The agreement under which I can create content for them does not give CL the right to have it pulled at a moment's notice or "encoded" against their figures. Simply put, they allow me to create clothing, textures, etc for their stuff - no strings attached. DAZ do not

Alexa/Girl face supposedly the guy actually traced over the wireframe that Goosens had posted online. I don't know how much difference that makes. Ok, am amused Blackhearted. 2 words for you. Lara Croft. or how about. Tomb Raider. I can see why you might be a bit defensive about styles being protected. ;) Really it's all a matter of personal moral outrage and laws. Where is your line drawn, where is mine... and how do the lawyers look at it. We can all think what we want, as long as the stuff is done legally there's not much to be done.

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

Renderosity Gallery

But that doesn't mean I will stop creating stuff for the DAZ figures, because I like them as well. To me, it is more variety.

Variety, as they say, is the spice of life.

I can think of no reason not to take advantage of all of the good figures that we've got available to us.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

"Ok, am amused Blackhearted. 2 words for you. Lara Croft. or how about. Tomb Raider." what i find amusing is how you pick me out of everyone in the MP to direct that at, ignoring the thousands of such characters in the marketplace - especially daz - at this moment. mine is actually quite stylized and nowhere at all do i mention any affiliation. where were you when daz was doing the lord of the rings thing? they had 'LORD OF THE RINGS' text, logos, pic snippets, etc plastered all over the site. they sold a dozen products that were direct copies of the character, weapons, outfits, actors, creatures, etc in the movie - with LORD OF THE RINGS pasted on them. i nearly fell out of my chair when i saw it. im sure they had the full permission of the tolkien estate to do that too. and you point fingers at me? hah, what a joke.

Quite simple. Because you're the one here going on about it. I personally have your Irina stuff on my wish list. ;) Relax and enjoy the weekend. ^^

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

Renderosity Gallery

As to the question of why there's no support for alternative (to DAZ's) figures I'd like to open my mouth again. Although it seems to have died down some recently there was, initially, a lot of ridicule directed at alternative figures. Whether one considered DinaV ugly or not, the point is, that nobody did anything with her (except Handspan). At that point the market wasn't as big as it is now and my perception (right or wrong) was that nobody was going to do anything for her because everyone knew which side their bread was buttered on. And the victorias aren't that hot out of the box anyway but everyone worked their asses of making them the femme fatales they're considered to be. Has anyone ever responded to the repeated requests for a tutorial on remapping so they could remap DinaV to take any of the V's skins? No. I never saw one and I've seen repeated requests. This does not speak well of the community. Bread-butter? I still like DinaV, I wish there was a DinaV 3. Until you vendors unite and become an entity to be reckoned with this crap will only escalate. The lure of DAZ money is pretty strong when you're trying to make a living out of it I know but it's backfiring.

I tried to do a tutorial, AND I tried to do the remapping of Elle to V3. It's not easy. In fact, it's downright hard. I applaud those who have the patience to go through it. And, yeah, I realize the reason that people have neglected support for the other figures is because of the lure of the "bright lights." Heck, I've done it myself ... I tried some P5 support and when it didn't fly I changed direction again. But to put all the blame on DAZ for being a "monopoly" is wrong. The only thing stopping other figures from reaching popularity is content ... and until you see some content providers make a commitment to other figures we will see the same "DAZ is (insert favorite putdown here)" threads that we have been seeing over and over again. Don't put all of the blame on DAZ. We are just as much to blame for what some perceive as a "monopoly." I don't see it as a monopoly, I see it as giving the community what it appears they want the most.

Howdy Folks, I wanted to wait to post until Sixus1 had a chance to clarify their original statement but I have an appointment that can't wait any longer, so here you go. Since I've been involved with the whole Vicki/Lilin thing since the get-go I convinced DAZ that I should be the one post since I can answer most if not all of the questions & concerns raised so far. Now here's the skinny. 1) There was no reason that Lilin had to be pulled. In fact before the Sixus1 statement was released last night DAZ, and I, were under the impression that we were all still working toward an acceptible solution that would keep the model available. Instead Sixus1 released a statement that was originally a rought draft and was supposed to be reworked. 2) 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. 3) You can take a look at the attached gif to see the "rough body shape" Take the heads off & there's not a whole lot of difference. Bear in mind that Vicki is not only copyrighted but also a trademarked property of DAZ. 4)As I said I've got some real world things to attend to for the next couple of hours but after Les releases the clarifications, I'll be back to answer any addditional questions & deal with some of the misinformation that's been handed out in this thread.

"As to the question of why there's no support for alternative (to DAZ's) figures I'd like to open my mouth again. Although it seems to have died down some recently there was, initially, a lot of ridicule directed at alternative figures." recent incidents like the alexa deal do little to strengthen the support for alternate figures. if i ever risked backing an alternative figure id want to make damn sure it was 100% legit, otherwise i could be wasting my time and effort entirely. i know very little about the alexa thing, and i rarely visit commune, but i can only imagine the merchants' grief who provided addon content for such a figure. id probably hunt down the creator and strangle him for betraying me like that. the problem with most of the alternative figures out there is that they lack the financial backing that daz has. daz can afford to endlessly market their products and projects an aura of professionality. ill tell you right now - besides the aesthetic consideration a large consideration on the part of a merchant considering to create add-ons for a figure is how confident they are that that figure will succeed, and will be strongly marketed. so many times ive hesitated before jumping in with support for a figure and have seen it fade out of existence a month later. this is a big problem. perhaps by hesitating we merchants also contribute to the problem. what daz is doing right now is incredibly foolish. they are messing with the formerly unshakeable confidence their add-on creators have had in their products. mess with it too much and it will crumble and they will seek other products to support. if they underestimate the amount V3/M3/etc are dependant on content creator support than they are even more foolish than i can imagine. "Relax and enjoy the weekend. ^^" :) its the weekend? ah crap, this is what i get for living in the frozen wastes and being self-employed :( cheers, -gabriel

Wow, cooler, it's really clear now. Thanks, that clears up a lot.

cooler: wow ok, ill stfu now. my apologies to daz. before i jump into these discussions i should research them a bit more - taking what the original posters said as fact i assumed we were just talking about a similar shape and not a near-duplicate. if someone released something like that of one of my characters id skin them alive. but since you are very influential when it comes to EULAs at daz perhaps you can convey to them the fact that some of the things in their EULA make content-creators want to run away screaming. everything i said about being terrified creating things for daz (or CL) figures when i read these threads still very much applies. i dont understand why they cant just have an EULA that states that add-on content is OK as long as you are not redistributing part of the mesh or morphs and as long as the add-on does not eliminate the need to purchase the original daz product. why all the rest of the scary legal stuff?

