Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Wait, this means any product can have its license changed without any notice and can't be used commercially anymore?
Perhaps when I'm in the middle of a big production, they suddenly change the license of the clothes of the main char and I have to redo everything from the beginning with a new attire hoping they doesn't change the license of that too?
I don't think so. I think Serene Night bought it without looking at the license ...
I read somewhere that it might have been a Platinum Club freebie, so I hope no money was spent.
How do returns work if the item was part of a complex cart? Being a new release, it counted for the discounts and bonus items. Is the $4 a loss since the cart relied on the new item?
This really is ridiculous - I have the car, too, and had no idea that I couldn't actually use it in projects. Daz makes a lot of mistakes, but this crosses a line - users could end up in legal trouble because the license type isn't being communicated to mobile shoppers.
There should be an overlay on the cover image of the store for editorial releases IMO. Would save daz some headaches from processing returns
See if they'll allow the return anyway; make a clear note that the notation of Editorial License was NOT clear enough, and specifically that it was NOT VISIBLE when you bought it via your phone. Personally, I'd be willing to consider the rest of the cart a casualty if it comes to it to avoid the contanimation of my library.
I guess I'll stop shopping here until there's a REALLY crear way to discern editorial licenses in a single look.
That little note, even if among the details of the product, isn't really noticeable. A bigger, bolder and maybe red coloured banner would be better. The best of shopping here was the fact I could buy anything without spending a lot of time looking for licensing, permissions and prohibitions like many other stores. Now this isn't possible anymore.
Library is already contaminated with the car and its texture pack, unfortunately. :|
It sucks to be blindsided - I was quite happy with the cart, having used my coupon and purchased an outfit from my wishlist along with the retro props (which would be great without the editorial license).
Big thanks to Kerya for posting the alert thread.
I don't get why anyone would create a product that can't be use in a manner consistent with commercial use?
So this is more directed at content artists...
If you Google "DAZ Studio" and go to the landing page/welcome to, whatever it's called, first page that anyone new to DAZ might go when they first hear about DAZ, it's all about how professional DAZ Studio is, and all the great things you can do with you art and vision using the software and content...
In the not too distant past, that intro even used to mention how professional Hollywood studios used DAZ Studio...
The general razzle-dazzle pitch is this is professional grade software which even a newbie can wrap their mind around to produce amazing results.
Whats the point of that?
To keep a render to yourself?
Even the NFT stuff... is someone going to make it for themselves or are they going want to sell that NFT?
The whole point is your art has the potential to bring you income or be displayed in a manner in which one's vision isn't encumbered by restrictions...
I can't imagine any reason someone would want to purchase a product that they can't use commercially or because it's license is restricted in any manner other than "NO REDISTRIBUTION" of the content itself, not the rendered image.
Why would anyone bother to make content that is going to be hampered by that restriction?... also, why would anyone bother to create content that might at some point potentially trip someone up because it might present a legal issue that customer might not fully understand?
Do you really want to limit your sales and possibly screw over a customer accidentally?
Heres an idea: Just Don't Make Editorial License Content.
JDELC... "JayDelk"... it's easy to remember and I'm working on a jingle to help people remember, something like that old "don't pet stray cobras" PSA from the 80s...
Remember you are making content to sell to earn money for food and designer oxygen and possibly even rent money if you aren't already a billionaire or living in a discarded refrigerator crate... and you don't want to restrict your customers who probably love you or mildly tolerate you to some extent...
If you trip them up by suddenly throwing in editorial content, they may show up at your cardboard box with pitchforks and torches (the burning sticks, not flashlight torches like the English insist on referring to flashlights... honestly that's too confusing and I don't know how the whole place hasn't burned to the ground over assorted misunderstandings... "Rodger, I smell a petrol leak... quick, hand me a torch...")... and cardboard boxes are not great to hide in when an angry mob is looking for you, especially if they are wet... although they are a lot less flammable that way, but nonetheless you don't want to confuse your fans or supporters by being inconsistent and riling them up.
Editorial content has its place, but if you as an artist want to earn the respect and money (mostly money, respect is hard to trade for food) of the shoppers at the DAZ store, just make that car, drill, chair or toaster-oven look sort of like the brand item but not enough that it's a friggin' dealbreaker.
I say this out of love and respect... but mostly out of a deep and uncontrollable urge to interfere and voice my useless opinion that nobody really cares to hear... and if that's not love or a distorted misunderstanding of the meaning of the word, then I don't know what that word means.
JDELC my peeps... JDELC.
