EULA Update & Editorial Licenses Coming to Daz

ColinFrench

Drip said:

I suspect it's for stuff that is fairly obviously the intellectual property of a third party. Like, known characters and vehicles from comics or games. Ofcourse, none of us knows every single intellectual property, so I do agree that such products need to be clearly marked with a bolded line saying something like "X is part of the Y intellectual property. The Y IP is owned by Z, and the Editorial License agreement (? link to info) applies to this product."

Yes, that's part of the problem -- an existing I.P. obvious to one person may be completely unknown to another. Marking such products clearly is the absolute minimum that Daz needs to do. As mentioned previously, being able to filter them out of Store listings would be better, and keeping such products in a separate section of the Store would be even more appropriate.

Sadly, Daz hasn't responded to these or many other customer concerns. What are their plans? Who knows.

 

Drip said:

Still even with these limitations, I do hope this license means Daz managed to get a partnership with some big publishers for a vareity of awesome assets (possibly even the exact assets used in games), and to accomplish that, a license like this was to be expected.

That's why I don't understand the radio silence from Daz. Why aren't they posting about the cool stuff they'll now be able to provide to us? Why aren't they promoting the positive side of these EULA changes?

Sensual Art

Quoting from the EULA - "(iii) the User must take all possible and reasonable efforts to credit the copyright and/or trademark owner of the Content".

Does it mean Daz themselves are going to credit the original copyright holder by specifying it as part of their product marketing (which may require licensing from original owners)? If not, then why should the user "assume" any correlation to any existing copyright material irrespective of any degree of resemblance suggested from the as-is use of the purchased content?

Say,  for example, If Daz sells an editorial license product with description of Amazon Queen for G8F, then why should the user assume any correlation to an existing copyright/trademark (thereby eliminating the need for any attribution)?

In case of absense of Daz's own attribution, that generic licensing condition seems unnecesary unless the user adds further resemblances by either modifying the as-is product or by adding any further resembling context.

Fauvist

Once an image is posted anywhere on the Internet you've lost ALL control over what it's used for.  I've found images I've created used (without my knowledge) on book covers, CD packages, in memes with words I didn't write superimposed over the image, on political websites, as advertisements for events, as part of "naughty" collages or composite images, as "fine art prints" for sale, as blatant advertising for commercial products, on packaging for products sold in stores, on websites for various religions.  My signature and copyright notice are always erased or cut off or covered over.  If you think that an "editorial use only" license is going to prevent the image from being used for commercial, political, or questionably legal purposes - you're ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Selling "editorial use only" products is putting us all at risk legally.  How many customers and how many times do you have to be told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce an "editorial use" license.  It doesn't work.  Think of some other way to make more money.  Don't put your customers at risk of being sued.  Just don't do it.

Orphanslayer69

In a world where people can steal your product, why would you go out of your way to make things harder on paying customers?

Richard Haseltine

Fauvist said:

Once an image is posted anywhere on the Internet you've lost ALL control over what it's used for.  I've found images I've created used (without my knowledge) on book covers, CD packages, in memes with words I didn't write superimposed over the image, on political websites, as advertisements for events, as part of "naughty" collages or composite images, as "fine art prints" for sale, as blatant advertising for commercial products, on packaging for products sold in stores, on websites for various religions.  My signature and copyright notice are always erased or cut off or covered over.  If you think that an "editorial use only" license is going to prevent the image from being used for commercial, political, or questionably legal purposes - you're ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Selling "editorial use only" products is putting us all at risk legally.  How many customers and how many times do you have to be told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce an "editorial use" license.  It doesn't work.  Think of some other way to make more money.  Don't put your customers at risk of being sued.  Just don't do it.

I'm not following - are you imagining that is someone posts a render of editorial license content that accords with the license terms and another person takes that image without permission and uses it in a way that is not covered by the license that the original artist will be held responsible?

Matt_Castle

That may depend on what you mean by "original artist" and "responsible".

If this is intended to help brands maintain their trademarks, then they may become uncooperative in future if a scenario like that does occur in which the PA and the artist who did the render followed every rule, but another party then did as much of the internet does and completely ignored copyright.

Richard Haseltine

Matt_Castle said:

That may depend on what you mean by "original artist" and "responsible".

If this is intended to help brands maintain their trademarks, then they may become uncooperative in future if a scenario like that does occur in which the PA and the artist who did the render followed every rule, but another party then did as much of the internet does and completely ignored copyright.