In all fairness to Sixus, I believe he thought he was doing a good thing for the community by making a figure that would have lots of clothing automatically. He deserves credit for that. EDIT: And in all fairness to the people at DAZ, who in my experience are extremely good people, they don't deserve all of the bad rap that they get either.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 18:36

i guess you are right. i mean im speculating on their intentions based on lines in their EULA that they havent actually enforced yet. if they actually do enforce them, then its a massive backstab for content-creators. but if they never intend to enforce them, then why not make a friendlier EULA? even though the Daz crew have very rarely given me reason to be upset at them the fact that this stuff exists in their EULA makes me extremely uneasy... regardless of their 'intentions'. i think its extremely unfair to content creators. its like working in a house rigged all over with C4. no matter how nicely you decorate the place or how cozy you get it to be, or how low the rent is, you still know it can blow at any moment so you can never quite relax and just do your work.... even if the guy holding the remote detonator never intends to use it, the fact that its in his hands is enough to encourage you to move elsewhere :)

'mac, though isn't ERC born from what was already present in what we call a "full body morph" and is just applied to other dials rather than morph dials linked to the Body. Seems to be just new ways for an old trick ;)' Joseph, It's an unimportant issue, given the general topic of this thread, but yes, ERC was already present in poser. Rob and Charles just developed it into something incredibly useful. Just like INJ/REM, which started out in life as the humble readscript command to load the default figure. It's true that Rob didn't 'invent' these things, but he sure as hell took them way beyond anything CL ever imagined. mac

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?

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

It takes a good person to apologize, Gabriel. That was ultra nice of you. 8-) >>its like working in a house rigged all over with C4. You gotta use a better analogy. I have NO clue what C4 is. ROFL

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

good question. along the lines of mine "when did Daz think they can copyright human movement?" (JP's define joints and joint movement, therefore on a human figure that is human movement. oops I moved again.. where do I send the check?)

Send check to:
Descartes
c/o Qualien
PMB #101
2905 N Montana Ave
Helena MT 59601

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

""when did Daz think they can copyright human movement?" (JP's define joints and joint movement, therefore on a human figure that is human movement. oops I moved again.. where do I send the check?)" ehh.. if the joints are identical to 3 decimal places..

ehh.. if the joints are identical to 3 decimal places..

The odds against this occuring by chance are 8 tetrazillion to 1?

Is that what you mean? If so, "Therefore..."

(Excuse me for being a dunce.)
Message edited on: 03/18/2005 19:48

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:

1. Daz cannot legally protect the sex-look that currently opens wallets.
2. Daz's prices are too high
3. J/J are free
4. 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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

That was no crowning...I said it was early days and the entire proposal is a 'what if.' And anyway....it is a dubious assertion to imply that Vicki can dance. And.....THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME! It can be a matter of The Big 3D Expanding Universe. ::::: Opera :::::

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

But I have to admit that that the imagery of a "C4 house" is a new one on me. "House go boom!" hehe It is a funny image

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

Renderosity Gallery

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!

The renders of Jessi as "Molly" and "Golden Jessi" in the Runtime DNA Poser 6 Newsletter are intense. This is no little girlish model, but a potent woman. I'd dance with her! ::::: Opera :::::

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

Renderosity Gallery

"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.

Hey, Dan, while you're here, I'd like to ask if there's any problem with those of us who downloaded Lilin2 continuing to use her in our renders?
Thanks,
Julia

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.

Mac, he was insulting ih his post earlier. read up and you'll see. as to dan's reply's all well and good. but I've STILL not got an answer regarding other figures that have been mapped to take V2-V3 textures that are NOT encoded and yet Daz is saying anything. why?

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 :::::

crossed with Khai, I guess inquiring minds want to know. ::og::

"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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Victoria 3 Pro, eh? Sounds intriguing...

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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

And you do what you do very, very well. Thanks.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

http://www.poserforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2625&start=60 That is the link to see the Sixus discussion on this topic. You can see, they aren't bashing.

BTW, the real issue is whether or not TSR/WoTC/Hasbro will file for an injunction over the Beholder figure. They have closed down (temporarily) several on-line games that used that figure, so I expect to see an injunction soon. Heck, I invented the Sahaguin, never got paid for it and even I'm afraid to use it in a competitive use for fear of being sued. Though http://www.gameslore.co.uk/acatalog/Product/PR_MGP0006.html shows that you can feel free to use them if you want to be limited to d20.

Finally ... You can take a look at the attached gif to see the "rough body shape" Take the heads off & there's a surprising amount of difference, as there is a huge difference in the meshes. But, at the end of the day, guess it is a moot issue. Only question anyone has had for DAZ is if there would be any objections to those who had already downloaded the character before it was pulled using it, and it appears from what is posted here that no one objects? Am I correct on that? Thanks.

Only question anyone has had for DAZ is if there would be any objections to those who had already downloaded the character before it was pulled using it, and it appears from what is posted here that no one objects?

Dan Farr has already answered that question (in post #141) --

And I quote:

*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.*

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Moo

Moo

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

So if some people are disenfranchised with DAZ because of this, does this finally mean that Elle might get an alternate set of textures? You can tell there's a lack of interest in a figure when people aren't even trying to make her boobs bigger :( PBM, the doubtful

Well, I personally just got out of bed here, so yeah - this is the first opportunity I have had to reada the posts since I signed off on my last one. First up, wow - Dan Farr himself. Looks like this IS as important as I thought it was. And you know what - I really don't debate anything he said. Everyone has the right to protect their work. Alot of work went into V3, and it is that third-party work that has made her so successful. I know that they encouraged Sixus1 Media to keep Lilin2 around, but under certian "terms and conditions" they found objectionable. I started this thread talking about those "terms and conditions". Others may have used it as springboard for supporting other figures (be it Elle or the new Jessi/James combo), but that was & still isn't my aim here. Not once have I stated that DAZ were "wrong" in pursuing Sixus1 Media for their Lilin2 character. they have every legal right to do so under the EULA Les agreed to when installing V3. And THAT is what this thread was started on - the EULA "terms and conditions". Note that while Dan Farr said alot, he did not once refute what the impression of the EULA being debated here. In fact, he spent most of the post justifying that position. Now while I can afford "legal counsel", I cannot afford a court case halfway around the world to clarify the DAZ position in a FAQ (which you have to search through an ambiguously related question to find the information anyway) which is in direct contradiction to the terms in the EULA. This is not a "conspiracy", at least not on my part. The information is right there for everyone concerned in the EULA. Read it for yourself. If you can afford it, ask a legal professional what it means. If you don't trust me or my "agenda" - take half an hour out of your day to read everythinig in the EULA yourself and take it from there. From that you can determine that I am a crackpot, simply deluded/misinformed, or have fouond out something disturbing. In any case, I will have accomplished what I set out to do - and that is warn people about the "terms and conditions" they agree to in the DAZ EULA. To clarify a few things about my "agenda": I work as a software developer and make a substantial sum of money from it. I deal with EULA's all the time and have at times needed to refuse due to terms and conditions that were insufficient for my development needs. So when I chose to read the agreement (in light of the Lilin2 removal, not in defence of it) - I noted very similar conditions to those which I refuse to develop software under. I clarified it with a lawyer and she informed me my suspicions were correct - that I could not use the "joint parameter" data in clothing content I produced as it would be classified as "proprietary data" and could not be redistributed. In light of the FAQ announcement by cooler, I asked again about the matter and was informed that "new terms" could not be added in a "legally binding" fashion via an online FAQ. Given the EULA prohibts ALL redistribution without provision - I believed that the FAQ "clarification" to be a new term (and hence unenforcable). Someone else's lawyer has stated that the FAQ could be brought into a court of law and used as 'evidence of interpretation", however one would need to go to court first. And as I mentioned earlier - I cannot afford that and I doubt most merchants here could either. I also hold my reservations on such an action being completely successful, due to having seen contract lawyers at work. Tehir general advice is - if it isn't in the contract or a signed clarification thereof, it isn't worth the effort. Please note that not once have I said DAZ could not undertake the action against Sixus1 they did or that they couoldn't/shouldn't have put such restricting terms in their EULA. I simply decided to use this forum as a means of informing others about said EULA and what it means for merchants. Given that a high percentage of the people here can simply have a look at their Poser 5 EULA for comparison, it is not hard to compare the terms under which development for third-party figures can and has been done. Were it NOT for the Poser 5 EULA, I would have assumed that, like Microsoft licensing, it is just something that everyone has to live with in Poserdom. However that is not the case and, as such, I wanted others to know about it. I thank Dan Farr for his post, as at the very least it lets me know there is a new V3 product in the wings that might be interesting to purchase. Perhaps he will take into consideration people's issues in this thread when they draw up the EULA for the product. Perhaps not, that is a business decision they have to make.

