EULA Update & Editorial Licenses Coming to Daz

Crescent

Matt_Castle said:

Given that some parts of today's car bundle have the restricted licence and other parts don't, I feel I need to re-express my displeasure at the extremely poor way these products are marked on store.

Thanks for the heads up.  I only looked at the images in the bundle itself and wouldn't have known that I couldn't use some of what I'd purchased.  I suspect a lot of people are going to be very unhappy when they find out about this.  It's debatable if the editorial licensing is even enforceable for those parts of the bundle since the page offers an interactive licence for the entire bundle.

OrangeFalcon

Crescent said:

Thanks for the heads up.  I only looked at the images in the bundle itself and wouldn't have known that I couldn't use some of what I'd purchased.  I suspect a lot of people are going to be very unhappy when they find out about this.  It's debatable if the editorial licensing is even enforceable for those parts of the bundle since the page offers an interactive licence for the entire bundle.

I had the same problem myself and almost got the bundle.  They should separate the one EL vehicle from the bundle, lower the price slightly, and then have it set with the normal licensing options.  I think anything with an EL should be baseline extremely inexpensive, if not free, and have a larger disclaimer.  We can't use these commercially in a clearly defined way like the other licenses, so there isn't any ROI.

generalgameplaying

As long as they don't retroactively change the license. If they did, it would need a notice or an overview of all licensing with filtering. It really would make sense to have such.

 

"Allows new Daz store content to include additional license restrictions beyond the standard agreement on the product page. For example, a trademarked product may include additional information."

This is a bit of an issue, especially if PAs "forget" to mention such for the initial release, just to add it later. Also if restrictions got written in the text somewhere more or less at random, could be an issue. For (machine-) readability, it would really be helpful to have some reliable anchor/tag/HTML-something, to be able to detect that licensing restrictions apply. Even better if the restricting paragraph is enclosed such, that it's distinguishable from other random text. Just from experinece with one other place :p.

The formula says "new DAZ store content", so changing existing products retroactively, hopefully isn't on the table anyway.

Richard Haseltine

There was one occasion of a license type being changed substantially after launch, it is our understanding that Daz will not do that again (changes due to errors on the launch day, as may be needed for the cars today, would perhaps be another matter).

generalgameplaying

Richard Haseltine said:

There was one occasion of a license type being changed substantially after launch, it is our understanding that Daz will not do that again (changes due to errors on the launch day, as may be needed for the cars today, would perhaps be another matter).

I'd also assume such rather to be accidents, if it happens again. Supposedly, such items could be refunded easily. Wouldn't mind a notification, if it happened for items i've bought, though.

The other thing is, how to keep track of present licenses for stuff i have intentionally bought, possibly a mix of any of those licenses. A tool to fetch/know the licenses i have would be really cool (and quite nice to have: which ones are available, that i don't have), like within DAZ Studio.

frank0314

We've been asking for something to be able to easily identify the Editorial License products. I made a suggestion to @Totte at one point to see if he could do a plug-in product or something for it.

Totte

So far there is really no information AFAIK that can be used to identify if a product has an editorial license when it has been installed in Studio.

Silent Winter

Totte said:

So far there is really no information AFAIK that can be used to identify if a product has an editorial license when it has been installed in Studio.

There isn't.

Is the information on the store page readable by a script? (i.e. could a script cross-check a product ID with its store page and download said information?) I've no idea what the limits are on DS scripting, particularly with looking outside the program itself. 

Matt_Castle

Totte said:

So far there is really no information AFAIK that can be used to identify if a product has an editorial license when it has been installed in Studio.

Something I mean to do (I did purchase the Star Trek stuff, but I'm not installing it until I can clearly sort out that it's restricted) is to see if I can sort out a script to watermark all the library images. And for the morphs, probably renaming them with (EL) at the start of their labels so that it's clear they're restricted.

This will need me to specifically *flag* that these things are EL and watch out carefully for product updates overwriting the thumbnails, but it's a start.

Ivy

My concern

If this ELUA Editorial License change will be applied to older purchased products, that were bought on the old ELUA, because if so there is going to be a lot of very unhappy people.  How would daz enforce what is old sales and new Editorial License sales when being flagged on Youtube or other social media?

Even though it has not been officially stated as of yet on if a Editorial License will be applied to recent sold content. that is my concern.

I have Ten's of thousand of dollars of Daz3d content I have been using commercially.  Including a lot of recent Genesis 8 and new environment sets.  So I have a legitimate concern to ask about the future of this ELUA change regarding the Editorial License being applied to recent purchased content.

