Loading...
> >

Dreamlight's "After Midnight" HDRIs and Polyhaven

Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 2,570
edited January 2022 in The Commons

I've already submitted a ticket expressing my views on this matter, but as this as a matter somewhat depends on the subjective opinions of the Daz-buying audience, there is something to discuss here.

Dreamlight has today released a product, https://www.daz3d.com/after-midnight-2--28-hdris-and-lights

All of the 14 "unique" HDRIs in the product can be traced back to Polyhaven.

https://polyhaven.com/a/pedestrian_overpass
https://polyhaven.com/a/adams_place_bridge
https://polyhaven.com/a/canary_wharf
https://polyhaven.com/a/abandoned_greenhouse
https://polyhaven.com/a/teufelsberg_ground_1
https://polyhaven.com/a/teufelsberg_roof
https://polyhaven.com/a/freight_station
https://polyhaven.com/a/sunset_jhbcentral
https://polyhaven.com/a/reinforced_concrete_01
https://polyhaven.com/a/reinforced_concrete_02
https://polyhaven.com/a/shanghai_riverside
https://polyhaven.com/a/sepulchral_chapel_basement
https://polyhaven.com/a/birbeck_street_underpass
https://polyhaven.com/a/roofless_ruins

... and the older https://www.daz3d.com/after-midnight-28-hdris-and-lights also has some similarly recognisable content...

https://polyhaven.com/a/circus_arena
https://polyhaven.com/a/mosaic_tunnel
https://polyhaven.com/a/art_studio
https://polyhaven.com/a/concrete_tunnel
https://polyhaven.com/a/empty_warehouse_01
https://polyhaven.com/a/colorful_studio
https://polyhaven.com/a/photo_studio_01
https://polyhaven.com/a/wooden_lounge
https://polyhaven.com/a/aft_lounge
https://polyhaven.com/a/hotel_room
https://polyhaven.com/a/en_suite
https://polyhaven.com/a/bathroom
https://polyhaven.com/a/peppermint_powerplant
https://polyhaven.com/a/teufelsberg_inner

... now, I'm aware that Polyhaven makes its stuff available under a CC0 licence, and this is all fully legal within that licence, but I think that buyers could be quite reasonably annoyed if they paid $20 and later found the original source, given that retinting of an HDRI (in whatever colour you like) is really only a 1 or 2 minute job that can be done with freely-available open source software like GIMP (which has supported HDR editing for quite a few years now).

Don't get me wrong. I love to see vendors making use of CC0 assets to help bring their original work to the market; I know for an absolute fact there are products out there making use of CC0 ground/rock/concrete/etc textures so they can use seamless tiling without licensing problems (most Merchant Resource textures specify the textures cannot be distributed as is, and must be baked to a UV, which is a bad thing for either quality or memory if you're trying to texture a very large area). Or maybe if there was a product for a new building or environment, and the vendor included a CC0 HDRI so you could get exactly the same lighting/background as the promos... but this? This doesn't sit right with me, it's too much of the product.

Thoughts?

Post edited by Matt_Castle on

Comments

  • NylonGirlNylonGirl Posts: 1,817

    On the PolyHaven website ,it says

    • You can use our assets for any purpose, including commercial work.
    • You do not need to give credit or attribution when using them (although it is appreciated).
    • You can redistribute them, share them around, include them when sharing your own work, or even in a product you sell.

    I hope Dreamlight donates to their cause.

  • HylasHylas Posts: 4,988

    I had noticed this too, already with the 1st After Midnight set. AFAIK it's all perfectly legal.

     

    Almost all products in the DAZ store I have zero issues with; but there are some few that don't sit well with me.

    I would count the After Midnight sets amongst them, as well as every "Colours for specific hair"-type product.

    What I don't love about these products is that I feel like they rely on people not knowing any better. Not cool.

  • magog_a4eb71abmagog_a4eb71ab Posts: 769

    Matt_Castle said:

    I've already submitted a ticket expressing my views on this matter, but as this as a matter somewhat depends on the subjective opinions of the Daz-buying audience, there is something to discuss here.

    Dreamlight has today released a product, https://www.daz3d.com/after-midnight-2--28-hdris-and-lights

    All of the 14 "unique" HDRIs in the product can be traced back to Polyhaven.

    ... now, I'm aware that Polyhaven makes its stuff available under a CC0 licence, and this is all fully legal within that licence, but I think that buyers could be quite reasonably annoyed if they paid $20 and later found the original source, given that retinting of an HDRI (in whatever colour you like) is really only a 1 or 2 minute job that can be done with freely-available open source software like GIMP (which has supported HDR editing for quite a few years now).