There are many issues about using a FAQ to make an EULA more restrictive, however, in terms of making it less restrictive, see "estoppel" ... "waiver" and "detrimental reliance" ... I think poor Mr. Farr and Mr. Garner just need to be left alone right now. Guess there isn't any problem with second hand distribution of Lilin either, as long as it isn't for profit? If someone could clarify that for me (which is the question I should have asked as XENOPHONZ notes clearly, the one I typed doesn't cover it and was answered). My personal suspicion is that you can blame the lawyers and just feel some sympathy for the poor artists and businessmen involved who are probably just trying to do their best. On the other hand, it never hurts to clear the air if we can be polite about it.

I think poor Mr. Farr and Mr. Garner just need to be left alone right now. Yup ... I agree. >>On the other hand, it never hurts to clear the air if we can be polite about it. Here? Never happen. LOL

I have to say that I am happy with the direction this thread has gone. It has been narrowed down to what I believe are very direct, sincere and important questions regarding the issues. Hopefully my response will address them. Some of them specifically and some of them generally.

First of all, I want to address a few of BH's questions directly.

BH wrote:
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.

I could not agree with you more on this statement and in fact acknowledge this belief every chance I get. I do believe there is a true symbiosis in every sense of the word.

BH Wrote:
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

Our claim in on our works not yours. If our work is contained in part of your work then we claim ownership of our portion thereof. For example, if you create an original dress mesh to fit Victoria, we do not claim ownership to that mesh. You may choose to re-fit that dress mesh to a totally different figure (using the other figures JP's). We claim no ownership on your dress.

BH wrote:
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.

While part of Zygote we entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with Metacreations allowing them to use the models within Poser. Zygote retained full rights to the models other than that agreement. When DAZ formed out of Zygote, those rights (along with all other Zygote Poser-ready content) were retained with DAZ via a legal contract. A simple answer to that question is that we own rights to use those figures any way we choose to.

BH wrote:
it was a pretty underhanded move by daz to at one swoop appropriate all of the freestuff that was made for posette

Actually, I am not aware of what situation you are referring to. We have never appropriated works that has been developed by outside parties. We purchase the rights to works but we do not appropriate works.

I am going try to answer the rest of the questions on a more general basis from here on. First of all, we do not spend time pro-actively looking for models that may have problems. Most of the figures that may have concerns are brought to our attention by outside parties. We address them when we are aware of these issues. The creators of Dina V contacted us very early on and we have an agreement with them that allow her to use Victoria's U.V's I am not personally aware of the other models mentioned in this thread. If the creators of those models are concerned that they may have problems with either DAZ copyright or EULA with them, they may consider either contacting us to discuss it or use the RTE encoder.

I want to go back to the statement that Cooler posted from our FAQ sections. I don't know that I could explain this any better than what is said here.

"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."

So to sum it up, DAZ does not propose to claim any rights, ownership entitlement to the human form in general. We do own and retain all rights upon the human figures that we have created or purchased title to (including derivatives thereof).

Concerning the DAZ EULA. I want to mention once again. If any developer is personally concerned with the terms of our EULA reaching beyond what we have made very clear that our intentions are, please contact us directly and we will put in writing privately, what we have put in writing publicly here and in our FAQ's and other forum posts.

2nd hand distribution of Linlin would have the same restrictions of first hand distribution and in fact more. Not only would DAZ require it to be RTE encoded, arrangements would need to be made with Sixus1 pertaining to their rights of the character.

I hope that this has answered most of the questions generally and many of them specifically. It is really difficult to keep up with each specific questions. But I do hope that the message has come across clearly that DAZ not only appreciates the support by outside developers on our projects we recognize that our success depends upon it (Vicky has become a much better product because of the support of products like SMV and others). I also hope the message comes across strongly that we can be contacted directly to help resolve specific concerns that people may have.

Sincerely,

Dan Farr
President, DAZ Productions.

i didnt mean appropriate in a physical sense, but in a sense that by including posette support in V2 it pretty much eliminated the choice between posette/vicky, and pretty much eliminated the need for posette altogether. the freestuff providers who provided their work for free for posette were all of a sudden found themselves supporting vicky. this may not seem like a big deal but at this time many of them were opposed to the commercialization of the poser figure market and their support of posette was with a 'keep it free' intent. now i dont support either side of it, i was just pointing out that ironically this was the exact opposite situation that you are now in with sixus. luckily you had the license to allow it. thanks for answering my questions dan. to be honest im still a little nervous about the license, but your posts and levelheadedness have done a lot to alleviate it. i apologise for freaking out earlier. please try to understand that most merchants are a nervous bunch when it comes to things like this EULA issue since many of us are far too busy to sit there and pore over the license agreements with a microscope, so we tend to react pretty badly to threads like these pop up. cheers, -gabriel

Dan, Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately for a lot of 3rd party developers, they are stuck providing the bulk of the content for themselves. This is due to the fact that most of the content providers are channeling their time into supporting DAZ figures. Coincidently, this is why figures such as Elle from Neftis at polymage.com have never taken off as Neftis became ill shortly after the figure was released. As incentive to take interest in these figures, the 3rd party providers are stuck with the choice of making the bulk of the content themselves or trying to provide cross compatibility with other figures. Perhaps situations like the conflict with Lilin2 could be avoided if DAZ and its brokers supported 3rd party figures like Elle, Dina, Natalia, etc. At present, I'm not exactly sure as to how that would be possible since last I heard there was a policy of not supporting figures brokered from other sites. But I could be wrong on that. thanks, Jeremy

"Elle, Dina, Natalia,"!!!!! These characters are DEAD No future in poserdom Interjecting thier names at ever opportunity wont change this Sad reality. .......Sorry

My website

YouTube Channel

" "Elle, Dina, Natalia,"!!!!! These characters are DEAD No future in poserdom Interjecting thier names at ever opportunity wont change this Sad reality. .......Sorry " thank you for that wonderful example of a closed mind.

Thank you Dan, I will be contacting you or your representatives soon about such an agreement. I assume that I can make public any such "standard" agreement? Rgds, EK

Wolf, you're not particularly endearing yourself to anyone. There has been a revival of interest in Judy and Posette which are far inferior figures to the ones that I mentioned. If you have no interest in support for 3rd party figures from DAZ, then perhaps you should not comment on the likelihood of them being revived since there are some of us who do use them. I'm tired of hearing these excuses as an attempt to poison other artists against non-DAZ figures...

