OK, I hate doing this. I really do. But I also hate being played and that's just what I think is going on. Most people reading this will remember my post a month ago on the DAZ EULA and how it restricts us merchants. Most people will also remember that Dan Farr himself came in to reassure us all that the EULA isn't all that bad and pointed us at their clarification on their website. Some of those will remember that he also offered those of us still doubtful about the whole issue a written clarification on request. Well, I asked for such a written agreement as offered two days afterward. I needed to repeat this request three times to get an answer (twice through their "official" contact page and once through a PM to Dan Farr). The answer, of course, being a pointer to a thread on their forums with a general clarification in response to the Alexa fiasco. Never mind the fact that the body of my request explicitly stated the fact that I was after the agreement offered by Dan Farr (President of the DAZ corporation) and never mind that the clarification I was pointed at did not answer the questions I explicitly asked to be answered. Ignoring that, I replied (via email) to the person who sent me the email thanking them for their reply (with no remarks as to the time taken or number of requests required to get it) and politely asking again for a written agreement/clarification from DAZ. I mentioned (again) that I was simply following up on an offer made by Dan Farr, that the clarifications provided did not answer my questions, and even took the time to whip up a theoretical situation to shed light on why the clarifications offered by DAZ were too ambiguous/incomplete to be taken "as is". After a few days, I copy+pasted that email into their contact page (again) as I had not recieved any reply (not even a "Thanks, I'll look into it"). It is almost a week since then. I had hoped that by now I would have an agreement/clarification from DAZ (as offered) detailing my rights as a merchant (as opposed to their "end user" EULA explanation). I had hoped that I could start a thread, publically detailing where I was wrong (and where I remain right) in the previous EULA thread and make a freebie offering "in apology" and as proof of my comfort in selling merchandise under the DAZ agreement. Looks like that isn't going to happen. Either Dan Farr misrepresented his intentions of clarifying our additional rights or they are avoiding answering the questions I asked directly (for whatever reasons they might have - I won't speculate). I am not "anti-DAZ" and had hoped to prove otherwise with a public apology, explanation, and freebie. I believe I have given DAZ plenty of time to answer me privately. Perhaps the "nay-sayers" are right, and the only way to get their attention is to cause a fuss. So be it.

cause a fuss over there, more likey to get a response

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net

 

Possibly. But it's also possible they'll simply move the thread away from sight (after all it is their forum). Last time I mentioned my problems here - Dan Farr himself came on over. Something tells me - unless they think this issue (and/or myself) are of little consequence - I'll get some feedback from this.

Remember, I tried to do this the nice way. And if anyone is interested - I'll post the exact emails/messages (minus the headers stating how many times I have sent it before). I will not post the email I got in return (in respect for the service representative), but my reply to said message is available should people wish to see it. EDIT: Spelling mistakes corrected

Message edited on: 04/11/2005 21:59

can you give a short bullet point list of the content you were looking for in the written clarification?

Easiest if I post the first question - it's primarily bullet point anyway. This email is a request to obtain written clarification of the "exceptions" to your EULA in regards to the allowed uses of your "proprietary information" as offered on the Renderosity forums. I would also like to obtain written clarification of my obligations in regards to the distribution of products containing said proprietary information. If possible, could the written clarification answer the following questions directly either as a part of the main text or as an addendum to it. 1. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related meshes I make and distribute? 2. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related products created using the joint parameters of a figure? 3. Is the use of figure morphs allowed in creating derivative clothing-related products? 4. Am I required to encode a product using derivatives of either the joint parameter data or UV layout of a figure provided the product is not a competing figure (i.e. is clothing or texture related)? I am hoping that this clarification will resolve any of the ambiguities/contradictions that have been brought to my attention recently in regards to what the EULA says and what DAZ has stated publically. I look forward to your contact, Regards, Benjamin Tolputt

can you give a short bullet point list of the content you were looking for in the written clarification?

I am sort of thinking along the same lines.

Without more detail, I can't quite follow what the difficulty is. Other than what you consider to be non-responsiveness.

This kind of looks like an internal DAZ matter to me. Something to continue to take up with them.

If they don't answer -- then you've gotten your answer.

Not the way that you'd like it, of course. But it's an answer.

Bringing it over here probably won't win you any kewpie dolls -- and it might just succeed in creating some......uh......"un-friends".

It's best to stroke people that you wish to do business with. Certain individuals don't like that simple truth: but that doesn't make it any less the truth. Message edited on: 04/11/2005 22:41

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

OK -- Upon reading your list, I think that I understand what DAZ's problem is. Simple: they don't want to provide you with ammunition to use against them. And that's most likely the blunt truth.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I don't think they can easily respond to that, except in some way that notifies everybody, not just you. You can use whatever terms of use came with a specific product you bought from them, provided you read the fine print to see whether you agreed to use the product under their terms, even one of those terms is that they are allowed to modify the terms of use at any time.

First - I'm note trying to win "kewpie dolls". I'm not doing this for popularity or for "kicks". I know next to no-one in the "poser community" nor am I likely to. I simply want re-assurance they are not going to come after me at some point, and the only way I can do that is to either not use their products at all or get the rules for their use clarified.

Now, the "blunt truth" of my predicament is that I am not trying to do business with DAZ anymore than I am dong business with Microsoft when writing software using their tools. I purchase a license to use their tools (with the rights & obligations clearly spelt out) and provided I am not copying their code verbatim or reverse engineering their software - I am fine. I am simply trying to get the same "fire and forget" agreement from DAZ that I get for the rest of the products I use (I develop software for a living, I model for fun and minor profit).

If the "blunt truth" of their side is that answering my questions opens them up for attack - then you are quite right, Xeno. My questions have been answered in a most negative light. If that is the case (and I'm not saying it is - DAZ has yet to determine that, and I try not to look like a fool when I can), shouldn't other merchants know what questions DAZ will not answer in regards to content development.

My request to DAZ was to get things clarified for projects I have in the works or are already ready for distribution. I'm sure if I was trying to "trap them" into saying something incriminating, I would have had someone better at creating such issues do it for me. I too am blunt, and just don't have what it takes to "hide" my intentions in such a way. Have a look at the messages I have written - do I SOUND like a guy who speaks like a politician?!? Oh, and the "terms" that come with the products I have from DAZ (V3/M3 in particular) state that I cannot use ANY of the data (including joint parameters, uv's, etc) from their products. that was what "part 1" of this thread was about a month ago... EDITED: To reply to mateos

Message edited on: 04/11/2005 23:10

A side note: in no way, shape, or form do I claim to speak for DAZ.

But certain things aren't too hard to figure out.

I too am blunt, and just don't have what it takes to "hide" my intentions in such a way. Have a look at the messages I have written - do I SOUND like a guy who speaks like a politician?!?

I certainly agree with you here.

And that's why it's not likely that you'll get much out of them.

You've shown a willingness to start up threads like this one. So, they aren't going to be putting you onto their "friends" list.

If Dan Farr responds to this thread, then he'll probably do it in the same manner as any good businessman. Without getting into a wrangling match.

That's what I'd do, were I in his position.

Or I wouldn't respond at all. That's usually the smart way for a business to handle something like this.

Message edited on: 04/11/2005 23:17

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

laugh You have got to love a world where doing business with someone who is honest about their intentions is a bad thing. Not disagreeing with you, Xeno - just amused at the irony of it. Oh, and for the record - I am not trying to get Dan Farr or even a DAZ representative to reply to me "in the open". As I mentioned, I tried the whole personal contact thing. If this causes them to send me an email - all well and good. If not, "to be blunt", I think DAZ will need to explain why to the merchants they rely on for the success of their products (that does NOT include me by the way - I have yet to release a DAZ-figure compliant product due to this very problem!). After all, Dan did say we could obtain such a written agreement clarifying their position. These are not "out of the ordinary" questions I am asking. And they are required for anyone concerned about the legal grounds on which they base their Poser-content business (at least if said business involves the DAZ EULA).

