can I use daz 3d content in video or photos without my interactive license

xmerkisx

can I use daz 3d content in video or photos without my interactive license

Richard Haseltine

In general, if you mean 2D images and animations/videos, yes - the only exceptions I am aware of is the old Anne Marie Goddard Digital Clone for Victoria 3 (which has some additional rstr5ictions rather than absolutely prohibiting its use) and products from Flipped Normals (most of which are strictly non-commercial).

Togire

Yes. You can use daz content and do whatever you want with your renders, even sell them.

Interactive licences are only required when the 3D models are somehow embedded in what you distribute. For instance in some games where a character can move a 3D environment.

But the end user licence agreement allows you to distribute renders, videos, etc, freely.

cridgit

Redacted

Padone

@cridgit The simple solution is to don't allow assets in the shop that don't comply with the daz license. But it seems this is beyond the daz comprehension ? Unless Richard is referring to assets in other shops may be.

Leana

And what is the point of buying content I can't use commercially?

Quite a few hobbyists don't care if they can use content commercially as they have zero plans to do so. 

PerttiA

cridgit said:

Richard Haseltine said:

In general, if you mean 2D images and animations/videos, yes - the only exceptions I am aware of is the old Anne Marie Goddard Digital Clone for Victoria 3 (which has some additional rstr5ictions rather than absolutely prohibiting its use) and products from Flipped Normals (most of which are strictly non-commercial).

I hope this isn't the start of a new thing where every PA has a different license. Imagine having to read a different license every time before purchasing a product? I'd simply go shop elsewhere.

And what is the point of buying content I can't use commercially? I'd need to keep all that stuff in a seperate content library in case I accidentally use one of their non-commercial items 11 months from now.

The simple solution for me personally is to just not purchase these items.

The Victoria 3 figure Richard mentioned is ancient, but with Flipped Normals it makes one wonder... If one buys their Blender tutorial, one can never again do anything with Blender that would in any form be related to commercial projects... They do not make the same clarification that DAZ does between the assets and images created with the assets.

Leana

The V3 figure mentioned was a special case as it was a clone of a real person who didn't want her likeness used commercially.

Richard Haseltine

PerttiA said:

cridgit said:

Richard Haseltine said:

In general, if you mean 2D images and animations/videos, yes - the only exceptions I am aware of is the old Anne Marie Goddard Digital Clone for Victoria 3 (which has some additional rstr5ictions rather than absolutely prohibiting its use) and products from Flipped Normals (most of which are strictly non-commercial).

I hope this isn't the start of a new thing where every PA has a different license. Imagine having to read a different license every time before purchasing a product? I'd simply go shop elsewhere.

And what is the point of buying content I can't use commercially? I'd need to keep all that stuff in a seperate content library in case I accidentally use one of their non-commercial items 11 months from now.

The simple solution for me personally is to just not purchase these items.

The Victoria 3 figure Richard mentioned is ancient, but with Flipped Normals it makes one wonder... If one buys their Blender tutorial, one can never again do anything with Blender that would in any form be related to commercial projects... They do not make the same clarification that DAZ does between the assets and images created with the assets.

I'm pretty sure that is not correct - however, you wouldn't be able to sue the tutorial steps to build a model and exploit it commercially. Flipped Normals also has some assets in the store, which was what I was mainly thinking of.

Flipped Normals is a reseller rather than a PA as I understand it - their discounts are capped and they are usually listed separately from regular PAs on promo pages (and usually excluded from the big discounts) so they shouldn't be taken as a harbinger of things to come with respect to PAs.

WendyLuvsCatz

I wonder how many people needlessly buy interactive licenses not understanding what they are?

I think it should include a link explaining

Leana

WendyLuvsCatz said:

I wonder how many people needlessly buy interactive licenses not understanding what they are?

I think it should include a link explaining

There's one:

It leads to this page, which actually explains when you need an interactive license. Obviously, people don't read it.

WendyLuvsCatz

including me, admittedly not paid it much attention

PerttiA

Richard Haseltine said:

PerttiA said:

If one buys their Blender tutorial, one can never again do anything with Blender that would in any form be related to commercial projects... They do not make the same clarification that DAZ does between the assets and images created with the assets.

I'm pretty sure that is not correct - however, you wouldn't be able to sue the tutorial steps to build a model and exploit it commercially.

Sounds ridiculous, but that is the licence they are referring to even with that product

Ascania

PerttiA said:

Richard Haseltine said:

PerttiA said:

If one buys their Blender tutorial, one can never again do anything with Blender that would in any form be related to commercial projects... They do not make the same clarification that DAZ does between the assets and images created with the assets.

I'm pretty sure that is not correct - however, you wouldn't be able to sue the tutorial steps to build a model and exploit it commercially.

Sounds ridiculous, but that is the licence they are referring to even with that product

No, it is not. The licence refers to the materials contained within the product, including the steps of the tutorials and the result of following those steps but it does not extend to the knowledge derived from having followed the tutorial.

Matt_Castle

Leana said:

There's one:

It leads to this page, which actually explains when you need an interactive license. Obviously, people don't read it.

Oh, hey. They have actually done something to update that page. However, I'd argue its explanation is still *wrong*.

The EULA terms state that the interactive licence relates to circumstances "which may require access to the CRT Content by the User's customer during electronic execution of the User's application" (emphasis mine - it's specifically about when a third party's system requires access to the raw data for real-time rendering), but the phrasing on that page is "An Interactive License is required when using or distributing 3D content from the Daz 3D store, whether modified or in its original form, in video games or other applications." which is actually a phrasing that... um, well, covers simply doing stuff with the content in Daz Studio. Because you are using 3D content from the Daz3D store in an application.

(Or, if we assume "other applications" is not supposed to refer to the video games previously mentioned, but instead Daz Studio - therefore exempting it - then that phrasing would still disallow exporting the mesh to any other program for making morphs/rendering purposes/etc).

The phrasing would be a lot more accurate to the actual licence terms if "An Interactive License is required when using or distributing 3D content from the Daz 3D store, whether modified or in its original form, in video games or other applications." was scratched out, because the standard licence is extremely broad about how the user themselves can make use of the content, and the interactive licence is about the conditions under which they can distribute it to their own end-users.

docbother

Non-commercial only licenses are more common with freebies, or when the model is fan art like a Ghost-in-the-shell character, which is often the reason it is being offered for free.