    Don't get me wrong. I love to see vendors making use of CC0 assets to help bring their original work to the market; I know for an absolute fact there are products out there making use of CC0 ground/rock/concrete/etc textures so they can use seamless tiling without licensing problems (most Merchant Resource textures specify the textures cannot be distributed as is, and must be baked to a UV, which is a bad thing for either quality or memory if you're trying to texture a very large area). Or maybe if there was a product for a new building or environment, and the vendor included a CC0 HDRI so you could get exactly the same lighting/background as the promos... but this? This doesn't sit right with me, it's too much of the product.

    Thoughts?

    Tbh, we could argue the same thing for a number of other products or components used in products(i.e. character eye textures) being sold here & at Renderosity. For someone like myself, that 1-2 minute job in GIMP wouldn't be an option, so while this does indicate a lack of creativity in making the product, I don't think it renders it completely useless. Now whether or not its worth the price is a whole other discussion. Imo, I think you would be overpaying for a product like this depending on your individual skills & needs. It would be like hiring a paralegal or lawyer versed in tax laws to file your income taxes. It will certainly get done right, but you're going to pay morre for it.

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500

    For me, it all depends on how much added value has been created by the PA. If it is just a case of - hey, I can just rename these freebies and sell them, then I would hope that DAZ would have some kind of policy discouraging that. I think it unfair to expect the buyer to check these things before purchase. If, however, they are adapted for IRay and DAZ Studio in a way that makes them more suitable and compatible, then fine.

  • ALLIEKATBLUEALLIEKATBLUE Posts: 2,970

    I think the added value is supposed to be the effects and lighting.  I buy Dreamlight products all the time

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500
    edited January 2022

    ALLIEKATBLUE said:

    I think the added value is supposed to be the effects and lighting.  I buy Dreamlight products all the time

     

    I bought one HDR set and tried it but it changed all my render and camera settings in the scene so now I just use those free HDRIs from Polyhaven. 

    Post edited by marble on
  • Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 2,570

    NylonGirl said:

    On the PolyHaven website ,it says [snip]

    Don't get me wrong - this is valid within Polyhaven's licencing, as the CC0 licence is effectively "public domain to the greatest extent permitted", but it has still created a product where much/most of the value relies on a customer not knowing that Polyhaven exists. (And the HDRIs at Polyhaven are probably more versatile, because they still have all of the colour information and you can apply whatever tint you wish, rather than just the one hue offered in this product for each HDRI).

    I don't think that's a smart move from the perspective of customer goodwill.

  • arks0ngarks0ng Posts: 273

    So, it turns out Dreamlight has an entire store over at renderhub containing many more of these HDRIs of existing products. It includes several of Stonemason's sets, such as Pirate's Cove and Mystic Gorge (I have to assume they struck some sort of deal?), Linday's pool, the Detective's Office... A lot of people here will recognise many of them I'm sure. A collection of ten of these are going for $100. 

    I agree with Matt on this. Obviously it must be completely legal, but it just feels so... naff. There's no mention of the original artist or link to the set in the store descriptions (maybe there's one in the readme?), and on a couple there's the statement "Due to design limitations, some of the maps feature small areas that are low rez when too close... simply re-aim the camera to not view those areas for a higher resolution look."

    I guess there's value in using a HDRI over the original set, for those that don't have a rig that can run them, but in my personal opinion, it feels extremely low-effort. Especially when the running gimmick of these sets is "Hot HDRI sets", ie; 'instant setup to make easy renders of hot girls!' 

  • jjmainorjjmainor Posts: 485

    I have a few old DO room sets from one PA who sources some of the items from free sites.  Like was said above, there's nothing technically wrong with it if the licensing allows it, but it is off-puting.  If the pieces are free elsewhere, I might as well grab them there and do the conversions myself, especially since the PA destroyed the meshes when decimating them.

  • richardandtracyrichardandtracy Posts: 5,678
    I rather feel it's wrong not to give any attribution at all. I have included PolyHaven textures in a few of my freebies. In accordance with Rendo requirements I include a texture origin statement and a copy of the CC0 license, as well as the original filenames. The origin is also stated in the Readme file. I also try - not always successfully it has to be said, mostly due to description 1000 character limit - to say where the come from in the description. It seems to me that doing less is a bit of a cheek, to be honest. Regards, Richard.
  • Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 2,570

    arks0ng said:

    I agree with Matt on this. Obviously it must be completely legal, but it just feels so... naff.

    I will be honest, off the back of this situation and the multiple incidents where Dreamlight has just made HDRIs of existing sets, I have decided to avoid financially supporting them wherever practical. I may still pick up things if they're the logical choice to trigger a sales deal, but I find this kind of thing, while presumably legal*, to be be in poor taste.