No. That is pure speculation and wrong speculation. Daz honors contracts. A contract is a contract. From past educational courses I can assure you two of the terms associated with contractual law are: offer, and acceptance. In short, we buy under the terms of 'the offer' and thus enter into a sales contract. Daz has the right to change the terms of any offer for those who have not yet accepted it because no contract exists between prospects and a product providing the change of terms is made public else it's a switch and bait. This is why you never see DAZ pull products from our product library after they are pulled from the store after a vendor leaves. Under contractual law it is illegal to not abide by the terms of a contract. I thought I'd post this because comments like that have been known to lock a forum and this thread is worth keeping an eye on.
WARNING - if you use the DAZ Deals plugin, the editorial license warning does NOT show on the page. You need to go into the DAZ Deals extension, click on Extention options and uncheck the Hide "Optional License Add-Ons" section on product pages" option so it shows up. I have to go get a refund on the Cyber Racer product because I didn't know it had that license. The license may not show up if you shop via phone, especially if you use landscape mode.
That is not totally correct. I see it using Daz Deals plug-in. I just didn't see it when I purchased it.
Not an error, but as for the other licenses, if you only use the product for freebies it might not be a problem.
I've put in a ticket to complain about this, but I'll say my piece here as well.
The notice about what is a very different licence is easily missed as part of the block containing product compatibility. I looked at the products that apparently have this licence more than once as possible future purchases, and still only noticed the new licence had been used at all on seeing this thread.
And whether or not it's visible on the page, it's not visible anywhere else at all. I'm sure many of us have added a new Daz+ product that we didn't particularly need to a cart because it counted as a new item to trigger a sales deal, but where we've just quickly picked whichever one looks like it might possibly be useful down the line. It's entirely possible to add these products to the cart, purchase and use them without ever seeing any notification that there's a restricted licence. No warning that I can see is given in the cart, even up to the very moment before clicking the final purchase button.
Aside from simply complaining that I think it is a poor idea to use the editorial licence at all (and I still think this is poor naming, as other sites use the same name to mean "must meet fair use criteria", where Daz instead means "non-commercial use only"), I feel all of the following changes are necessary to make this licence "safe" for users:
- Much more obvious notifications about the editorial licence on the store, such as an clear flag on these products in the cart, and a reminder that has to be actively dismissed on checkout.
- An option to hide all editorial licence products from the store entirely.
- A means of flagging products in Daz Studio metadata as having restricted usage (and which is clear when loading from either the Content Library or Smart Content), such that it is also obvious after purchase that a product cannot be used commercially.
Why of course because they like the product and don't want to use it commercially. The vast majority of DAZ users are hobbyists who make pretty pictures for fun. DAZ are merely following the trend of editorial licenses from other market places like TurboSquid etc. There's really not much to it. For some reason this license was invented to cover somewhat gray area items under the whole "fair use" thing. Why should DAZ not make use of this? Creators get to make money, consumers get to buy items that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's all good and pro consumer as long as it's very clear to the buyer what license they get. If it isn't then DAZ needs to work on that but that's not an issue with the license per se.
The editorial license statement hides and shows depending on whether "Hide 'Optional License Add-Ons' section on product pages" is checked or unchecked, respectively. There also is no notice while the product is in the cart, on the checkout screen, or the confirmation page after purchase. Additionally, it does not show when in portrait mode on mobile, but does in landscape or after switching to "desktop site" as others have said.
According to Jack is was DAZs decision - because the vendor is in some sort of unfortunate situation right now they chose this solution instead of asking him to redo the objects in question. So who knows, maybe there will be an update later at some point so it can go commercial.
Okay that was badly said, but it is a conundrum that can come back to bite you if you move on to professional, or someone pays you to make a render for you... or even in a contest, because technically money is involved... probably not a problem in general, but it's still a land mine that might or might not ever go off... it's a major reason many 3D artists don't use freebies after a certain point because they have murky restrictions or they are given away as non-commercial... that and on top of that, so many people don't notice or understand what that actually means, so when they do they drop stuff like that like a hot potato.
Having stuff like that rolling around in your content library that might be only for non-commercial use can be forgotten after a year or two, if you are even aware of it at all and keeping track of that can be a nightmare... Once you reach a level where you may consider accepting money for your work, whether or not it's an occasional thing or full time, you have a problem... so that was more or less what I meant...
I'm not 100% sure, but it doesn't seem like there is anything in editorial use only content like it going into a special category that easily identifies it... I don't own anything like that, but that's the impression I got... that's fine for stuff you got on ShareCG, but if you paid actual money, there should be something, a category or icon on a thumbnail (like that "New Content" tag) that lets you know this ain't for commercial use, because DAZ Studio is used by a lot of by professionals and newbies who become professionals... and you are paying for something that has a huge restriction, which should you forget that it's not like most of the other content you paid for, could pose a problem, especially if it's in something like an animation or comic... think about how much it might suck to spend time using that cyber racer in an animation you put on YouTube and you didn't really understand that it was non-commercial at the time and eventually you start getting ad money as you get better at animations and videos.