E.K., if you didn't do it, maybe you should include a copy of the reply Dan Farr gave you in that other thread. I remember him telling you that DAZ would give those details about their EULA by writing if asked. SO if you were to copy that reply from Dan Farr and paste it in your email, maybe they'll believe you? France

France, Proud Owner of

KCTC Freebies  

These are not "out of the ordinary" questions I am asking.

There are thousands of third-party products out there that have been created by Poser content developers. These products are made using DAZ's joint parameter information. If they didn't use that same information, the clothing would not work properly on the DAZ figures. DAZ hasn't laid claim to this content, making the answers to your first two questions pretty clear. While the questions don't seem out of the ordinary, the answers seem obvious to me. 8-)

I can also answer a third one. In order to fit a morphed character, you have a couple of solutions. You can use The Tailor, which DAZ sells (so we know that's OK), or you can hand-modify your clothing in a modeling app to fit the morphed model. Either way, you are using the DAZ figure as a reference to modify the clothing you made. However, because the geometry of your clothing is probably different than the geometry that DAZ created, you are not violating a copyright. DAZ has already answered that one in previous threads.

As for the last question, I reserve comment out of respect for those whose feelings (both sides) were involved the first time around in the thread where your questions were raised. I will not be a part of rehashing that again. Sorry.

Message edited on: 04/12/2005 01:16

There are thousands of third-party products out there that have been created by Poser content developers. These products are made using DAZ's joint parameter information. If they didn't use that same information, the clothing would not work properly on the DAZ figures. DAZ hasn't laid claim to this content, making the answers to your first two questions pretty clear. The emphasised portion is actually not quite true. It just means that DAZ hasn't decided to pursue these people yet (or, at least, "not to our knowledge" for the conspiracy fans grin). Besides which, the problem is that the DAZ clarifications do not specify clearly our "obligations" to DAZ as far as these "derivative" products are concerned. This is something people tend to overlook. Yes, we are allowed to use their data, but under what conditions. I highly doubt it is as simple as "as long as the product is not a figure". I can also answer a third one. In order to fit a morphed character, you have a couple of solutions. You can use The Tailor, which DAZ sells (so we know that's OK), or you can hand-modify your clothing in a modeling app to fit the morphed model. Either way, you are using the DAZ figure as a reference to modify the clothing you made. However, because the geometry of your clothing is probably different than the geometry that DAZ created, you are not violating a copyright. DAZ has already answered that one in previous threads. Actually, not to dig up a dead topic but Lilin2 was "all original" geometry. So the "shape" of a figure (i.e. a morph) is obviously something that they classify as protected under their EULA. The problem I have is not HOW to do something, but under what conditions & obligations am I allowed to do it? As for the last question, I reserve comment out of respect for those whose feelings (both sides) were involved the first time around in the thread where your questions were raised. I will not be a part of rehashing that again. Sorry. No need to be sorry. While I am somewhat ticked at being ignored by them, I am not trying to "re-ignite" a flame-war. Quite the opposite. My aim is to get the clarifications (promised by Dan himself) to quell the ambiguities that start these arguments. In my opinion, the best option for them is to create a new "legalese" document as an extension/addendum to the EULA and have it available for download from their site. Keep the FAQ's and so on for letting people know their rights in "laymen's language", but also have a definitive text from which people can read their EXACT rights & obligations.

It just means that DAZ hasn't decided to pursue these people yet (or, at least, "not to our knowledge" for the conspiracy fans grin).

DAZ has several PA's (published artists) that sell Millenium figure clothing at other sites as well. When they submit content to DAZ, the folks at DAZ put it through QA testing. They have the opportunity to see how the clothing is constructed, and how it works on the figure. They test it in various poses to make sure there is minimal pokethrough. And in order for the clothing to work, it needs to use their joint parameters.

If DAZ allows the clothing to go through, that means they have no problem with it. The clothing made for the other sites is made the same way ... in many cases by many of the same people. Your assumption that DAZ "just hasn't gotten to them yet" is wrong. 8-)

I am not saying this to be confrontational, but you might be reading more into this than there really is. If content developers are concerned about particulars in regards to this, then perhaps it is better to ask DAZ directly instead of looking at a "definitive text" that everyone will interpret differently.

Message edited on: 04/12/2005 02:38

sigh I DID ask DAZ directly. They didn't answer - hence this thread. The idea of a "definitive text" is not unusual either - what do you think an EULA is? Written the right way, the interpretation of them is highly limited otherwise "contracts" wouldn't be possible would they? :) Also, we already know that DAZ makes agreements with people to do things they normally wouldn't allow. Take for example several figures with V2 uv's (without the requirement for encoding). All of which is beside the point really. The point is, DAZ offered a written clarification of the rights granted above and beyond the EULA. They have yet to make good on that offer despite many repeated requests.

Although the manner in which E_K is pursuing the issue may be questionable (and you should consider raising a fuss over there, even if they do move the thread -- crusades are not popular, but they are always most effective when taken to the source), he is correct. The fact that DAZ has not yet exercised rights does not indicate that they cannot. However, there is a factor that is important for you to consider, E_K. That factor is that you have asked for these conditions, and then expected them to be immediately available. Such is not the case nor the implication. It might take six months for you to recieve a response. THat response may require examination by an attorney. That response may, as noted earlier, be something that they feel is better suited to a full, public disclosure. Lastly, keep in mind the reality of the situation. DAZ does not, under any circumstances, want a fuss raised about this. It is bad publicity, and the standard method for dealing with bad publicity is to ignore it. Lastly, and, truly, most importantly, if the issue is of so great a concern to you, then your best bet is to NOT support DAZ. And make no mistake. Buying their goods is only part of the support for them. Buying anything made for any of their goods -- and now, buying from Poser pros -- is support for them. Making stuff for them or for their products is support for them. There is no need to be negative about them, either, when supporting other products. Aside from generating ill will (which, in this business, will kill you quicker than you can imagine), it makes you look whiney to the greater population of non-posting members to this site. Incidentally, if you do morphing/shaping of characters, email me, lol. The more productive use of your time in the longest run will most likely to work on supporting and underserved figure or market. Short term, yes, the money is in the daz figures, and if money is your sole motiviation, then the business at this time is not for you.

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)

It's certainly an interesting question but I agree it might take some time. Just to note...Daz also went after posermatics Aiko_Man over the same JP Issue.

I do think your analogy with compilers for programming languages, while a bit strained, is appropriate. Perhaps the Joint Paremeters are better compared to a library than to the actual compiler: actual chunks of code which let you do useful stuff. In that light, Poser itself is closer to the compiler. And why is this important: I don't know the history of the business, and I'm not all that well up on the history of software licences in general. but there's a quarter century of history on personal computer software in general, and what the various rights mean. I don't know of the same solid history surrounding 3D graphics models. And if the arguments get serious both sides have to explain things to a judge. Now, I can see Daz thinking very seriously about this, and checking with lawyers, and maybe having to explain some things to lawyers. They might not be able to easily give the answer that was promised. Fair enough. I don't, myself, see why they couldn't have told you that. Interesting thought: is the Poser Setup Room legal under the DCMA? It lets you take data from a figure and apply it to a clothing item...

Thanks for the input, ynsaen.