Remember that this is not a new thing under the sun - TurboSquid has had (more permissive) editorial licenses for some time.

Torquinox

Turbowhat? Do Daz people actually buy anything there? Is that even remotely comparable or relevant to Daz or we who use Daz products? You are tap-dancing Richard. Until an official Daz rep appears here to tell us something meaningful, this thread is a waste of time.

Cybersox

Richard Haseltine said:

Fauvist said:

Once an image is posted anywhere on the Internet you've lost ALL control over what it's used for.  I've found images I've created used (without my knowledge) on book covers, CD packages, in memes with words I didn't write superimposed over the image, on political websites, as advertisements for events, as part of "naughty" collages or composite images, as "fine art prints" for sale, as blatant advertising for commercial products, on packaging for products sold in stores, on websites for various religions.  My signature and copyright notice are always erased or cut off or covered over.  If you think that an "editorial use only" license is going to prevent the image from being used for commercial, political, or questionably legal purposes - you're ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Selling "editorial use only" products is putting us all at risk legally.  How many customers and how many times do you have to be told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce an "editorial use" license.  It doesn't work.  Think of some other way to make more money.  Don't put your customers at risk of being sued.  Just don't do it.

I'm not following - are you imagining that is someone posts a render of editorial license content that accords with the license terms and another person takes that image without permission and uses it in a way that is not covered by the license that the original artist will be held responsible?

There's no imagining about it.  That does, in fact, happen, and due to the way that images are frequently stolen and sold or put on products without the knowledge of the original artists, it is increasingly possible for an artist to be identified in a lawsuit where they are forced to defend themselves.  While this is nothing new, with several high profile cases back in the 1960s, it has exploded in recent years due to the lack of regulation on the internet and especially NFTs, which allows scammers to steal the identiies of and sell the work of unsuspecting artists while leaving little record of where the money actually went.  In fact, the situation is so bad that OpenSeas, one of the largest exchanges for NFTs, estimated in January of this year that as high as 80% of all the NFTs sold via their free tool set may be either stolen or fraudulant.     https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nft-fraud-qinni-art  https://www.sporttechie.com/opensea-self-reports-that-80-of-its-nfts-were-unoriginal-or-illegtimate#  

Richard Haseltine

Cybersox said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Fauvist said:

Once an image is posted anywhere on the Internet you've lost ALL control over what it's used for.  I've found images I've created used (without my knowledge) on book covers, CD packages, in memes with words I didn't write superimposed over the image, on political websites, as advertisements for events, as part of "naughty" collages or composite images, as "fine art prints" for sale, as blatant advertising for commercial products, on packaging for products sold in stores, on websites for various religions.  My signature and copyright notice are always erased or cut off or covered over.  If you think that an "editorial use only" license is going to prevent the image from being used for commercial, political, or questionably legal purposes - you're ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Selling "editorial use only" products is putting us all at risk legally.  How many customers and how many times do you have to be told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce an "editorial use" license.  It doesn't work.  Think of some other way to make more money.  Don't put your customers at risk of being sued.  Just don't do it.

I'm not following - are you imagining that is someone posts a render of editorial license content that accords with the license terms and another person takes that image without permission and uses it in a way that is not covered by the license that the original artist will be held responsible?

There's no imagining about it.  That does, in fact, happen, and due to the way that images are frequently stolen and sold or put on products without the knowledge of the original artists, it is increasingly possible for an artist to be identified in a lawsuit where they are forced to defend themselves.  While this is nothing new, with several high profile cases back in the 1960s, it has exploded in recent years due to the lack of regulation on the internet and especially NFTs, which allows scammers to steal the identiies of and sell the work of unsuspecting artists while leaving little record of where the money actually went.  In fact, the situation is so bad that OpenSeas, one of the largest exchanges for NFTs, estimated in January of this year that as high as 80% of all the NFTs sold via their free tool set may be either stolen or fraudulant.     https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nft-fraud-qinni-art  https://www.sporttechie.com/opensea-self-reports-that-80-of-its-nfts-were-unoriginal-or-illegtimate#  

Which says nothing about the risk of being held liable for the misuse of a stolen image, which was the subject raised.

Richard Haseltine

Torquinox said:

Turbowhat? Do Daz people actually buy anything there? Is that even remotely comparable or relevant to Daz or we who use Daz products? You are tap-dancing Richard. Until an official Daz rep appears here to tell us something meaningful, this thread is a waste of time.