PBM: i could have sworn that natalia was sold at daz at one point. the problem of little support for 3rd party models is the risk factor involved. look at the latest alexa thing. id flay the creator alive if i spent months creating clothing for a character only to have it yanked for a copyright dispute. not to mention you can never tell the original creator's intentions. what if they pull the product off the market? youve wasted your time. what if they jack the price up to $150? youve wasted your time. what if they get an offer they cant refuse and end up selling the model and all rights to a company? youve.. yep.. wasted your time. in this regard i trust daz, theyre not going to rip someone elses mesh off, theyre usually the ones getting their meshes ripped off. its all a matter of trust in the merchant - so far i havent seen a 3rd party character i would trust enough to support. you are placing a huge stake in that character's success when you jump on board.

"thank you for that wonderful example of a closed mind." Reality sucks dont it :-) But please consider that its not "closed mindedness" thats preventing content creators from supporting those characters. they just didnt "Catch on" and their moment has long passed in posers Fleeting market. ....Sorry

My website

YouTube Channel

actually no, thats not reality. there are other figures and guess what? stuff is selling for them. please, take it elsewhere.

Nope...... pubilc forum i'll be staying :-) Have you considered becoming a content creator yourself???

My website

YouTube Channel

I am you already you know. you should check out my stuff.. I don't do clothes etc atm.. not got round to that. and I meant leave the attitude out. there are other figures, stuff does sell for them. fact of life. daz is not the only fruit.

Blackhearted, I appreciate your points. There's a lot of energy surrounding the development of 3rd party figures and then when they're released there's this sudden disinterest. It would be nice if some of those figures I mentioned could be supported at Renderosity, but there's this idea that only DAZ support sells.

I wish I could Do Clothing Myself so I could make Some Sci Fi armor For Males thats To My liking Maybe one day :-/

My website

YouTube Channel

khai, specifically, are you satisfied? And all the others, you are satisfied? I am not. Now, I am not a merchant making my living selling into the Vicki third-party market; the fears of those who are may have been allayed by Mr. Farr. My issue is with the blatant disregard for deeper issues. 1) Mr. Farr put enough on the table to clarify the position of his company with regard to the specific case of Sixus. He made the facts known, but he did not (nor can he) respond to the deeper reason Sixus withdrew the character anyway. He is not (and frankly should not) be responsible for responding to that reason, unless and until Sixus should choose to make this clearer. Case closed. 2) He is offering to put in writing the assurances made in this thread. The language and format of such written assurances may be the same as or on either side of that taken here. They will be written by lawyers. 3) He also conceded one outside point: "For example, if you create an original dress mesh to fit Victoria, we do not claim ownership to that mesh. You may choose to re-fit that dress mesh to a totally different figure (using the other figures J.P.'s). We claim no ownership on your dress." This is fair: you can't take a dress driven by DAZ JP and sell it for another model with the Daz-derived JP system in place. I respect Daz for having won it's market fairly in open competition. I have been vocal about that. I am excited that they have a new generation in development; as a consumer and Daz Platinum Member, I hope they have abandoned the horrible Unimesh and have started over, as it Mr. Farr seems to say, modeling from human beings. As a possible future competitor, part of me wishes that will take a long time. In either case, bring it on. Others may cringe that, notwithstanding the above, I am still confrontive. Also, since I intend to be a player in the Poser market as a filmmaker and possibly as a merchant, I may be revealing myself as a trouble maker with what follows. So be it. Unless I missed it in the sheer density of these exchanges (and I will take correction should this be pointed out) Mr. Farr made no response to the objection to the "substantially similar" clause, and chose total avoidance of the specific question about models that can take V3 textures. So, if someone started from scratch with mesh, bones, textures and morph sets for a brand new female character that had that nose/poutylips/amazonbody look that opens wallets here, at RDNA, etc., and at Daz, and that model could wear V3 textures and take clothing intended for V3 (with non-Daz JP somehow re-rigged), but had NO Daz DNA in any respect, but her look and feel were substantially similar to Victoria3..... Mr. Farr deliberately chose to address none of this. To me, that is telling. The proactive "substantially similar" penumbra is there. This clause is NOT necessary to protect against objective stealing, only 'look and feel' competition. He is giving away Vicki, and everyone who installs this 'free' model has signed on to it. They are baptised as followers. His FAQs amazingly get considered as part of that agreement, even though they are not IN the agreement click-approved. It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone took fresh mesh and went after the the Victoria-crazed market fair and square. It is tempting to tap in. Mr. Farr concedes that "DAZ does not propose to claim any rights, ownership entitlement to the human form in general." That is correct: Daz did not create, nor does it own, the attractor that drives Victoria; Mother Nature did and we all do. Signed without alias, John Donohue President, White Tree Studios Pasadena, CA USA ::::: Opera :::::

clothing intended for V3 (with non-Daz JP somehow re-rigged)

Clothing that is intended to work for V3 works around a specific set of joint parameters. If the model and the clothing do not have the same exact joint parameters (well, some of the blend zones and such on the clothing can differ slightly if the clothing is baggy or large), the clothing will not work properly on the figure. This goes for ANY Poser figure, not just DAZ's. This is the reason why V2 cannot wear V3 clothing, and V3 cannot wear V2 clothing.

So ... if your intent is to design a figure that is 100% compatible with V3 clothing straight "out of the box", without morphs, without scaling, and so on ... in other words, without ANY need for modification, there is no question that the model would have to be shaped the same, AND it would HAVE to use DAZ's joint parameters. There is no way around it.

Message edited on: 03/19/2005 23:24

I take that back. There is a way around it, but it is not what you would expect.

You see, you COULD create the model with a similar body shape, but you could give it DIFFERENT joint parameters. Which means the grouping would probably be different.

But then, you would have to regroup every piece of clothing out there all over again as well. That is defeating the purpose of making a new model that wears the clothing of another model. And if that were easy to accomplish, then everyone would have done it to V2 clothing when V3 became available. Being that that is the most time consuming part of creating a model or clothing, you might as well make a whole new character and all new clothing.

Message edited on: 03/19/2005 23:40

deecey, i agree the clothing issue you point out IS the sticking issue. in your second post, though, you hit on the 'next best world' where the clothing merchants would see the benefit of taking their successful 'little black dress' and making one for the new upcomer. Not as much a Home Run as 'out of the box.' Frankly, Daz has some great advantages by getting where they are. They hold the high ground which they won fair and square. ::::: Opera :::::

John (Opera Guy). Not avoiding the question just as I had stated have been overwhelmed by too many. Here is a specific answer to your scenario. If someone arrives with the character that you have suggested without having to copy DAZ's copyrighted and Eula protected products then I don't see how we would have any claim to protect it. But realistically what are the chances of that randomly happening . Here is a test. Does the new work require the use of the original DAZ file to get to the end goal? For example. If you are building a 3D woman model, do you need to load Victoria into the modeling application while you are modeling to use her as a guide or a template? If it does then it clearly is derivative. The same things goes with JP's, UV's etc. Don't make derivatives of the files. Create it from scratch and then there will be no need to encode it. And to answer the question further, I don't know how you can end up with the same UV's on a different mesh without somehow copying them. I hope that I have addressed your question accurately. If not please rephrase it for me so I can understand better what you are asking. Sincerely, Dan Farr President, DAZ Productions

Mr. Farr,

Thank you for responding.

It would not randomly happen, It would be deliberate. It would be someone saying to themselves, "gee whiz all of the attmepts to support non-Victoria models have fizzled, no one really likes the way they look, everyone wants the look Daz tapped into."