First, I have started a thread over at DAZ. I am not expecting much from it, but I took xenophonz's advice and wewnt to the source. Worst comes to worst, they 'll remove it and I'll have to "crusade" here grin

Secondly, you summed up the primary issue quite well. Just because I haven't done something doesn't mean I can't. Same goes for DAZ. Hence the reason for requesting written clarification.

I disagree that I should be patient about the whole thing (six months! No way!). DAZ implied that their clarifications on the EULA should be enough for everyone. If they were "clear enough" already - it logically follows that writing them down is no big hassle. To quote Dan Farr:
"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."

In essence, I read the above as being somewhat incredulous that we would require such a written clarification but DAZ will be nice and give it to us anyway. It would "appear" that this is just PR bull to calm the natives given that no such written confirmation or message to say that they're working on one has been forthcoming in a month of polite repeated requests.

Now they can of course ignore me. Seems like they already are. And like ynsaen mentioned, I can support other companies (something I already do). What about those people that take the word of big companies (and let's be frank - in Poserom, DAZ is big) only to find out after weeks of work that DAZ has reserved the right to stop them distributing/selling it. I can't stand-by and wath that happen when a simple clarification can resolve things one way or the other.

Say what you like about my methods - but I am not out to "bring down DAZ", nor could I. I am simply trying to get clarification on a few legal loose-ends from a company that implies they have answered the issues already. Ignoring me (in my mind) validates the arguments of those that say DAZ cannot agree to things on paper as they don't really mean what they say shrug Side note: is the Poser Setup Room legal under the DCMA I'd say it IS because the data is available for everyne anyway. One of the things the DMCA was designed to do was stop people reverse engineering "protection", I don't think it applies to something unprotected by code/encryption. I am, however, not a lawyer

Message edited on: 04/12/2005 07:51

I would be suprised if you were to get a definitive answer from DAZ describing the situation regarding all possible models you might create in the future, which contain some element of their products. I think such an answer would need to be either be so restrictive that it might unnecessarily stop people developing DAZ compatible products, or so relaxed that it might damage their position if they decided to take action in future on something they saw as infringing their EULA. You might be able to get a definitive answer if you were to ask about a specific example of a model you have made, or intend to make. I get the impression that DAZ reserve the right to refuse permission for elements of their products to be used in derivative works, but only excercise that right if the derivative work is considered to be in competition with their own products. So if you use joint parameters of a figure to make clothing that's probably OK, but if you use them to make another figure that's probably not (at their discretion). Having said that, if you were to use DAZ joint parameters to make a clothing item very very similar to an existing DAZ product they might well complain. This is just an opinion from a non lawyer, non merchant though. Ian

DAZ has basically said in previous posts that they put a lot of time and money into the development of their figures, and if they see a product that circumvents the need for it, it raises concern to them. There is nothing wrong with that. If you create a human figure that is shaped the same as a DAZ figure and uses the same joint parameters, you no longer need the DAZ figure to wear all of the clothing. It circumvents the need for the DAZ figures. That raises a concern to them. If you use DAZ's joint parameters to make a piece of clothing for a DAZ figure, that is not a concern. You need the DAZ figure to use the clothing. That is not a concern. DAZ has already addressed these things in public, though I may have paraphrased it a bit. As Ian has pointed out, giving a specific example may lend better results to the questions you ask. If DAZ responds with the blanket statement that you seek, it could STILL raise questions and misinterpretations (a good case in point of that is Renderosity's TOS ... everyone sees it differently!). That is why it is best to take specifics directly to DAZ.

Ian Porter, the idea of something being similar to a DAZ product sounds likely to be covered by a lot of IP law anyway. Think "counterfeiting" in such areas as clothing. As I said earlier, I wonder if mass-market CGI is still awkwardly new.

Posted to your thread at DAZ. Glad to see Dan is on the ball. mac

Just a quick update: 1. I am not trying to get clarifications for anything other than use in the development of clothing and texture related products. If I need to go to DAZ for clarification on every clothing/texture related product I create - that is unacceptable (and I assume DAZ would feel the same way). 2. I do not want to us the DAZ meshes for anything other than sculpting non-figure products around (clothing needs to fit the body after all), and using the uv information contained in the mesh for use in texture related products. 3. Dan Farr has replied to me in the DAZ forums. He states that he will reply publically in the thread over there to answer the questions (for those interested in the answers). While it sucks to say it, it proves that the squeaky wheel gets the attention. If I HADN'T complained publically - I doubt I would suddenly be getting the response now shrug

"we will put in writing privately, what we have put in writing publicly here and in our FAQ's and other forum posts." Doesn't sound like they were going to tell you anything really new anyway. It makes sense for them to be as non-specific as possible. We're not talking about a hammer here. It's all just data. People here have already figured out a lot of clever ways to do things that the creators probably never envisioned. They don't want to end up in the position of having ok'ed something only to find that someone's figured out a way to take money off the table that they think should be theirs. From their point of view, that's just good business sense.

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

Yes, but the "good business sense" you are talking about is completely one-sided. It is NOT good business sense for merchants to base a business (and in some cases, a living) on ambiguous "clarifications". In fact, it's just plain "bad business sense" to do so. Hence the reason I asked specific questions (i.e. outline your rights over content created given said conditions and outline my obligations when distributing said content). Do you think DAZ buys content to be sold in their store under ambiguous conditions? No, of course not - and niether should we. As you said - it's just "good business sense" :) Again, this is not DAZ specific. This applies to any contract entered into, regardless of whether it is for Poser content or buy a house.

I agree completely. Usually though, "good" becomes "bad" only when it negatively impacts the bottom line enough for them to overrule the lawyers :-)

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

laugh I would assume that is what the current delay is about. Dan knows that avoiding my questions now is going to cause problems in the PR department and I'm betting the lawyers are trying to find a way to keep as much control as possible without sounding like it. I am assuming that Dan Farr will make good on his word and answer my questions properly (i.e. addressing the specifics). If not, well - the PR hit is something they'll have to deal with. shrug I make no apologies for my desire to have specifics and as noted at the start of this thread - I did give them the opportunity to give them to me in private.

just watching

For those that are interested: Dan Farr has replied to me over in the DAZ Forums. And, as per my suggestions (though they probably didn't do it because of them!), they are creatinig a "developers agreement" and will be placing it up on their site. This of course will take a while due to the fact that it will be a "legal document" and as such, will have lawyeres crawling all over it before it is released evil grin Dan has said, however, that in the short-term he will answer my questions directly in the thread over there. For the convenience of and as a courtesy to those reading this thread - I will copy his answers here when I get them (hopefully tomorrow) EK

Eternal_Knight, for the sake of clarity it's probably best if you can keep the discussions all in one place. Therefore could I ask you to post the link to the thread at the Daz forums where Dan Farr has replied, and I will then lock this thread. Thanks Karen Poser Moderator

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

" Eternal_Knight, for the sake of clarity it's probably best if you can keep the discussions all in one place." ??? how about Here where it started?? sorry, you make no sense since there are ppl that will not / cannot use the Daz site. (mainly that bloody java).

Karen, There are some of us who will not comment over there. On anything. Whether we are merchants or our friends are merchants this does concern all of us. Even people who give away free stuff need to know where the lines are drawn. And, as Khai pointed out, the topic started over here. Carolly

I see no reason to close the thread. It wouldn't be the first thread that links with another one. And it's definitely a topic of interest to renderosity users. mac

Eternal_Knight and I have been in contact by IM and discussed this. My concern is that I have seen this before where information is posted all over different forums and sites and the message becomes very incoherent. However as Khai, Carolly and mac have said and E_K also pointed out to me, some of you don't wish to go to Daz, so I have agreed to leave this thread open so that Dan's expected clarification can be reposted here too. Hope that suits everyone :-)

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Thanks, karen. That's a good deal. Actually, I spend most of my time at DAZ and have no problems going there. But I don't see why other people should be forced to if they don't want to. I respect their right to surf wherever they feel comfortable. mac

Yep, sounds fine! Thanks, Karen.

