3D printing

pwiecek

So, with all these tools obviously designed for 3d printing, why doesn't the license allow it commercially?

 

FSMCDesigns

You will have to contact DAZ directly for that answer

daveso

pwiecek said:

So, with all these tools obviously designed for 3d printing, why doesn't the license allow it commercially?

 

what tools do you speak of? 

pwiecek

https://www.daz3d.com/thickener-plug-in

https://www.daz3d.com/gameprint-3d-print-plugin

https://www.daz3d.com/gescon-constructive-solid-geometry-for-daz-studio

https://www.daz3d.com/daz-to-blender-bridge

diron_di_b47b68ada8

Has any one tride lost pla metal casting

Matt_Castle

I disagree that all the tools you linked are specifically intended as 3D printing tools (Thickener and Gescon have many other uses - e.g. if you want clothing to have volumetric effects, it needs to have depth - and the Daz to Blender bridge is intended to broaden Daz's customer base).

However, the general answer is probably that changing the EULA terms would require extensive negotiating with all of Daz's existing PAs, and if enough of them say "no", then there's not much that can be done. It's only relatively recently that decent 3D printing has become viable for people who aren't using printers that price somewhere between a car and a house, and while putting "personal use" printing in the licence would have been a fairly small concession, adding in commercial permission is a much bigger ask.

Peter Wade

Apart from the Gameprint one I don't think these were designed for 3D printing. They are 3D construction tools and they can be used to prepare models for 3D printing like most 3D tools can.

I'm no expert on this but I think that the Daz interactive licences are mainly concerned with using content sold by Daz commercially. These are tools for creating content which is probably considered a differnt thing. If you use a word processor to write a novel and publish it I don't think you need to buy a commercial licence for the word processor. Of  course if you use them to modify items then you need to check the licence conditions of the things you are modifying. But don't take my word for any of this, I have no legal expertise at all.

richardandtracy

diron_di_b47b68ada8 said:

Has any one tride lost pla metal casting

I have not. I tried lost polystyrene with my little foundry, where I carved the shape in expanded polystyrene (epp) & then poured the molten aluminium into it. And both gassed myself, and ended up with an awful casting. Used greensand for the packing material, and it collapsed into the void because the epp burnt off faster than the melt filled the void, but it dried the sand and allowed it to collapse. That told me I need a  plaster of Paris mould, which I thought was excessive for epp. As a result of the gassing myself problem, I have avoided lost pla as I'm not convinced I'd be able to do the burnout properly. Have a machine at work where we have a pla spool that's not used, and an abs spool that is used, so the pla is available for private jobs, just haven't done it.

Regards,

Richard

Drip

And the Gameprint only allows you to send the digital model/scene to one specific manufacturer of 3D models, who then does the printing (and optionally the painting). It's that manufacturer who has (exclusive?) licenses with Daz to manufacture these physical models for their clients. We are probably allowed to produce these physical models ourselves for ourselves, but clearly, not for distribution or sale to others.

I'm not sure, but I figure it would take an overhaul in the UELA to better distinguish between digital models and physical derivates.

Not to mention, digital derivates of these physical derivates. The technology for that isn't quite there yet, but it is improving every year, and we will eventually get to a point where one designer could make an awesome model, and someone else could print it, scan the physical model and turn it into an aesthetically almost identical copy with a different polygon topology. There's almost no way for the original artist to prove the last one would be a copy of his work. And the artists here are primarily freelancers, not big multimillion companies who can open a can of top lawyers against every suspect infringement. Daz is a bigger company, but for them, it's easier to have a strict usage policy for their customers than to investigate every suspect infringement as well. Daz too still isn't as big as Disney, so to speak.