I must say making ELUA license changes that would include past purchased products would not be acceptable and I sure hope daz clarifies this concern in written within the ELUA .

I have 1000's of commercial animations and comics that I already either sold or have posted on public social media.  which if older content was included within the Editorial License would be greatly effected my public works if this Editorial License were to be retroactively applied to purchased content before these ELUA change. and how will  we be able to prove to Youtube or other platforms that we had purchased the content before the end license changes.  I post a live link to the Daz ELUA on my wed site and on all my animations.  so any new ELUA changes not reflecting past purchases would really get sticky trying to prove that we bought the content before the Daz ELUA changes if you get my meaning.

Someone have any clarification on this please ?

Richard Haseltine

Ivy said:

My concern

If this ELUA Editorial License change will be applied to older purchased products, that were bought on the old ELUA, because if so there is going to be a lot of very unhappy people.  How would daz enforce what is old sales and new Editorial License sales when being flagged on Youtube or other social media?

This thread is nearly two years old, and there is alreadya  fair bit of Editorial License content in the store - see https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/608786/a-thread-for-items-with-the-editorial-license#latest

One item, the Killminger Hair, had its license changed due to using the look and name of a copyright/trademark figure - however, after that Daz said that in future they would simply pull such products and not try to change the license. The exception to that would be correcting launch errors, as with the cars yesterday.

Even though it has not been officially stated as of yet on if a Editorial License will be applied to recent sold content. that is my concern.

Editorial License content is a specific sub-set - essentially content that would not have been released at all under the standard license. Obviously it isn't in anyone's interest to apply it more broadly than necessary, since it is potentially reducing sales.

I have Ten's of thousand of dollars of Daz3d content I have been using commercially.  Including a lot of recent Genesis 8 and new environment sets.  So I have a legitimate concern to ask about the future of this ELUA change regarding the Editorial License being applied to recent purchased content.

It is a new(ish) license for specific purposes, not a general change

I must say making ELUA license changes that would include past purchased products would not be acceptable and I sure hope daz clarifies this concern in written within the ELUA .

Again, this is for specific items and is not going to be applied where it isn't needed, nor will it be ap[lied retroactively

I have 1000's of commercial animations and comics that I already either sold or have posted on public social media.  which if older content was included within the Editorial License would be greatly effected my public works if this Editorial License were to be retroactively applied to purchased content before these ELUA change. and how will  we be able to prove to Youtube or other platforms that we had purchased the content before the end license changes.  I post a live link to the Daz ELUA on my wed site and on all my animations.  so any new ELUA changes not reflecting past purchases would really get sticky trying to prove that we bought the content before the Daz ELUA changes if you get my meaning.

Someone have any clarification on this please ?

Ivy

Thank you Richarad , that was exactly what I needed to know

Eljayco

Hi,

I've read a lot of this thread and sorry if I've missed it but am I allowed to give stuff away for free that has the editorial licence, ie if I create a comic or visual novel for example? Or does that still fall under commercial use?
Let's say for example with the recent Collapse Bundle I created a comic that recounted an original adventure of an original character where the only 'copyrighted' stuff was the location being like fallout (and hence the assets from the collapse bundle) and I gave that comic away for free, is that allowed?

If not, am I understanding correctly that these editorial licence assets are purely for creating personal content that can neve be shared?

If it's all a grey area then I guess like many it seems the best option is to just not use them but it seems a shame as some of them are quite good.

Valiska

Solar Dreamer said:

Thing that still confuses me about this is that shouldn't that caveat also apply to DAZ and their artists selling this EL content to begin with, since they're making money from it? That is, unless they have specific licensing agreements with the IP owners, I don't see how they can even be offering these for sale, EL or otherwise.

 That caveat does apply.

They are taking a calculated risk.

I'm guessing the calculation looks something like this:

1. A trademark holder must defend a trademark or risk it becoming genericized, so we won't used the trademarked name. (But customers that don't recognize the property now can't search for the name to see what it is.)
2. But the copyright holders are not bothering to exploit this minor market, so they also probably won't bother to sue us if we exploit it.
3. But the uses the customers might put these items to will predictably potentially collide with the copyright holders' usage of it, so we'll put an editorial license on it. (One of several possible problems for customers: the actual fair usage rights carved out in U.S. law do not work out to "just don't charge money for it", no matter how readily people's expectations tend to go there.)