Dan has replied in the DAZ thread in regards to my questions. His post is in italics below. Benjamin, I will attempt to clarify our position and respond to your questions. First of all I think it is worthwhile to state our intentions with our copyright and EULA. Generally speaking, our intention is to prevent people from using our products to create derivative products that are competitive to our own (we do not consider an article of clothing to be a competitive product for a figure even if its a derivative.) A specific example would be if someone used the Victoria mesh to create another human figure mesh product. It doesnt matter to what extent they use Victoria in the process. It doesnt matter whether they use it as a guide or template for shrink wrapping or if it contains pieces of actual geometry, it is still considered derivative of Victoria. In cases like that, we do not claim ownership of the new geometry, but we because it is a derivative, it cannot be distributed without the use of encoding to the product(s) from which it was derived. Some people think that because they use shrink wrapping technology (or other methods) to fit a new mesh to an existing mesh that they are fine. But effectively what they are doing is stealing the shape of the mesh they are shrink wrapping to. Although in some cases clothing for Victoria may technically be considered derivative, it is not always a competitive derivative. If it is made to support Victoria and enhance her capabilities and usefulness, then it may be deemed to be a derivative that is allowed to be distributed. For example, you could use the Victoria model as a shape template to create a skirt that would fit her and we would not claim rights or ownership of that new skirt model. At the same time, you couldnt just use an existing skirt model to create a new skirt model without being under the distribution restrictions of the EULA. We often see situations where people try to circumvent our agreements or attempt to look for loopholes so that they can do things contrary to the intentions of our EULA. So, in order to boil this down before I address your questions specifically let me say this. The single best thing to do is contact DAZ about your specific situation. Due to the fact that we simply cannot foresee every possible infraction of our EULA, we cannot thoroughly outline exactly what is allowed and what is not. It varies on a product by product (or mesh by mesh) basis. When you have a specific product that you are going to begin, and you know that you are going to be using an existing model in your creative process, you need to contact the creator of the existing model first, be it DAZ or someone else, and get specific permission from that creator first. As far as DAZ is concerned, we will happily let you know whether or not it will be seen as an infringement of our EULA or not. 1. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related meshes I make and distribute? If you have not used an existing DAZ product in your creative process, then DAZ will not make any claims (this is not intended to cover second-generation derivatives). If you have used an existing DAZ product in some part of your creative process, then it will depend on the type of clothing item you make and whether your new product in some way is competitive to the existing DAZ product you used to create your new mesh. 2. What rights does DAZ claim over clothing-related products created using the joint parameters of a figure? So long as the joint parameters are not copied from any existing DAZ joint parameters, then DAZ will make no claims. We do allow for the perpetual redistribution of those parameters for the purpose of fitting and using clothing. (We still retain technical ownership of the joint data, so that no one can simply create a competitive figure based on the DAZ-created joint parameters in your clothing item.) 3. Is the use of figure morphs allowed in creating derivative clothing-related products? Absolutely, if the intention is to fit the clothing to the additive morphs of that figure. 4. Am I required to encode a product using derivatives of either the joint parameter data or UV layout of a figure provided the product is not a competing figure (i.e. is clothing or texture related)? As long as it is not a competing figure you are not required to use encoding for the distribution of the joint parameters associated with the product. As for the UV layout, I dont understand where that would apply to an add-on clothing item. I sincerely hope that this addresses your questions sufficiently. Hopefully, our intentions are clearer to you now. Id like to encourage you to develop new items for our products and discourage copying of them to use as competitive products. Sincerely, Dan Farr

I have some problems with the text as written as I find it is just as unclear as previous "clarifications". Basically, the text Dan has written is useless as a "fire & forget" agreement. I replied to him in regards to this. My post is in italics below. Feel free to nit-pick my response as much as I did his. With all due respect Dan (and I do have respect for someone who can build a business like DAZ - I am not being sarcastic), your clarifications are not what I (or other developers who have contacted me since the start of this situation) are after. Let me state for the record that I am VERY sensitive to language in these "clarifications". After all, I am trying to get a somewhat "fire & forget" agreement here and as such these words are all I have to back up any work I do until the "developer's agreement" is finalised. Firstly, I do understand your position and am not trying to "steal" DAZ intellectual property. However, the paragraph that talks about how others have tried using loopholes boils down to "We have the right to veto a product should we deem it competitive". This is no better than before as I STILL need to come to you with every product to determine if it is OK. Your line "we cannot thoroughly outline exactly what is allowed and what is not" basically invalidates the use of this statement as any kind of defence in a court of law as you can simply state "Well, this situation was one of those we couldn't 'outline exactly'". Secondly, it is next to impossible to create clothing without using a DAZ product in the creative process. That is, I NEED to use the V3 figure mesh somewhere in the creative process to fit clothing meshes around! As such, the answer to the first question is also useless (unless one happens to have a 3D photographic memory). Perhaps you meant "'provided only the [i]form[/i] of the content is used and not the content data". If so, could the wording of the answer be changed to reflect that and you have my apologies. Next, I assume by the answer to question two that you mean I can use the joint parameters for the use of fitting and using clothing, but when redistributing the clothing I need to state in the license that the joint parameters used in said content are to be used in accordance with the DAZ EuLA? If this is the case, could DAZ provide us with the legal language for us to include in our licenses, as they too are subject to misinterpretation. There is also the issue that there is a significant amount of content out there with licenses making no mention of this requirement. As such, a person using such an article of clothing is not "legally subject" to it. This is something DAZ will need to deal with as I cannot find reference to this continued ownership anywhere else (though I personoally am quite fine with the clause). The third question is answered quite clearly and I thank you for the clarification. The last question is answered quite clearly as far as the joint parameters are concerned (as long as one ignores the "right to veto" paragraph at the start of the message). There was no UV data answer though due to the fact you didn't see it as necessary to my creation of clothing content. As I mentioned in my initial message, this is in regards to "clothing or texture related" products. As such, I wanted the clarification in regards to "texture related" products for the figures themselves. Given that you have the UV templates available on the products page, it is quite possible that using them as a basis of texture products is acceptable "fari use" under copyright, but I was asking to be clear on the issue. In summary, while I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this - the answers leave us no better off than before in terms of clarity because of two reasons - you have reserved the right to veto any products you classify as competitive (in other words - the above agreement can be read that I cannot create a better catsuit, as an example) and the use of figure meshes are required in the creative process, otherwise one could not fit the clothing to the mesh. I am not trying to cause a public hassle with all of this (as mentioned - I tried to do this in private), however as you have stated your wish to have this dealt with in this thread - I am raising my concerns here. Regards, B.J.Tolputt

Well, I can see your point, but I sincerely doubt if any company in the world would give a blanket reply in a public forum to questions of that nature. DAZ can't come out and say 'Yeah, it's fine' when they don't know what the product is, haven't seen it and don't know how much of their own work has been used to make it. To me, Dan's reply seemed pretty fair, and could be boiled down to 'You can use our products to create other products which enhance them, but you can't use them to create products which will be in direct competition with them'. I doubt you'd get anywhere near that much out of Bill Gates. mac

I see your point maclean. However, agreements are MEANT to be specific. Otherwise they are pretty much useless. Besides which, I don't think anyone should use Bill Gates as an example supporting their business practices!!!