The apparent claim was that editorial license content is going to put users at risk of being sued because the art they make and share according to the terms of the license might then be stolen and missued in a way that is in breach of the license and incurs the wrath of the owners of the original IP. The fact that such licenses have existed for some tiem wither triggering such an event is extemely relevant, unless you are suggesting that the art made by Turbosquid users is somehow immune to being stolen and misused.

barbult

I think Richard means "Turbosquid users", not "Turbosquid suers". In a discussion about legal liability, that typo could lead to confusion.

Richard Haseltine

barbult said:

I think Richard means "Turbosquid users", not "Turbosquid suers". In a discussion about legal liability, that typo could lead to confusion.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry, soem* words seem determined to trip me up and that is one of them - I'd corrected the same mistake at least once earlier in the post.

* like this one

Cybersox

Richard Haseltine said:

barbult said:

I think Richard means "Turbosquid users", not "Turbosquid suers". In a discussion about legal liability, that typo could lead to confusion.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry, soem* words seem determined to trip me up and that is one of them - I'd corrected the same mistake at least once earlier in the post.

* like this one

It happens.  As we get older, our reflexes and dexterity slow down far more quickly than our brains for various reasons, hence the keys that you are sure that you typed in XYZ order sometimes end up as XZY or XUZ.  Unfortunately, those of us who type quickly (myself included) tend to depend far too much on spell and grammer checking to catch it, and technology can be a very poor crutch.  

 

Torquinox

Richard Haseltine said:

Torquinox said:

Turbowhat? Do Daz people actually buy anything there? Is that even remotely comparable or relevant to Daz or we who use Daz products? You are tap-dancing Richard. Until an official Daz rep appears here to tell us something meaningful, this thread is a waste of time.

The apparent claim was that editorial license content is going to put users at risk of being sued because the art they make and share according to the terms of the license might then be stolen and missued in a way that is in breach of the license and incurs the wrath of the owners of the original IP. The fact that such licenses have existed for some tiem wither triggering such an event is extemely relevant, unless you are suggesting that the art made by Turbosquid users is somehow immune to being stolen and misused.

The point made is that anything on the internet is open to misuse. This is true - There are some newsworthy court cases about misuse of images on the internet. Ok, but this matters more: As far as I can tell, Daz editorial license is pretty worthless and thus far Daz has no content that uses it. There is no sign that any of that will change any time soon. Ergo, this thread is a waste of time. That's all.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Richard Haseltine

Torquinox said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Torquinox said:

Turbowhat? Do Daz people actually buy anything there? Is that even remotely comparable or relevant to Daz or we who use Daz products? You are tap-dancing Richard. Until an official Daz rep appears here to tell us something meaningful, this thread is a waste of time.

The apparent claim was that editorial license content is going to put users at risk of being sued because the art they make and share according to the terms of the license might then be stolen and missued in a way that is in breach of the license and incurs the wrath of the owners of the original IP. The fact that such licenses have existed for some tiem wither triggering such an event is extemely relevant, unless you are suggesting that the art made by Turbosquid users is somehow immune to being stolen and misused.

The point made is that anything on the internet is open to misuse. This is true - There are some newsworthy court cases about misuse of images on the internet. Ok, but this matters more: As far as I can tell, Daz editorial license is pretty worthless and thus far Daz has no content that uses it. There is no sign that any of that will change any time soon. Ergo, this thread is a waste of time. That's all.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Of course it's true that anything posted can be misued - but you seemed to have a two step arguemnt - if A then B; if B then C - and it's the if B then C bit I am doubting, not the if A then B. In fact not only do the TurboSquid Editorial Licenses suggest that B then C is a non issue, so do all the years of fan art produced with freebies or 2D drawing tools before them which suffered exactly the same kind of abuse without, in general, getting their creators sued (or even used, as scape goats).

Fauvist

Richard Haseltine said:

Matt_Castle said:

That may depend on what you mean by "original artist" and "responsible".

If this is intended to help brands maintain their trademarks, then they may become uncooperative in future if a scenario like that does occur in which the PA and the artist who did the render followed every rule, but another party then did as much of the internet does and completely ignored copyright.

Remember that this is not a new thing under the sun - TurboSquid has had (more permissive) editorial licenses for some time.

That's precisely why I've NEVER bought ANYTHING from Turbosqid. Their "editorial" license says you may require permussion from the trademark/copyright owner ti use the product even AFTER YOU'VE PAID FOR IT.