Such a developer might then say, 'so much for fighting it, I want to join it' and begin development of a model from scratch, not by loading any portion of your intellectual property into the modelling program, and certainly not blatantly stealing your files. They would just attempt to capture the 'essential look and feeling' that makes Victoria so successful, such as the certain set to the mouth and nose and the body style that has become so familiar to everyone. This would be done by memory and reference to images, not by studying the bones and mesh.

I know this is a brazen point with which to confront the president of an important corporation, but here goes anyway. It just feels like the "substantially similar" clause in the EULA is designed to address just such a situation -- to deter the emergence of a model that has NO Daz DNA whatsoever, but does have a substantially similar look and feel. I don't know any other reason you would have it in there.

Please let me be clear...I am not involved in any business plan to take this action, and in fact would rather see either your company or Curious Labs or another party come up with a hugely successful alternative to Victoria. My motive is: I think Victoria is a poor model, and I do not like it that she has won such a following. That's as honest as I can be about this.

I respect you for coming into this wild forum and respresenting your company straight away.

Thank you,

::::: Opera :::::

And all the others, you are satisfied? Actually, yes. The answers are clear, and, quite frankly, honest and fair. Can you take one figure and fit Vicky's clothes to it without running them through RTE encoding or something else? Sure, with enough magnets (arghhhhh). But seriously, Farr has been as straight up as one could expect. As for Les. Les Garner over at Sixus1 pulls figures all the time, even when they are selling, if he isn't happy 100% with them. He has a history of doing that (heck, my favorite figure got pulled last year, the Dark Young still isn't back -- and it is a great figure with people asking for it. I'm glad I bought it when it was for sale, but I'm sorry it is gone for now). I'm not sure there is anything more for him to say. Well, I've had enough of this thread, though I've enjoyed it and it has been interesting. Everyone knows what it takes to release a V3 compatable figure now -- and how some figures have gotten permission, everyone knows what they can and can't do with Lilian2 if they have a copy, and we all have a good rumor or two about V3 pro. And everyone knows Les is working on L3 as part of an open source collection of human figures and that L3 will not be compatable with V3. Guess we can all wait for the rest. Peace.

Opera

In the scenario that you have mentioned DAZ would not have issues with the new model. No matter how good of a memory an artist may have, in my opinion, it would be impossible to get into what could be considered substantially similar without using the original mesh to get there. The human figure is much more difficult to claim substantially similar than it would be for a character like Micky Mouse. Because a figure has a nose, eyes ears all in humanoid proportions does not mean that a figure is substantially similar. We could make no such assertions.

I believe that the substantially similar clause is there to help us with issues around a model being a derivative of another model. It is to prevent a model (or images of that model) from being taken into a modeling application and used as a template or guide upon which an entirely new wireframe mesh is created or shrunk wrapped to either all or part of it. Even though this method could produce a completely different looking wireframe mesh it would not make it any less of a derivative product. You could potentially have two wireframe meshes that don't share any of the same points or segments but in topology (how it looks shaded) they could be nearly identical. The question that could be asked is, could Shape A have in any way be created without using shape B? If the answer is yes, then it would be difficult to prove that the meshes were substantially similar. Based on this explanation, the probability of someone creating a substantially similar model to another model without using that other model to get there in likely impossible.

I am not an attorney and my opinions are based on my limited understanding of these issues (I have to say that). With that being said, I would encourage people to please not make derivative figures unless they are fine encoding them to the figure from which they were derived.

I sincerely hope that this has clarified our position. :)

Dan Farr
President, DAZ Productions

Thank you Mr. Farr ::::: Opera :::::

actually gave up. one of the conditions of L2 being still on release as to be Encoded. yet, there are other figures with V2 and V3 features availible which are not encoded. aaking why this is gets no reply. so, L2 has to be encoded when figure A does not need to be. shrug all I want is an answer. and for cooler to apologise for his quite frankly appalling behaviour above, and for Daz to make known in their EULA that the FAQ on their site is infact legally binding as the EULA on your screen so further mistakes will not happen. (plus having a further legal document that binds you and you don't know about it is bad. it should be part of the EULA or indicated by the EULA. saying "well they should read the site...." is not enough.)

Khai Wrote: actually gave up Actually you didn't give up posting your questions again. You have even added some requests. I will try to respond more specifically to your questions and requests. Please note that in my prior responses I was answering some questions specifically and some generally due to the sheer volume being asked. All though your questions may not have been addressed specifically I felt they had been addressed generally. Your requests on the other hand likely were not addressed. Khai Wrote: one of the conditions of L2 being still on release as to be Encoded. Yet, there are other figures with V2 and V3 features availible which are not encoded. My Quote from post 163: I am going try to answer the rest of the questions on a general basis from here on. First of all, we do not spend time pro-actively looking for models that may have problems. Most of the figures that may have concerns are brought to our attention by outside parties. We address them when we are aware of these issues. The creators of Dina V Contacted us very early on and we have an agreement with them that allow her to use Victoria's U.V's I am not personally aware of the other models mentioned in this thread. If the creators of those models are concerned that they may have problems with either DAZ copyright of EULA with them, they may consider either contacting us to discuss it or use the RTE encoder. While I believe the above response accurately addressed your question it may not address what I think might have been your underlying question why has DAZ contacted Sixus1 and not the others? The answer to that is Coolers post number 95. Lilin2 is clearly a derivative work of Victoria based on joint parameters, UV's and topology (referring to it's shape not the polygon cut and layout). Khai Wrote: and for cooler to apologise for his quite frankly appalling behaviour above I assume that you are referring to post 119 and quite frankly speaking, I disagree with you and don't find his behavior appalling and see no reason to ask him to apologize. Especially compared with the tone of many of the other messages in this thread. Khai Wrote: and for DAZ to make known in their EULA that the FAQ on their site is infact legally binding as the EULA on your screen so further mistakes will not happen. (plus having a further legal document that binds you and you don't know about it is bad. it should be part of the EULA or indicated by the EULA. saying well they should read the site... is not enough.) This is unnecessary. The fAQ's on DAZ's website do not and cannot in any way legally bind an end user (you) beyond what they (you) agreed to upon installation of the software. It can on the other hand add terms that in fact make our EULA less restrictive (intended to support developers who develop for our products) if we so desire and make it legally binding upon ourselves. That is what we have done. If there are developers who feel that our FAQ's and other written statements are not legally binding enough on DAZ, they can contact us and we will provide additional agreements for them. Some people reading this may be wondering why I have been so persistent to attempt to answer the questions that are being pitched at me. The answer is that I want to emphasize to them that DAZ is encouraging development of our products that support our products. We completely recognize their value to help make our products more effective and useful. We reserve the right to restrict our products from being used to create new products that circumvent the need for the original from which it was derived. I have done my best to address the questions in this thread. It has been exhausting but hopefully for those observing it has been beneficial in some way. I will ask that rather than continuing to post any further hypothetical questions, that people read the FAQ's on the DAZ page concerning these issues. If there is a need for answers or clarification to specific questions regarding projects that you are working on then please feel free to direct them to us. Sincerely, Dan Farr