LOL. I take your meaning. Bill Gates is a terrible example! I withdraw that comment. But Dan did say this. 'When you have a specific product that you are going to begin, and you know that you are going to be using an existing model in your creative process, you need to contact the creator of the existing model first, be it DAZ or someone else, and get specific permission from that creator first' Which I take to mean that he's answering the best he can, but for a specific model, you'd need to discuss it with them directly, basing an agreement only on that model. (I know you tried contacting him directly, but you know what I mean). I dunno. Let's see what he says in reply. mac

"I doubt you'd get anywhere near that much out of Bill Gates." try reading a M$ EULA sometime. thats watertight and very very very clear.... so far I still can't see a clear answer in the answers being given... I can read english very well and pride myself on reading some very complex matters and understanding them (try Physics texts like A Brief History of Time and Universe in a Nutshell etc) yet that did not read clearly at all for me and did'nt actually explain anything.

Unfortuntely, given your interpretation of Dan's statement (which coincides with my interpretation) - anyone making products for the DAZ figures needs to contact them BEFORE releasing them, regardless of the product. That is, to use your analogy, like Microsoft stating one can create applications for Windows as long as you ask them first (with the details of the product) whether it is OK. Much as I loathe the EuLA's M$ comes out with - not even they would dream of doing that! EK

WOTC had this game called Magic: the Gathering. They made a ton of money on it. Several tons. They noticed that other card games were coming out which were similar: collect cards, build decks, play at war with bits of cardstock. So they copyrighted the game-playing mechanisms in such broad terms that it could have covered canasta! THEN they insisted that they were not going to dry up the market for card games and they weren't being anti-competitive, BUT everybody designing a card game had to bring it to them FIRST (no matter how unrelated) and they would either allow it or squash it. And, if they allowed it, royalties would need to be paid... even if it wasn't derivative. Otherwise, their lawyers would visit. A field which should have flourished dried to a dusty weedpatch full of thorns. I used to respect Richard Garfield for not only creating a game, but a genre... but then I loathed him for strangling his own child. Greed. It wasn't the first time that greed dictated a move which ended up hurting them. If it is a choice between running to a company and asking permission for each and every item you wish to make BEFORE you make it... or making something else? And what if they gave permission but you had to change it mid-process... do you have to go ask permission again? Sorry, but I don't want to live with fear that my product idea will be usurped, or that it will be made obsolete or redundant before getting out the door, or that I have inadvertantly trespassed despite all due precaution... or even that some other figure has to sell well in order to lift my boat, too. If I make anything and put it into this market, it will be stand-alone. It might not be the best marketing decision, but it is better than depending upon a competitor's grace. Carolly

...but it is better than depending upon a competitor's grace. Exactly the point I am trying to get clarified. Currently, ALL of DAZ's clarifications to date have this exact problem, and that is we depend on their good grace to create and distribute our products and not be sued for it. They need to nail down the requirements clearly, concisely, and (more importantly) completely so we don't need to go to them for everything. If it is their desire that merchants go to them for an OK on everything, so be it, but they need to say that clearly so we don't have ambiguity. I am not saying that DAZ intend for us to do that - there is still PLENTY of room in what they said for clarification so that is not the case. Monitoring and reporting on events as they occur :) EK

E_K: but that's the point. It is in their best interests, when you really think about it, to perpetuate exactly what you describe -- doing otherwise would cost them marketshare that they cannot afford to give up. In short, it makes sense for that to hover over the community. It provides considerable leverage for a company seeking to create a large market for a new program. It doesn't even need to be used, that leverage. It just need to sit there.

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)

They need to nail down the requirements clearly, concisely, and (more importantly) completely so we don't need to go to them for everything. Where did the idea that we have to go to them for everything come from? I've been creating Poser content for five years, and I don't have to ask DAZ's permission or blessing for any of it.

Because as Dan has stated in his latest post (which will be copied shortly along with my reply) - without asking, DAZ does not guarantee that they will not have an issue with it and hence can request it to be withdrawn from distribution/sale. As someone has mentioned before - just because DAZ has not exercised their rights does not mean they won't or can't.

Perhaps, but it seems to me that the biggest concern is over human figures, not the clothing that they wear. And there are a very limited number of people that are able to create believable human figures. As for clothing and textures, there are over a hundred PA's over at DAZ whose products are put through QA. Many of these PA's make content elsewhere, using the same procedures they do for DAZ - and they are the same procedures that pretty much every clothing creator uses. That is, they use the same joint parameters as the underlying figures to make the clothing work correctly in Poser. If there was ANY reason for DAZ to raise issues about the way that all Millenium clothing has been made for the last five years (is that about how long since V1 was released?), they would have had plenty of opportunity to state so by now. If they had, you can bet that everyone in the community would have made it known throughout the known universe. 8-)

Dan Far has replied to the post over at the DAZ forums: Benjamin, Im tempted to simply reply, I agree with what Cliff and Richard have written and leave it at that. Of course, we want to make sure you know that were taking your concerns seriously. You wrote: I understand the gist of Dan's reply, but it is the specifics that give me pause. Im glad to hear that you understand the gist of what Ive written, because frankly speaking, thats all we can provide at this point (without having a more specific scenario to clarify). My initial goal in answering your questions was just that: to communicate the gist of what DAZs intentions are and have consistently been. Again, we are currently in the process of re-working the FAQ section of our website and creating an additional developer policy. This information should be the more thorough and specific (and time-consuming) clarification that youre apparently still looking for. We appreciate your feedback, and your suggestions above will be considered as we draft up this statement. That said, I will try to answer some of your additional questions here in this thread. I am sorry if it comes across that I am responding with the same answers, but sometimes the hypothetical becomes very hard to nail down. Cliffs response was right on with what our concerns and intentions are, particularly in how we still need to be very careful to keep our response somewhat open ended. Especially for strange situations like a body suit that happens to cover Victorias entire body, including eyeballs, is 99.9999% skin tight and contains all of Victorias morphs, UVs to wear Victorias texture maps, etc. (Basically a replica or substitute being called a body suit.) I really cannot say anything that will cover all situations at all times. People are smart and there is always someone who will try to take a statement and push it beyond its intended meaning. For example, someone may claim: I didnt get Victorias JPs from Victoria I got it from her Bodysuit. This is why we have to remain somewhat broad in our statements. We have had two high profile situations in the last few months where we have claimed copyright and EULA infringement. Both of them have been related to human figures. There are may be another handful of other figure-related issues that we have dealt with over the years. The occurrence of situations that have come up since DAZ has been in business has been very small and most, if not all of them, have been figure related. You do not need to run your ideas past DAZ to get permission. Out of all of the thousands of Victoria and DAZ related products that are sold through non-DAZ websites, we have only ever had a few people contact us to see if what they were doing was fine with us. It isnt necessary. On the other hand, were always happy to discuss any specific project with developers before-hand so that we can let them know its okay. In the meanwhile, if your project is a new human figure or designed to circumvent the need for another figure, then do not make it a derivative of that other figure unless you want to encode it to that figure. If you are modeling articles of clothing for our figures then there is a 99% or higher chance that you are safe as long as you are not copying from other articles of clothing to create them. I think I have done what I can for now to respond. I apologize that I cant be more specific at this time without knowing more about your specific situation. In order to keep your specific project(s) non-public, you would need to contact us privately. I will not be able to monitor this thread any further, as that I am going out of town for a week. Happily, it seems that many people in this thread clearly understand our intentions and policies, and I feel they have already done a nice job responding to these questions. For example, as others have already mentioned, yes, you can use UV templates in order to create maps that you will own free and clear. This doesnt mean that you own the UVs, or that you could use a template (UV image) as a tool to create UVs for a new figure. This is all I can do, until we finish the new statement of our developer policy. In the meanwhile, have a good week, everyone. Sincerely, Dan Farr