    * That said, Renderhub take the approach of "We don't moderate until we receive a complaint from a copyright holder", because the DMCA is so stupidly written that it offers more legal protection to a hosting service if it completely ignores what users are uploading and claims ignorance than if it makes a best effort moderation but messes up. So something remaining on Renderhub only really means the right person hasn't complained yet.

    This is a community that relies on users acting not just in the letter of the rules, but also the spirit of them; if we are to avoid things like Daz implementing DRM (which I know they tried previously, although I'm told it didn't last long) that could cause us major issues if we need to modify assets, it's important that we keep things profitable for Daz and the artists as they currently are.

    People who pirate content or otherwise undercut the vendors (such as by making HDRIs of existing sets) endanger the future of this hobby by making it less financially viable. This isn't Disney trying to protect every last cent of its multi-billion dollar profit, this is a small brokerage supporting independent artists.

  • GranvilleGranville Posts: 696

    There are always some vendors I decide to avoid based on personal experience of previous products. But this is a matter of taste.

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,219

    LOL I have passed on many sets from this vendor at heavily discounted prices, this comes as no surprise

    only just seen this thread the first time

  • AgitatedRiotAgitatedRiot Posts: 4,437

    Funny, I get a lot of my HDRIs from that site. I hardly ever buy HDRIs just for this reason.

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,219
    edited December 2023

    AgitatedRiot said:

    Funny, I get a lot of my HDRIs from that site. I hardly ever buy HDRIs just for this reason.

    me too 

    I do make a lot of my own HDRis too from renders

    (not strictly full HDR but work well enough, tiff converted to raidiance HDR in GIMP)

    Post edited by WendyLuvsCatz on
  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 6,880

    marble said:

    ALLIEKATBLUE said:

    I think the added value is supposed to be the effects and lighting.  I buy Dreamlight products all the time

     

    I bought one HDR set and tried it but it changed all my render and camera settings in the scene so now I just use those free HDRIs from Polyhaven. 
     

    Yes! This is one of the reasons I stopped buying Dreamlight products. (I have returned a few for other reasons too.) It drives me crazy when it changes my camera aspect ratio each time. I may want to change the camera view but NOT the aspect ratio!.

  • richardandtracyrichardandtracy Posts: 5,678
    edited December 2023

    DMCA is another thing entirely. I was pleased with R'otica's response when I was informed a vendor there had taken one of my freebie poses and was selling it as part of a set. After my formal objection, it was removed in less than 24hrs.

    Regards,

    Richard

    Post edited by richardandtracy on
  • TesseractSpaceTesseractSpace Posts: 1,406

    Hylas said:

    Matt_Castle said:

    * That said, Renderhub take the approach of "We don't moderate until we receive a complaint from a copyright holder", because the DMCA is so stupidly written that it offers more legal protection to a hosting service if it completely ignores what users are uploading and claims ignorance than if it makes a best effort moderation but messes up. So something remaining on Renderhub only really means the right person hasn't complained yet.

    I know of at least one case where a PA made a legitimate claim against a product on Renderhub (not by Dreamlight), many months ago, but the product is still up. That site is shady AF. It's one thing to rip off large corporations, it's another to screw over PA's.

    I'm just amazed they think their 'open market' and 'we don't check our content for infringment' will hold up when they have an IP restriction option for their license and whole categories for game and movie characters. It's not like they can pretend they're unaware when they explicitly offer the option to sell infringing products.

  • Faeryl WomynFaeryl Womyn Posts: 3,628

    Well lets put it like this.

    Polyhaven makes hdri's with the CCO license, Dreamlight takes said hdri's and sells them on Daz, no mention of the resources used, thereby giving the impression they created them, unless someone does a search and how many people would actually do that search.

    Now has anyone read the readme's of these products to see if Polyhaven has been mentioned, or are we just going by the images we see on the product page.

    If Polyhaven has been mentioned in the readme's, then no problem, if they have not mentioned them, then I have issue with there practices.

  • ElorElor Posts: 1,489

    Faeryl Womyn said:

    If Polyhaven has been mentioned in the readme's, then no problem, if they have not mentioned them, then I have issue with there practices.

    It would be nice to give credits, but none is needed per the licence chosen by Polyhaven:

    In other words:

    • You can use our assets for any purpose, including commercial work.
    • You do not need to give credit or attribution when using them (although it is appreciated).
    • You can redistribute them, share them around, include them when sharing your own work, or even in a product you sell.
  • movidamovida Posts: 54

    ALLIEKATBLUE said:

    I think the added value is supposed to be the effects and lighting.  I buy Dreamlight products all the time

    +1

  • HylasHylas Posts: 4,988

    @elor: I don't think anybody is arguing that it's illegal. Just that it's arguably unethical.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 100,941

    Closing this, the basic issue is a legitimate point but the discussion is getting too personal and judgemental.

This discussion has been closed.