Message edited on: 03/20/2005 10:30

ehh, after sleeping on this another night perhaps this isnt such a horrible thing. i mean really.. if someone comes into the market and creates a new figure, with a unique yet appealing body style on the quality level of V2/V3 is that such a bad thing? why must it be the same body shape as V3? if people have to purchase new clothing for that model, so be it. few people use the first clothing packs out for these models anyway, its usually the latest thing that gets used the most. and to be brutally honest (without naming any names) the reason that a lot of these models have not succeeded - besides shaken confidence in the 3rd party models due to infringements such as the one recently by nesterenko in alexa - is because they arent on the same level of quality. one of these figures, while being a decent looking model, had some serious issues with her hands and joints, and the last time i looked they still werent fixed. why the hell should i bother supporting a figure if the creator wont invest the effort to fix areas like this? another one had very skillfully modelled breasts, each perhaps higher res than posette in her entirety, but lacked finer details like properly modelled nostrils, corners of the mouth and the geometry around the eye. another one looked decent and had a lot of morphing capability but was just far too wasteful a mesh: people need to learn that 'ultra high res' isnt necessarily a GOOD thing. there is no need for 50,000 polys in a breast because a breast has very little detail. its a spherical object, perhaps subdivision of the polys near the crease beneath them gives a nicer and more natural blend to the body but having a 50,000 poly breast is incredibly wasteful. breasts (well, in terms of poser) never have wrinkles or lumps or strange geometry so a simple couple hundred poly shape is more than sufficient given poser's aggressive smoothing. so what im trying to say is that while these alternative figures are nice in that they add variety to the marketplace, the shame is that most just end up looking like poorly made vicky clones. when i see a mesh that has an appealing non-vicky shape and is put together with the same level of quality and intention of support them i will jump on it immediately, and so will a lot of other merchants. cheers, -gabriel

Thanks, Gabriel. You summed up my feelings on this entire issue very well.

Agreed!! well written Gabriel

My website

YouTube Channel

'and to be brutally honest (without naming any names) the reason that a lot of these models have not succeeded - SNIP - is because they arent on the same level of quality' gabriel, I have to agree. Reading dan's post where he mentions the work involved on V Pro, it should be obvious to anyone that making a major figure is now almost beyond the means of individual creators. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but given the commercialisation of the poser market, it was a pretty obvious development. The bar has been raised so high for human figures (mainly by DAZ themselves), that in order to get above it, it's no longer enough to make a figure using traditional methods. Body scans, mapping of physiques, hiring models, and all the other stuff involved, now require a team of people, plus the money and resources to undertake a major project, which not many creators have. My big disappointment is that CL doesn't make a bid in the content market. I broker through DAZ, and strange as it may seem to make a comment like that, I firmly believe that competition is healthy, wherever it comes from. Or perhaps I should say, lack of competition is unhealthy. CL has the money and resources, and if they got into creating content, it would act as a spur to DAZ. (Not that they need one by the looks of it). Just as, sooner or later, Daz Studio will spur CL into making better software too. People like Catherine (Mec4) have raised the bar in textures. She has a full studio setup, she's a good photographer, and she pays the models. Result = extremely high quality, and if you want to compete, you have to match it. Anyway, I'm sorry in a way that individuals are being slowly elbowed out, but if users constantly expect more and more realism, the market will provide it. That's entertainment, folks! mac

More good points. Thanks, mac! 8-)

"but if users constantly expect more and more realism" Hmmm...and yet we see the toon market consistently growing...

Perhaps the reason for that, though, is because of the difficulty in modeling a "real" human. With toons there is less expectation of what it is supposed to look like. It is easier for a single person to develop a good toon figure, whereas people expect a lot more realism from a model that is supposed to represent a real human.

'It is easier for a single person to develop a good toon figure, whereas people expect a lot more realism from a model that is supposed to represent a real human'

Spot on, deecey. You only need to look at the number of creatures and aliens around to see the same principle at work. Nobody can say for sure what an alien should look like, so it's all down to imagination and talent in figure making. It's not being measured against what we see in everyday life. Who sees toons and aliens walking around every day?

mac Edit - Maybe I shouldn't have asked that question. LOL.

Message edited on: 03/20/2005 15:05

*"I have to agree. Reading dan's post where he mentions the work involved on V Pro, it should be obvious to anyone that making a major figure is now almost beyond the means of individual creators. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but given the commercialisation of the poser market, it was a pretty obvious development.

The bar has been raised so high for human figures (mainly by DAZ themselves), that in order to get above it, it's no longer enough to make a figure using traditional methods. Body scans, mapping of physiques, hiring models, and all the other stuff involved, now require a team of people, plus the money and resources to undertake a major project, which not many creators have."*

ehh.. i totally disagree. (sigh, im trying to bow out of this thread peacefully and without stepping on any more toes but you are not making it easy for me with a statement like that)

personally im not a huge fan of this 'scanning' thing. a company may spend tens of thousands of dollars to scan in someones 'actual' body, but then that still must be tweaked into a morph... and whats to say that someone is going to find that body style more appealing just because its based on a real person.
take a look in the gallery - a lot of it is fantasy. not to mention that 'scanning' someone in robs creativity and style from 3D art. look at how popular 'the girl' is - do you think kim goosens scanned her in?

weve seen some scanned in people already. personally, im not too impressed. whats the allure? 'woo its based on a real person'. great. if every single work of art ever painted were strictly based on exact human proportions things would be pretty boring. not to mention that just about every 'real person' - even if they can be duplicated reasonably well into 3D, can use a tweak here and there - thats why plastic surgery, health and cosmetics are the biggest industries these days. hell a skilled morpher can take reference photos of a model and produce the same result as having the person scanned in - at thousands of dollars less cost, but would that same morpher hesitate to make some small changes to that morph to fit their own sense of aesthetics, or to give it some character? no, and this is the part of 3D we call 'style', and why it cant be duplicated by a machine.

for those who pursue absolute photorealism (which, imo, defeats the purpose of 3D - if you want absolute photorealism sans style then hire a real live model for $50/hr and take a thousand photos for your gallery instead), perhaps they will feel more confident knowing that they are working with a scan of 'an actual human'. me, well.. i like morphing figures, and im not going to go look for a day job just yet. in the end it all comes down to the appeal to the customer, 'scanned from a real human being' may sell a few more copies but in the end its actually likeing the body or the style thats going to sell it to the customers.
the V3 body is supposed to be a duplication of an actual human. i have no doubt that daz did a good job in duplicating whoever that was, but does that make people like the default V3 body or head any more?

as for meshes? yeah, there are many modelers out there who can put out high-quality professional meshes of V3's calibre or better. the problem is they arent very interested in the poser community - theyre busy doing professional work. you think zygote are the only people on earth capable of modelling the V2 mesh? (V3 is based on a subdivided V2 mesh). as for the ones that are working in the poser community? well.. many of them dont want to commit to the months involved in making something like V3, they just go with the flow instead.

now im not downplaying the work involved in V3. but i am saying that you should take all of the marketing jargon with a grain of salt (sorry dan). for example on the daz site there were pages upon pages of how the V3 textures were photographed using tens of thousands of dollars of uber-amazing equipment to make this groundbreaking amazing super-real texture. now its a fine texture and i have no doubt they did spend a lot of money on creating it using the methods they described - but there are people sitting at home with their $300 digital cameras making better textures. look at stefyzz, morris, syyd, etc, and no - theyre not using photos of 'supermodels' or $50,000 cameras and equipment.

part of the reason daz has such an advantage is because people buy into all the marketing. i could care less if a skin texture was created from a supermodel.. its just photos of skin, and in the end its only going to be the texturer's skill and the nature of the model's skin/pores/coloring that determines how the tex looks. given the choice to make a texture out of paris hilton's anorexic, tanning-salon-roasted ass or 18yr old mary jane from down the block who has natural coloring and skin that hasnt been destroyed by applying makeup 30 times daily, my choice is clear.