Unless you are 100% committed to remaining a non financially compensated hobbyist from the beginning... it could become an issue later on, and that was what I meant.
And being a hobbyist is great, it's just not 100% what most people at DAZ aspire to and wasn't in the past something that many people who are still DAZ customers and don't read the forums (we are constantly reminded "most people don't read the forums") so this kind of thing could be a problem for someone who a few years ago (when DAZ was all commercial use friendly) wanted to only be a hobbyist, but opportunity presented itself and now since they aren't aware of this controversy are facing a possible problem in the future.
I am 100% for such a filter in the shop interface, 20% for such a filter in the product library web interface, and 200% within DAZ Studio. It may still show the items, but disabled/grey. Since i will always also be amining at computer games, some of which will need some 3D, (even if i tried for relief only), licensing is crucial, in terms of knowing what licenses an item has, and of course a selection or inspection is necessary for efficiency.
Currently i am building a simple tool to process orders, and later scrape official web pages for both what should be contained, and the actual licenses available (without login, just manually saved orders html and shop pages, and yes, daz3d.com had me at "xhtml"). So i have my own little database, and maybe i'll have to implement my own little selection dialog(s) for DAZ Studio itself. Plans are to have license and metadata accounting working between applications (DAZ Studio, Blender, ..., ... godot-engine? ...), not aiming at selling plugins/scripts (There is alternative selection dialog like from ManFriday, and while some aspects are very good, it doesn't do some things i need, and also isn't a virtual view, so it will sometimes display nothing, if there are too many items. Maybe, once i am into it enough, i may also try to suggest/improve that/such plugins, or offer cooperation. But i might as well fool around with basic rendering and very basic exporting tests for quite a while, initially.)
That being said, i think the editorial license makes sense, and it will rather be few items. (E.g. for public media/places... memes, depicting something for comparison of epoch, sometimes artists publish something for free, and some don't want it to be used commercially, AND also think of showcasing something that comes in a larger package, then with commercial license).
Those who are after interactive licenses in general, will have to read the licensing section anyway, though admittedly it should have a thick colored border or something, if it's not the standard license, and filtering for licenses absolutely makes sense everywhere. Unfortunately hardly any marketplace implements such, and much worse, even with standard and interactive/extended licenses, they allow restrictions on the licensing to be put just anywhere in the description text. Which kind of makes it necessary to have a database containing the item with the full description text, if you buy such a restricted item, with the intention to just use it for rendering, while you also use the interactive/extended and standard licensing for other items a lot.
No way guessing! Already now, if you use interactive licenses, you must know where they apply (also in bundles). The lack of inspection tools, as well as further plans to do cross-application licensing and meta data accounting, "forces me" to build a few tools, to have my own meta data library on DAZ3D items, so i can check which is which. In fact i will want to have a selection dialog, that allows filtering for licenses, so i can distinguish.
Having a licensing database tool already might allow to use the textual results of some other inspection plugin, which shows what products are used in a scene, to check for the available (and for bought) licenses. Knowing before creating a complex scene is more than nice to have, of course.
(The cheap way in for selection dialogs or Studio could be, to accept a product-id exclusion list, which is set as a filter internally on startup. Other than that, improving multiple directory installation would also help, and then let DIM install to folders by license, and Studio to only load/use/display items with certain licenses. So there may be various approaches to improve the situation just for Studio...)
...had the Cyber Racer on the Wishlist, just removed it. I need to submit a refund ticket for the Retro Apartment Props 2. This keeps up and they'll have to hire more CS personnel to handle the increased load.
Of course, a very simple solution to this (as I mentioned on Kerya's thread) would be for Daz to add a filter like the "Mature Content" one but for "Restricted Licence Products".
I get that but I wonder if sales might not have been suburb had they simply omitted the appliances, knocked a buck off and then had him redo those as an add-on. I can't see how an editorial only sale would not be crippling the products true sales potential. I truly believe this experience has tainted an item that could have been another mega star like West Park, because it really has the seventies vibe and it is an amazing product. Such a shame. But kudos to the artist. He did a great job.
I never hide those not that it helped me in this particular case. Guess I expected it to be in the license add on in big red letters because it certainly could lead to more work for the support desk and refunds the way it is presented now.
I totally agree. And would certainly use "- An option to hide all editorial licence products from the store entirely." It's a great idea. I hope your suggestion sees the light of day and pans out.