Fauvist

If DAZ thinks there's no chance of being sued, then let DAZ put in their license that DAZ is accepting 100% liability and will pay 100% of the damages and 100% of the legal fees of all parties. Go ahead and add it to the EULA if you think there's no risk.

nonesuch00

I might buy some editorial content to be truthful but the likelihood of an Trademarked IP coming up as editorial content that I would seriously be interested in doing a render in is pretty darn small. And, say for example, Star Trek characters, clothing, vehicles, accessories, and environments (not that I'm personally Trekkie enough to buy it but we know plenty of others are) come up for sale as editorial content I'd find it difficult to believe that the trademark owners wouldn't insist on a 90 - 10 cut, in their favor, not DAZ's favor. DAZ would loose money on such editorial products test, hosting, and administration!

Taoz

Editorial License when used is replacing Standard License, right?

Padone

LOL This is just ridiculous, now DAZ wants to sell items without commercial licenses, good luck with that. Sometime I wonder who's the big boss behind these brilliant ideas. Unless you give away editorial items for free I mean, but even so I'm not sure there will be much interest in that.

Taoz

Padone said:

LOL This is just ridiculous, now DAZ wants to sell items without commercial licenses, good luck with that. Sometime I wonder who's the big boss behind these brilliant ideas. Unless you give away editorial items for free I mean, but even so I'm not sure there will be much interest in that.

It doesn't look like there are many of them - apparently (I wasn't aware of its existence before now) this license type was introduced 2022-07-12, but I have purchased a lot of products since then and got a product with that license yesterday for the first time.  I know for certain I haven't purchased others because it caused problems in my database software which isn't set up to recognize that type of license.

 

Byrdie

Oh dear! That is a lovely prop set but no idea why it's editorial aka non-commercial only. Unless it's got appliance brands from actual companies that I don't recognize since different country than vendor? Too bad, I think many people won't buy due to this licensing type. Hope there'll be a similar but standard Daz license version because empty apartment = no fun.

The apartment that is required to use this set, that seems to be a regular license Daz Original, or am I mistaken?

butterflyfish

I feel like that aternative license could be posted in a more prominent place on the page.

SofaCitizen

Byrdie said:

Oh dear! That is a lovely prop set but no idea why it's editorial aka non-commercial only. Unless it's got appliance brands from actual companies that I don't recognize since different country than vendor? Too bad, I think many people won't buy due to this licensing type. Hope there'll be a similar but standard Daz license version because empty apartment = no fun.

The apartment that is required to use this set, that seems to be a regular license Daz Original, or am I mistaken?

These look to be models of appliances made by the brand "SMEG" but using a made up name instead - unless SMEG is known as LEMB in another country?  Either way, given the intense similarly in look and colour scheme that probably explains the use of that licence.

AlmightyQUEST

It doesn't appear to list it in the store as using an editorial license. Was it an error that got updated, or should the store be saying something different?

Worlds_Edge

PerttiA said:

namffuak said:

I will reserve judgement until the new licenses show up in the store - but it's not enough to just list the restrictions on the product page; I'll need to be able to determine which products in my content library have restrictions.

Big red exclamation mark on the thumbnail in Content Library with "For your own eyes only!!"

I agree with this If most products have commercial license (i. e., the vast number of products already in the store), then the ones that do not need to be immediately discernable from the product sale page/promos and in our content library. If limited licenses are hidden and require additional effort to suss out, I am unlikely to continue my practice of purchasing a lot of content. Perhaps limited license items could have their own separate sales pages for starters.

Byrdie

Ah, they do look very similar. Enough it should be non-commercial license so editorial it is. Which still leaves the question of a regular-licensed prop set for the apartment. Will there be one coming for those who want? I hope so, guess we'll have to wait and see.

PerttiA

Ok, how does one use a refrigerator or a blender in unlawful manner (derogatory, etc.)? 

ms_art

Taoz said:

Padone said:

LOL This is just ridiculous, now DAZ wants to sell items without commercial licenses, good luck with that. Sometime I wonder who's the big boss behind these brilliant ideas. Unless you give away editorial items for free I mean, but even so I'm not sure there will be much interest in that.

It doesn't like like there are many of them - apparently (I wasn't aware of its existence before now) this license type was introduced 2022-07-12, but I have purchased a lot of products since then and got a product with that license yesterday for the first time.  I know for certain I haven't purchased others because it caused problems in my database software which isn't set up to recognize that type of license.

 

Oof - that would be an instant return for me.