My reply to the above is as follows: OK, first things first - I made the correction to my "rewording" as suggested by Cliff. He was quite correct as it was a typo and I had meant to put the "not" in (it is there now). Second, a general answer to Dan's latest statement. That is, I appreciate the time put into the reply but (as Dan himself said) he didn't add anything and hence left the issue primarily unresolved. Two parts in particular caught my eye. Firstly, Dan states we don't need permission but then states that [b]EVEN IF[/b] we are only making clothing products and aren't copying from existing clothing products, he cannot say "yes, it is OK". No matter what percentage you put on it - it is basically the opening for DAZ to veto your products should they not want them in the market (whatever the reason - remember the only truly clear, "non-gist" document we have from DAZ is the EULA and it does not allow ANY use of JP's, etc). Secondly, the template I have downloaded from the Victoria 3 product page did not have any conditions attached to it. Given that I have yet to actually [b]install[/b] Victoria 3 (and hence agree to the DAZ EULA), I am currently not bound by the terms therein. Therefore, current advice suggests that (while an unwise decision) it is perfectly legal for me to use said templates for modifying uv's on figures (shoudl I choose to do so) as it would constitute "fair use" under copyright law. I have developed all my content around the Lilin2 model using the L2V3 morph to date (legal as DAZ has stated that all users who downloaded the figure prior to the legal issues being brought up may continue to use it). I do not intend to distribute any of this work until all of this is cleared up out of respect for DAZ as a company and the artists that were involved in V3's creation. I also do not intend to install V3 proper for the final tweaks on the outfits in question (as I am sure the L2V3 is not perfect!) until such time as I am sure what my legal rights and obligations may be. DAZ should feel free to check my order/download history and compare it to the dates of EULA issues to verify this. I feel that this gives me a somewhat unique perspective on the issue at this time as I am currently not bound by the restrictions I am talking about but am trying to make the restrictions equitable to merchants BEFORE agreeing to them (which I intend to do at some point - I cannot rely on an unredistributable, imperfect approximation to V3 to create marketable products!)

I agree Deecey that they haven't had a problem to date AND MIGHT NEVER have one. The thing is, without a written agreement/clarification spelling out what is & isn't allowed - DAZ reserves the right to veto the product. The point is that just because someone HASN'T done something doesn't mean they CAN'T or WON'T. From a legal perspective - this is a timebomb waiting to go off (and given the current situation, only DAZ could win such a confrontation).

I have developed all my content around the Lilin2 model using the L2V3 morph to date >> I also do not intend to install V3 proper for the final tweaks on the outfits in question (as I am sure the L2V3 is not perfect!) until such time as I am sure what my legal rights and obligations may be. Now, in seeing the situation that you are concerned about, I think it might have resulted in less frustration if you had asked these specifics early on. Dan will probably be able to address this directly now (um .. next week) so that you can make your decisions. I'd venture to guess that the clothing will be OK, seeing as it will also work with V3.

Dan Farr has responded in the thread over at DAZ (contrary to his earlier statement that he couldn't for another week): Benjamin, It is seeming that you are simply looking for loopholes and not clarification. I never said I was not answering your questions, I said that they have been answered in one form or another and I was providing general answers. If you want a specific answer concerning a specific project you will need to send an email to abuse@daz3d.com. Otherwise, I can only generalize. You have also misrepresented our statement concerning the Lilin figure. We said that people who had it could continue to use it. We never said that they could distribute it or any derivatives thereof. I don't think you can claim ignorance on this. I feel that questions you continue to ask are sufficiently answered to the extent they can be without having further information on your part. Sincerely, Dan Farr

I responded immediately. As you can tell from the message, I am quite annoyed by Dan's characterisation of my intent in the matter:

*I am not looking for loopholes. You might like to characterise my requests as such, but as I mentioned - I would rather the long winded EULA type agreement which is both more specific and hence more restricting then your "generalised answer".

I am not willing to have the time I invested in developing content wasted, and will therefore release it at some point under terms I have agreed to. I have not done so yet, in respect for DAZ and your personal assurance that you want the terms for developers to be clear and concise just as I do. I mentioned a worse case scenario. and you know as well as I do - I am in my rights to release the "clothing articles" I created as the use of Lilin2's "shape" would be classified as "fair use" (I never intended to redistribute Lilin2 nor said I would). This was also a "worst case scenario" - to characterise what I am after by such is insulting and I think you know that.

I also think that the requirement to have everything "checked over" by DAZ (as you now blantantly inform me is the case as I need to give you "specifics" for a "specific answer) is insulting to the merchant public in question. I have seen NO other EULA that has that restriction, not even those from Microsoft (world-reknown as creating some of the worst EULA's in the world for end-users).

If there is something wrong with either Cliff's "legalese" version or my reworded versions of your answers (both of which contain more clarity than your "generalised answers"), let us know what it is.

I could have made a big hoo-har about this by releasing something that was bound to catch your attention using the copyright "fair use" provisions mentioned above. The fact that I didn't and came to you guys A MONTH AGO with requests for the written agreement as promised in Renderosity shows that I am not looking for such a loophole.

You wanted this all out in public - and you are asking that I do everything in private now that I have pointed out (and others have recognised) the loopholes present in YOUR clarifications.

If you think I am angry, you are right. I have been nothing but polite, courteous and open in this entire mess. I have NOT released things based on less restricting copyright laws and as I have not agreed to your EULA - that is all the hold you have over my actions. I do not like being characterised as you wish to portray me and will not stand for it in public.*

Message edited on: 04/16/2005 17:00

THere is a flaw in your reason path. "Fair Use" would not protect you from legal liability here, no matter how creative you got. You are dealing with contractual law, and specifically contractual law pertaining to the licensing of copyrights and trademarks (V3 is a trademark). Under the laws, specifically, you are dealing with, Dan has answered your questions as posed. Moreso, he has addressed the underlying concepts that your query deals with. The reason for this, is that you are asking for answer to hypothetical situations -- what ifs -- and the law does not deal in what ifs (lawmaking does, and the outcomes of a case might, but the law itself does not). In order to get an answer that is specific, you need to provide a specific case. And then remember that any variance will result in a new case that could have a completely different answer, even though, on the surface, the two cases may appear similar. no other comment.

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)

Couldn't agree more, ynsaen. mac

Me too.

My feelings all along ... agreed.

Unfortunately, that is NOT the case ynsaen. Contractual law is "supposed" to be specific. Contracts are designed to deal with hypotheticals by outliniing the terms and conditions under which each side can do certain things. The DAZ EULA agreed to when one installs V3 is quite specific and one need only consult a lawyer to ask such "hypotheticals". One also assumes that the "DAZ Developer Agreement" in the works will also be such a document.

That said, I am not (at this point) subject to the DAZ EULA as it was not required when obtaining Lilin2 and DAZ waived the need to become subject to it. As such, contractual law here applies only to DAZ's statement which was (and I quote) "For those of you wondering whether you can continue to use the now discontinued Lilin figure, yes, you may". No extra terms and conditions. And having said that, DAZ cannot apply more restrictive terms and conditions at will. So my "fair use" statements are directed at THAT scenario - not the usual one where the EULA is in effect.

Please note, I do not intend to use such a loophole. I am currently waiting on the developer agreement to be drawn up by DAZ. I am not trying to be contrary, simply pointing out that my situation is different than most. Why do you think DAZ wants everything that uses the non-copyrightable portions of V3 to be encoded? Simple, because that would subject the person using it to the V3 EULA (and hence limit them to the same terms and conditions ass everyone else). I don't want to create a figure from V3's stuff - but I sure as hell don't want to be limited to the current EULA and rely only on ambiguous statements for further rights. Dan Farr sees the reasoning behind this, which is why I believe he is having the lawyers draw up the developers agreement - so such ambiguities are resolved without the need to go to DAZ for everything.