and now before someone thinks im just bitching about daz, think again - i have my problems with the RO marketplace as well.
"if users constantly expect more and more realism, the market will provide it."
the pursuit of realism: must 'photorealism' always be the pinnacle of 3D? is the girl realistic? is shrek realistic? are tim burton's creations realistic? if not then why are they so popular?
personally id like to see more highly stylized characters and environments in the marketplace rather than this blind pursuit of 'ultra photorealism'. if you want the ultimate in photorealism take a photo. some of these textures these days are approaching that anyway: 'wooh, look - it looks like a photo from this angle'. umm.. yeah, thats cause it is. its a 4000x4000 photo mapped onto a reasonably flat plane and rendered at 800x800, sure its going to look just like the photo you took to make the texture. magic? skill? umno.
how about seeing some originality beyond pasting a photo onto a UV map and soft-erasing the edges?

now please let me flee in peace :)
i went off the deep end when i first saw this thread, and posted some things id rather take back (although im not the type of person who goes back and deletes my posts) and apologised for. but a statement like 'daz is the only company capable of producing something like V3' screamed at me for a response.

cheers,
-gabriel

Gabriel, go in peace. Thus saith Deecey. LOL

Now that Blackhearted is gone, I guess it is safe to talk about him.

He raises a question which is pretty much on topic, as the underlying thread of this thread seems to be the similarities of figures. (cf "The human figure is much more difficult to claim substantially similar than it would be for a character like Micky Mouse. Because a figure has a nose, eyes ears all in humanoid proportions does not mean that a figure is substantially similar. We could make no such assertions." Dan Farr)

the pursuit of realism: must 'photorealism' always be the pinnacle of 3D? Blackhearted

I think he is right. The pursuit of photo-realism is naive, and it has nothing to do with art, but with artisanship at best.

The fine art world abandoned representationalism (in favor of abstractionism, impressionism, etc) when cameras became cheap and anybody with $5 for a Brownie could produce an image more perfectly representative than the finest fine artist could.

When the phony CG holy grail of photo-realism is finally attained and becomes available to Poser users, we will be thrilled with it for fifteen minutes. Then we will have to start to learn and think more about what real art is and could be (and it probably won't involve scanning bodies and patching together photos on a template, IMO).

I think it is healthy that this conversation has logically moved to a related and important issue... From the point of view of an animator... There are two schools of aesthetic philosophy in conflict in the West, naturalism and romanticism. Many think the continued drive to 'photorealism' will make animated film better. Yet...the cell-shaded world continues on its merry way achieving more and more impact, while photorealistic animated films go nowhere. Why? Is it because the technology is still not sufficiently advanced? I submit not. It is because good film makers know it is not necessary to have literal realism in animation....the audience will supply the verisimilitude in between the 'holds' and the absence of human skin texture...as long as the story, plot, characterization .... WORKS. In fact, they will forgive vastly more 'unrealism' than they will if viewing a live action film. What works for the mass audience of the West is romanticism. I don't mean 'romantic' in the "please kiss me and fill my heart" sense....I mean it in the "here is a story bigger than life with an emotional pull and a narrative story line and a dramatic (usually happy, but not always) ending." This is in opposition to naturalism, which eschews the auteur controlling the plot and goes for 'slice of life,' and very often ugly or dispirited slice of life. I think when an audience detects "oh, this is an animated film" (or a single image, for that matter) they suspend disbelief instantly and give the artist immense permission and expectation to "take them somewhere interesting" (romanticism) and that desire to be transported is FAR more important to the viewer than 'is the inside of her nostril shaded with he same value progression as the light values on her cheek.' All this is by way of echoing gabriel's point, in a way. Our medium does not need hyper real bodies and textures in order to 'get better.' It needs more artist/interpreters with story, expression, passion and vision to make both still and animated images with our marvelous tools. ::::: Opera ::::: Postscript: I admit it is "easier" to output in toon. But toon people fail too if they cannot realize a vision. The reason I possibly look forward to VickiPro is not because she will be more realistic, but that if they DO sculpt from real bodies she might not inherit the handicap of the distorted limbs/folds and outsized body/head ratio.

'im trying to bow out of this thread peacefully and without stepping on any more toes but you are not making it easy for me with a statement like that' Gabriel, you're not stepping on my toes. You disagree. Fine, I have no problem with that. Everyone sees things differently. T'would be boring otherwise. 'daz is the only company capable of producing something like V3' I didn't say that, and although you may have taken that as my meaning, it wasn't. You may be right that there's still room for individual creators to break in with a major figure, but it's becoming more and more difficult. Apart from the development resources, DAZ has the clout to push a major figure and get it supported, which makes all the difference. Doesn't matter whether it's people buying into the hype or not (I tend to agree with you there), it still happens, and very few sites can make it happen. Forget the scanning and realism side of it. We still have a situation where the resources and a good dev team can make the difference. Couple that with the marketing, and the competition has a hard time keeping up. If CL released P6 with J & J as add-ons, heavily marketed and sold separately at a decent price, assuming they're not half-assed figures, they'd probably sell a bundle. DAZ isn't the only company who could market a figure. But who's competing? Making a figure that uses V3's JPs isn't exactly my idea of originality. Anyway, I'm certainly no big fan of photorealism. I was a fashion photographer for 20 years, so I'm quite happy to avoid ultra-real figures in poser. But there's no doubt that it sells. mac

Qualien, nice cross posting with you! {At least I THINK we are saying much the same thing) ::::: Opera ::::

As I said above, I was a fashion photographer for 20 years, so this topic is near and dear to me. Just like in any small circle, within fashion, controversy has raged for years over realism vs romanticism. Some of the best photographers of the last century were realists - Avedon and Penn - and others were romanticists - Sarah Moon, et al. Total realism, when it's finally achieved, will be boring. Because total realism = real life, and most people create art to get away from real life, or at least, to interpret it in their own way. Poser's no different. If we ever get to the point of full-on reality, we'll be making photographs, not 3d simulations. It'll get boring after a while, and people will turn to romanticism. But it's inevitable that the bar will continue to be raised. It's human nature to strive for perfection. 'anybody with $5 for a Brownie could produce an image more perfectly representative than the finest fine artist could' The photographer, Bill Brandt, created some of his best work using a 1930's Kodak Brownie (in the 1960's). He reckoned that technology had moved too fast and people hadn't fully explored the possibilities of older equipment. By restricting himself to a single-lens, limited viewpoint camera, with no frills, he was able to concentrate on the subject. The results speak for themselves. mac

Opera,
re "nice cross-posting" The pleasure is mine, I'm sure! And I agree that we are expressing the same general idea.

"as long as the story, plot, characterization .... WORKS." Truer words were never spoken. As an erstwhile novelist, I always tried to keep in mind one maxim, "A story is what happens to characters you care about." That is the real trick of making something compelling (and of 'romance' in the sense that you and maclean use the word), if you can pull that off then technical virtuousity becomes secondary at most.