Edit: Who said that last bit? The bit with the really good suggestions? It was:
As for the Cyber-Racer.
Currently the cyber-Racer has a product Cyber Liveries, an add-on to the Cyber-Racer. Cyber Liveries comes with a commercial license. Or at least it does right now as I write this, and did when I bought it.
I think all three things are quite important. A hide option wouldn't be vital if there were an "are you sure" option on checkout, but I'm certain some people will want/need to avoid the licence entirely, and Daz should really implement an option to avoid inconveniencing or annoying those customers.
The last one I think is particularly important from Daz's perspective, because this increases the potential sales. I *like* the Retro Props, and right now 99% of my renders are non-commercial, so the licence wouldn't be a major issue if I had a reminder of that in future. However, I cannot justify "poisoning" my library while I cannot filter restricted use products out of it, and I have to keep my library clean so that if I do commercial renders in future I can trust that whichever prop my library has shown me is safe.
It is not viable or reasonable to expect every user to have to manually check the licence of every product and prop they use in a render (certainly not after years of simplicity), so if Daz are implementing a wider range of licences, they also need to implement a filter into the program to help comply with that.
No Commercial License = No payment. No purchase. I don't care.
I started buying assets on DAZ3D for producing my indie games. So if many products would lose the Interactive License option all of a sudden I wouldn't bother purchasing anything anymore. Quite simple.
If instead the Editorial License is added as a very cheap option for whoever doesn't want to use anything commercially at all then I wouldn't care. BUT the Interactive License option must remain.
Anyway with this then all products I bought so far would have the Standard License as always or they would be automatically downgraded to the Editorial License ?
And any new purchase to get the Standard License is then going to cost money now and not included by default anymore. Which is a very bad thing for customers.
The Editorial License actually should be A DISCOUNT on all product prices. Because it is not an added feature at all but a lost feature instead.
It really should work in a way that whoever doesn't want to pay for the Standard License should get whatever a 10% or 20% discount on the product or higher and then be limited to the Editorial License with the option to switch back to Standard and Interactive Licenses by paying them.
I would check, if it's from the same author, and even then rather ask back!
In fact i bought both too, and one author of the cyber racer is the author for the liveries... so before using it even for a render, i would ask back. Since both are "DAZ Originals" asking back might also work with the normal DAZ support.
For instance: there often is items not offering an interactive license, for which add-ons exist, that do. In case of textures, you would still not have obtained the license for the 3d-Models (which may not be the issue with a certain item), or in case of poses that could be used independently, the license likely only applies to the poses, not for the item they pose an extension to. So if another author offers an interactive license for a texture add-on to a clothing item, i wouldn't be sure, if i can use the clothing item with that textures, or if i can only use the shaders/surfaces on other items i have an interactive license for.
Then someone needs to get with the developer and have them try and get an update then asap. That would hardly be Daz's fault if its not showing when the plugin is being used. Not sure why it's only happening with some though. Maybe a filter setting, or screen size?
I agree with you.
But why would you think they would do that.
When they cannot even tell you in a folder name if a figure is G8 or G8.1
Or if an item of clothing is dForce or not.
I install ALL items manually. so I can add "dForce" or "8/8.1" etc to the end of a folder name .
Or I have to put the full product name on the folder because the vendor abbreviated it.
or in one case the vendor had put a Vehicle in the Architecture folder ?
I could go on.
Are these products going to be cheaper than non-editorials? If you're going to restrict what I can do with them then you can go and do one if you want to charge "normal" price for them. Not that I'll buy them anyway .. but .. still ..
From looking at the example posted above "retro apartment props 2" normal price $18.95 I would say NO
and I cannot se a tickbox for a normal licence, so its restricted or not at all.
Odd thing is the retro apartment in OK for COM/NONCOM huh?
so if you wanted to get the full set for looks , your OUT OF LUCK for Commercial work.!!
I was going to get this. But not now, even at $4.19. Not in my runtime thank you.
i dont have time to mess about looking to see what i can use and what i cannot sell
Jack said in the DAZ+ forum that the editorial license still applies if you change the shaders.
Ok, in that case, i could use the shaders on something else, according to the license the add-on and "something else" provide.
Second thought: Should clarify - that message had been about "random other shaders by third parties", in which case certainly the 3d models can be meant to stay under the original EULA (in rare cases they might be ok to use, but only if the original authors grant that to you / in written form). It may or may not be different, if an author of the original item provides a shader add-on, that offers other licensing. In that case there is a faint chance that it's meant, so i would still ask back, for what's the case. In this case it was two extra authors (to daz originals), and the shaders add-on was made by one of them (extra complicated).