Message edited on: 04/17/2005 22:33

Is there something I'm missing here?

You developed your clothing around the L2V3 figure, which is basically the same shape as V3. What "wasted time" is there, if all of your work can and will still fit V3?

You say you are not subject to the DAZ EULA, because you created your clothing for a figure that you obtained without it. By that same logic, one might say that if someone makes a copy of a CD, a person who wants one song from it wouldn't be subject to its copyright if the one song was duplicated from the copy rather than the original.

Message edited on: 04/17/2005 22:46

No, what I am saying is that IF someone makes a copy of a CD AND the copyright owner OK's the copy without further terms and conditions, THEN the person wanting to make the copy is subject only to copyright law (which still does not entitle them to copy the entire CD or even selected tracks).

But here is why I think it is not as big an issue as you think ... and I'm not saying this to put you in a spot, but to try to point out why some of us feel that all of the questions have already been answered in one form or another ... I will admit that I am very confused as to why this is so important. Here's why ...

(1) The clothing you made was not made around V3, but instead you used L2V3, a figure that had a body shape and joint parameters that were pretty much the same. In effect, it "was" V3.

(2) Because of item #1, your clothing will fit V3 as well. We already know it's OK to make clothing for V3 and use her joint parameters. Everyone else uses those methods.

(3) A limited number of people obtained L2V3, those who do have it can continue to use it.

In my mind, #3 doesn't come into play as much as you feel it does. Because your clothing should also work on V3, you are not limited to making clothing for only L2V3. You can distribute it as V3 clothing and no one would know the difference, yes?

I'm just confused as to why you are so insistent on getting specifics that seem sort of clear to a lot of us here ... unless we are ALL missing something.

Message edited on: 04/17/2005 23:12

OK, thanks for following through on this rather than simply thinking I am trying to cause trouble. I do appreciate that. The problem is that DAZ has not (to date) given a set of rules & guidelines that, if followed, would allow redistribution of the joint parameters "under their EULA". For example, even when they set down a strict set of guidelines talking only about clothing (i.e. explicitly stating that one isn't creating a figure, isn't copying/using figure uv's, only using a required subset of the joint parameters, and so on) they said that they would allow that "in 99% of cases". It is that one percent that bothers me. I do not want to clear every product with DAZ. They ARE competition (anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves - just look at the amount of clothing content in their store!) and telling the competition what one intends to market is bad business sense. DAZ has acknowledged this and is in the process of creating a "legalese" agreement which gives us merchants the "rules & guidelines" to follow. when given these "exact" terms and conditions - one doesn't need to go to DAZ to make sure they are compliant. What everyone has been saying in this thread is what DAZ has done "to date", not what they may choose to do in the future. For an analogy, I might state that no-one is allowed to walk on my property but not persecute anyone that does so. At some point, I might choose to not be so lenient and have someone charged with trespass. This is the same with DAZ. Currently they do not sue people who use their joint parameters without clearing it with DAZ first (regardless of use), but one day they might. They haven't given up that right (which is completely within the law). It is not good business sense to be reliant on the good grace of a competitor. These arguments are understood by DAZ and they are in the process of drawing up a set of exact terms and conditions; my query/complaint and several recent events being the catalyst.

This is the same with DAZ. Currently they do not sue people who use their joint parameters without clearing it with DAZ first (regardless of use), but one day they might. Conforming clothing will simply not work without using the joint parameters of the underlying figure. The DAZ figures get a lot of support from content developers, and the content drives the sales of their figures. I doubt they will change their stand on this anytime soon. 8-)

Ah, but they reserve the right to should the clothing be "competitive" (check the language of their agreements to date). Or if they think too much of the figure is used in the clothing article (perhaps a better catsuit). Or (and here is the competition thing again) if they have something similar in the works. I have heard isolated reports of the latter occuring and while I cannot verify the truth of such statements, the possibility does worry me. I could add many other reasons for which DAZ could refuse a product others would have no issues with, but that is not the point. The point is simply that they can refuse permission for products for alot of reasons - some reasonable, some perhaps not-so-reasonable. Until they have in documented form all the reasons they can refuse a product from distributing joint parameters - I do not feel comfortable installing V3 and becoming subject to such limitations. The reason for this thread was the fact that after a month of attempting to contact them on the issue - I had not gotten nowhere. While I do not like having to go public with gripes to get things done - it appeared the only option to get their attention.

Until they have in documented form all the reasons they can refuse a product from distributing joint parameters - I do not feel comfortable installing V3 and becoming subject to such limitations.

But here is the flaw in that logic, as ynsaen and others have pointed out. There is NO WAY that you can anticipate every possible scenario and cover it, because no matter what you write down someone will interpret it differently.

Here's an analogy ...

Let's say you buy a house in an exclusive neighborhood. The conditions of sale include some restrictions that you can only paint your house with red, blue, and yellow paint. That's what makes the neighborhood "work."

Somewhere down the road, you paint your house brown. You get a knock on the door from the president of the neighborhood committee, saying that you voilated the conditions of sale, and you have to repaint your house.

You come back and say "Come into the garage for a minute." He follows you in, and you show him three partially filled buckets of red, blue, and yellow paint. And you calmly explain that you took the same amounts of blue and yellow and mixed them together to make green; and then you added an equal amount of red to the green, and you made brown.

From a technical standpoint, you are within the agreement, because you used red, yellow and blue paint to make your brown. But the neighborhood committee now has to go and change their written conditions to prevent that "loophole."

THIS is what is making your request difficult to address. You can't possibly anticipate every scenario.

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 10:10

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 10:16

And that is why contracts are drawn up by lawyers. Their job is to word terms (such as the above example) in such a way that you cannot wriggle out of them. Also, when written in this language - it is easier for one to take the other party in front of a judge for them to resolve both the reasonability of the supposedly infringed term and whether or not said person has infringed. Ambiguity doesn't serve the either side of the contract; consider the imaginitive scenario below: You are in the same contract as you mentioned (only re, green, and blue paint). So you go down to the store and buy "Firebrick Red" or even worse "Orange Red" paint and paint your house. The neighbourhood commitee doesn't like you and states that you are in violation as the house is "Orange". You can point at the can and say - "No, see - says red" but if the rest of the contract is worded in their favour (like the DAZ agreements to date where they reserve veto rights, regardless of what you have done) - you lose out even though you complied with both the word and spirit of the agreement. Ambiguity in a contract is bad for both sides. DAZ knows this, so whenever they are ambiguous or general they always ties in some form of "veto rights" (a smart move - one I am not criticising). But it leaves us merchants dependant on their "good grace". You cannot interpret evy scenario. True. But you can word the terms of a contract to simply exclude all scenarios outside a specific set of conditions, so you don't have to think of what they are. No offence to DAZ, but the excuse of "We cannot think of all scenarios, so we'll screw you instead of letting you screw us" is fallacious. They have lawyers on hand for this. I have mentioned before, and I will mention again - I work in a company that generates new EULA's probably every six months. Our lawyers make sure the language is clear and unambiguous. As that is their job! And a point to note is that DAZ know this and accept my arguments above. They are currently writing such a clear and concise agreement. So like me, they obviously believe that one CAN word a contract to exclude the scenarios they don't want being applicable.

Yes, we are in agreement that a legal document is best, but it's still subject to the interpretation of others.