"He reckoned that technology had moved too fast and people hadn't fully explored the possibilities of older equipment." I will be excited to get P6, true, but if one were to give P4, Photoshop, Lightwave, and a fast computer to a Michaelangelo, or a Walt Disney for that matter, they could explore the creative potential for a thousand years and never come close to exhausting it.

they could explore the creative potential for a thousand years and never come close to exhausting it. OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhh, yeah! Truer words cannot be spoken. 8-)

...and in my "other world" I posses an amazing DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) for classical music. I basically have a $160,000 Bosendorfer concert grand piano and the Berlin Symphony Orchestra playing all Strads in the perfect acoustics of Carnegie Hall sitting in 20 square feet. It takes "dictation." When I think of what Beethoven and Chopin and Bach and Mozart and George Gershwin and Duke Ellington would have done with this thing.... ::::: Opera :::::

maclean >> It'll get boring after a while, and people will turn to romanticism. But it's inevitable that the bar will continue to be raised. It's human nature to strive for perfection. << one quriky thing: let the Realists drive the technique and technology of 3D forward full speed ahead towards technical perfection...and then the Romantics can swoop in and use their discoveries to make both small stories of (and great epics of) human hope and imagination. ::::: Opera ::::

" Awhile ago, there was a version of Dina that would wear Vickly 2's clothing. Did DAZ have any problems with her?" We asked and got permission from DAZ on Vina.

For any interesting perspective on the whole issue: "Copyright: What It Does Not Protect" explaining these matters and you can find it at http://www.ivanhoffman.com/copyrightprotection.html

Good precendent pull! Directly relates to the matter of why I didn't believe the sotware settings (jps) are protectable directly by copyright or trademark (given that the joint editor functions at only 3 places visually, matching to that degree is going to happen even if you do not reference a v3 cr2 since there is only a limited nmber of positions that achieve the specific effect available to a given mesh/joint structure). However, again, the matter isn't one of actual IP protection in that regards (however, the trademark will still protect the shape of the figure -- what they call topology in replies - regardless of the above ruling, as it hinged on essential qualities of the software, which she and her specific default appearance are not) but is instead an issue of contractual limitation -- the EULA is the enforcing spirit here.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

I should probably resist the urge to add my two cents but... This is about Daz preventing Sixus from dimishing sales of Daz's figure. A valid point however.... For example, Daz would never use unauthorized AnnaMarrie Goddard data(shape) in an unrelated product, unless they had her permission because that would violate her "right to publicity" and her likeness. That would be akin to what Cooler said about Sixus skinning the Vicki shape(topography) . Most of what Dan said about Daz protecting Vicki could be extended to Celebrities protecting there likenesses which they sell. If Copyright morals apply to a 3d persona then I think a real human being counts too. It is called "right to publicity"(look it up) which extends to persona even if name isn't used. If copying Vicki is wrong but copying celebrities is different? You can't objaction encode real people. The constant arguement is always around "technicallities" and "what you can't be prevented from doing". I only mention this example as that the basics are similar to this discussion. Dan Farr wrote- "We reserve the right to restrict our products from being used to create new products that circumvent the need for the original from which it was derived." Daz doesn't want people to borrow their hard work and costly research? A few months ago, on the phone, I told Dan I was deeply worried about Daz copying my future products, I received a soft laugh from him and the response: "Anton, we will take advantage of any innovation that helps us make better figures. We created MAT poses and don't stop people from using that. Daz's business is making the best figures possible". .........Alrighty then. Dan Wrote- "Here is a test. Does the new work require the use of the original DAZ file to get to the end goal? For example. If you are building a 3D woman model, do you need to load Victoria into the modeling application while you are modeling to use her as a guide or a template? If it does then it clearly is derivative." I bet Poser had to be looked at quite closely to make studio compatible with the Poser file format? So does that make Studio a skinned derivative of Poser? Oh what. I forgot. That's okay because you are growing the market. I'm not saying Sixus was right, or wrong. Nor am I saying Daz's stance is wrong or right. My point is like like religion, people/companies pick and choose what rules the hold themselves to and hold others to. It would seem to me Daz has already done themselves, what they claim Sixus has done. I could be wrong. Dan Wrote- "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" Great to hear, so that appies to other people's figures as well. And I am sure Daz doesn't have a different stance on the products they purchase and slap "Original" on.

-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the face of truth is concealment."

Over 100,000 Downloads....

Appreciate the thoughts, but if you've dropped by Sixus1 (the discussion forums are at http://www.poserforums.com/index.php you will find that from his perspective, he is happier working on his own projects. Not to mention, once he dropped V3 conformance, his project human models have taken off in some neat directions. Worth a visit to look at. I think that MAT files, like Wyrmaster's magnet sets, are probably something that would require a patent to protect, with an entirely new body of law to apply, and I'm glad that that approach wasn't thought about. Had not thought of the EULA that goes with Poser vis a vis DAZ Studio, nor applying copyright law to the code issues regarding creating conforming figures, though you've raised some good points. Just thought I'd note that this thread probably needs to be a new thread if it is going to continue, though with the personalities removed it might make a good FAQ entry.

I realize that this thread may have gotten off of the original topic, but I'd like to counter something to an earlier post here by Movida...

About 3 years ago, I discovered Morph Injection technology and shared my discovery on this very forum, intending it first as a way to easily expand on the Michael 1 figure, and make it easier to distribute morphs between different characters. It is my understanding that at the time, there were discussions here and there as to whether or not such a thing could be done, but no one had actually tried it. Having not read any of these previous attempts, I painstakingly hacked my way through the CR2 files and developed what later became the Musclebound Michael Figure, the first poser item, for free or sale, that featured Delta Injection Technology.

The following two links shed some light on the original discovery and my sharing of the procedure on these very forums:
CR2 Editing Tip: Embedding New Morphs inside Pose Files (Posted Sept 3rd, 2001)
New Poser Technical Tip: Morphs embedded inside Pose Files (Posted Sept 3rd, 2001)

Along with the release of Musclebound Michael, I made freely available from the DAZ website a PDF user's guide instructing people on how to implement Delta Injection into their own figures. Rob Whisenent, who had developed ERC alongside Nerd, was one of the beta testers for Musclebound Michael and the two of us had a few discussions as to how to better develop the technology and how it could later be implemented into DAZ figures. I had even approached DAZ with the idea of adding Injection channels into Michael 2.0, but the decision at the time was to feature the same technology as had been in Victoria 2, and to hold off until the 3rd generation Millennium family.

I cannot recall ever making a complaint about not getting a thank you and I have maintained a very positive relationship with DAZ over the years, beta testing products, moderating the DAZ forums for a stint, and assisting in the development of various products that have appeared in the DAZ Store, and have been working on a few products still yet to appear.

Thank You,
Ron 'DraX' DeFreitas
DraX Multimedia Designs
DAZ|Forum Team

That is interesting Drax. I am ashamed to say I had neevr heard your name mentioned once. Gratz belated. A testiment to the resourcefullness of the community and it's idividuals. Regards, Anton

-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the face of truth is concealment."

Over 100,000 Downloads....

If I created conforming clothes and props for M3 by loading blMilman.obj, building the clothes around him, and editing the cr2 to make conforming clothes, does this mean I can sell the conforming clothes and props that fit M3?

In a strictly legal sense "maybe". In practice, DAZ do not tend to stop this, but the legal framework they have setup allows them to do so unless you allow them to look at the product first and get their approval. This is something I do not like (giving a competitor veto over my products) and hence there is a later thread addressing the lack of clarity in their EULA. They are (to my knowledge) writing up a proper addendum to the EULA that explains our EXACT rights and obligations as far as derivative use is concerned. It has been a little time since I last got feedback on that issue though - so as to their progress, I have no idea where they are on that.