There is one concern, however, as far as the document getting TOO specific. In the case of the neighborhood committee, if their conditions get so specific as to limit house colors to one specific brand of paint and a selected number of approved colors, people might look for another neighborhood to live in. 8-)

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 14:58

And there is the balance DAZ must decide on. They cannot have overly restrictive terms and expect everyone to like them and/or agree to them. DAZ has (to date) been playing a game with conditions/clarifications/etc by stating nice things (and they might mean them to) but always showing a glimpse of the big stick. When writing up and accepting agreements - one shouldn't be trying to play a game of "Will they see the loophole or won't they?". That applies just as much to us as it does to DAZ. Hence the reason why I am trying to get a clear and concise agreement from them. As others have said publically and privately - when one is trying to close loopholes - they will obviously appear to be looking for them. I would not be after a clear agreement if I only wanted a "way out" (as Lilin2 provides that "out"). Similarly, I will not be subject to terms and conditions I disagree with based on "nice intentions".

I wish I could say that I agree totally ... (this is turning out to be an interesting conversation at least! LOL) I'm not bringing this up to beat a dead horse (sorry about this Renderosity folks!), but I'm using it as an example that we are ALL familiar with here. Renderosity has a big membership, and the bigger it gets, the more "clarification" they try to put in their TOS. As a result, there are a lot of people who see the TOS as way too restrictive. Frequent battles are waged over the issues that continue to crop up on a bi-monthly basis. In Renderosity's attempts to be all things to all people (which is a good thing), there are so many conditions in the TOS that it is very hard to keep track of. It's really hard to remember what is OK and what isn't (again, this said with apologies in advance ... I don't want to change the direction of this thread, I'm just using this to make a point). Now ... let's say DAZ gathers up all of the "unofficial" answers that they have given in the course of five years and puts them all in an "official" document, of what they allow and what they don't allow developers to do. Their "developers guide" as you put it. There will be some folks that accept it without question, and others that might be infuriated to see all of those rules being put in a document with all of the legal speak. It may, in fact, backfire and cause a huge uproar, which is what you are trying to avoid by getting this clarification in the first place. So, whether you like it or not, there will more than likely be a clause in there ... "For clarifications, or for specific situations, contact us in writing." If they don't put that clause in there, they are closing themselves to solutions for other interpretations that they didn't think about. I'm not trying to play games here, but I can surely understand the positions and considerations on their side as well.

Here's how I see it so far. Dan Farr has tried to explain DAZ's viewpoint in fairly broad terms, and give a general idea of what will and will not allow. You have continued to try to pin him down to specifics, but without actually presenting concrete examples for DAZ to examine and decide on. Dan has now said that the EULA will be updated. A good thing, without a doubt. BUT... I have a feeling that the updated EULA will be far more restrictive than anything from DAZ up to now. If you push them into a corner, they're going to make damned sure they leave no loopholes. Most EULAs are extremely restrictive, for good reason. It's there in black and white and can't be debated. So far, DAZ have been fairly relaxed about this stuff, preferring to resolve issues case by case. I think that may change. In other words, 'Be careful what you wish for.... you might get it' mac

Sorry, deecey. I just realised I said almost exactly the same as you. LOL. I was sorta skimming through the last few posts due to brain overload. mac

Yup, mac ... agree with that as well. .... LOL don't you love crossposting?? I didn't mean that I agreed that you said the same thing as me. I agreed with what you said. ROFL!!!

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 15:48

If you are navigating a river with shifting shoals, sandbars, snaggy treelimbs, and the occasional wreck of a former vessel, you have several choices: *You can wing it, with a depth sounder hanging over the front of the boat and white knuckles on the wheel. *You can follow the guidance of folks who managed it safely, and hope that the bottom hasn't changed too much in the interval. *You can stay to a narrow carved channel which won't allow you to dock where you want but which will keep the bottom of your boat intact. *You can choose another river which might not flow as fast, but might not leave you hungup on the rocks, either. Asking for a guidebook with maps seems reasonably intelligent before embarking. One can then make an informed choice. Carolly

I actually do not mind if the new "developers agreement" is more restrictive. I will then know the exact terms and conditions that apply and can make a decision from that. If they so choose to have a clause in there requiring you to check with them first - that too is fine, as that requirement is set in stone (or on paper as the case may be grin). Funny how it looks as if I am pushing DAZ into a corner, when I feel the current lack of clarity does that to third-party developers. You say, if I push DAZ into a corner - they will clamp down on their content. My view is they currently have US in a corner as they haven't given clear guidelines that don't require checking everything with them (sorry, but no matter HOW it is spun - that is still the only way to be sure). This way both sides will be safe. DAZ can set down the terms and conditions for use of content distributed under the EULA, and we can either accept or reject those terms. If accepted - following the terms will allow one to distribute joint parameters and the like without fear of reprisal. If rejected - well, the EULA as stands stops you distributing anything. This is the simplicity I am after. The ability to purchase/install content from DAZ and then develop/distrbute content without needing to go back to DAZ for clarification. This is generally how business is done in the licensing world.

My view is they currently have US in a corner as they haven't given clear guidelines that don't require checking everything with them

You are entitled to have that view, and I can certainly understand why you do (I'm not faulting you or anyone else who feels that further clarification is necessary).

The point that others of us are trying to make (including Dan) is that this is the first time in five years that someone has pressed the matter to this extreme. Up until this point, it hasn't appeared to be a major concern to the majority of those who create content for DAZ figures. Most content creators have been using the same methods for so long, that it's second nature as to what is "kosher" and what isn't - but there should also be room for human error and misinterpretations that need clarification.

Now, all we can do is hope that whatever Dan and his associates decide is fair and equitable to all sides concerned, and that if they do firm up their EULA it doesn't create an even bigger controversy. If it does, grab the popcorn. 8-)

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 19:52

ah, well I come from a background of custom application development. In that industry, you are pretty much reliant on licensing components, libraries, etc. My experience is from this industry where companies live & die based not only on the quality of their code but the licensing agreements they have made along the way. I have also had a relatively recent (within the last two years) incident where someone tried to redistribute my intellectual property (source code to a custom software application I had written) without paying me the required licensing fee. I was succesful in that case due to the fact that our agreement was quite "clear and concise" (yes, I like that term - it describes exactly what I want after all) in the terms and conditions under which the company could use said code. After that experience - I have become quite "anal" about agreements and have done my research into copyright law for the areas not covered by contracts. I didn't mean to be a pain in the ass, as I am used to companies that license products for third-party development and distribution simply having a contract on-hand. When this wasn't the case and I was being told that ambiguous statements "were OK", I got wary. The fact that DAZ has decided to develop a clear agreement is restoring some of my earlier enthusiasm.

They're good people. It'll be cool. Thanks for having an open ear on this, I'm glad there are no hard feelings. ;-)

'I didn't mean to be a pain in the ass'

I doubt if anyone at DAZ thinks that. You see, I've brokered through DAZ for almost 4 years, and I think I know their attitude pretty well by now. They know for a fact how important 3rd-party content is to their own sales and they honestly do everything they can to encourage it.

The fact that they DON'T have a clear-cut and highly restrictive EULA is due to the fact that they like to take a fairly liberal stance on 'fair use'. Even when something blatantly contravenes their 'guidelines', they prefer to settle it quietly, and if possible, find a way for the product to be released, using RTE encoding or whatever (the recent 'Alexa' threads are an example of this).

I think you'll find that they try to make the new EULA comprehensive, without being draconian.

mac PS I know you probably don't think that Dan's absence is some sort of plot, but just to reassure you, I know for a fact he's gone for a week. Some of the brokers have been trying to get hold of him, and he ain't around.

Message edited on: 04/19/2005 17:26