To make matters worse, the statute is not clear in every area, and a whole lot of what is, or isn't, accepted copyright practice is established by case law, not by reading the text of the unclear legislation.

Or -- worse still -- it's established by who can throw how much money around with the threat of a lawsuit.

If Daz decides they want to take this risk for themselves, that's up to them. But I at least want the ability to do what I can do on some other 3D sites: exclude/include certain licenses from search and browsing.

Afterthought: you can in practice see some intellectual property holders behaving aggressively across the board. Others ignore ordinary fanfiction, fan art, and the like -- up to the point where some amateurs get together and make something of semi-professional quality in the same media the IP holder usually works in.

You get to copyright the 'tangible' (used a little loosely these days to include electronic) particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. (IP relating to protection of ideas is patent law, not copyright.)

If you go back far enough -- and here I am relying on a memory of a book that was old when now-old me was reading it as a teenager -- the fundamental idea of the bat-costumed secret antihero, or villain, is a mutation of the Victorian Gothic vampire, transformed into a penny dreadful character whose pseudonym was the Crimson Bat, not to be confused with later Crimson Bats and Red Bats from the comics. The original Crimson Bat is long out of copyright. In any event, DC does not own the fundamental concept, because you can't copyright an idea itself. They own the specific expression of the idea that's Bruce Wayne/Batman.

 

Solar Dreamer

Valiska said:

Solar Dreamer said:

Thing that still confuses me about this is that shouldn't that caveat also apply to DAZ and their artists selling this EL content to begin with, since they're making money from it? That is, unless they have specific licensing agreements with the IP owners, I don't see how they can even be offering these for sale, EL or otherwise.

 That caveat does apply.

They are taking a calculated risk.

If Daz decides they want to take this risk for themselves, that's up to them. But I at least want the ability to do what I can do on some other 3D sites: exclude/include certain licenses from search and browsing.

I've invested a lot of money in DAZ content. If they were to get sued by IP holders (for example Disney, who own Star Wars and R2D2 now), and the ruling did not go their way, I worry about whether we'd still have access to our content, and whether our licenses would remain valid if a judge ruled against DAZ and assigned the licensing rights to a 3rd party, or that DAZ assets be liquidated to pay for the settlement (which would then also raise the question of whether a new owner might change the licensing retroactively).

I hope I'm just worrying too much, but it would really suck for those of us who've invested a bit in DAZ content to lose access and / or usage rights to the content we've paid for all these years.

Matt_Castle

Respecting the message I have had from the moderation team stating that any advice regarding the licence should be provided by qualified individuals, I therefore wish to ask for Daz3D (and their legal team) to themselves clarify specifics of the licence regarding editorial use.

~~~~~

At present, a text search of the entire Daz3D EULA shows all mentions of the term "editorial" appear as a sub-clause of the Three Dimensional Works section. (I have included the entirety of the Three Dimensional Works section, but I have bolded all uses of the word "editorial", both under the first subclause, to make them clearer).

Three-Dimensional Works. DAZ wishes to encourage the expansion of the catalog of Content available to its users. Accordingly, User may access, use, copy, and modify the Content to create one or more derived and/or additional three-dimensional works provided that:

• If the online DAZ store identifies the Content as being for editorial use only, Users may use the content only in a manner that is allowable under the fair use doctrine which, in certain circumstances may permit the use of copyrighted or trademarked material for an editorial, non-commercial purpose to illustrate Content that is newsworthy, or of public interest, provided, however, that (i) DAZ makes no representation, warranty, or guaranty about the applicability of the fair use doctrine to any particular use of the Content, which the User should determine in consultation with its own legal advisors, (ii) the User may not, in any event and regardless of the fair use doctrine, publish or distribute the Content through another stock media clearinghouse, and (iii) the User must take all possible and reasonable efforts to credit the copyright and/or trademark owner of the Content;
• any such derived or additional three-dimensional works are designed to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store either by (i) requiring the use of such Content in order for the works to function, or (ii) allowing only limited function when the works are not used in conjunction with Content from the online DAZ store; and
• upon receipt of a written request from DAZ, User will immediately cease any and all distribution of the derived or additional three-dimensional works User has created from the Content, if DAZ has determined, in its sole discretion, that such additional or derived work (i) is substantially similar to or is a clone of existing Content; (ii) fails to require or encourage the use of Content available through the online DAZ store as described above, or (iii) otherwise violates the provisions of this EULA.

This phrasing/categorisation leaves me uncertain how Daz3D see the editorial licence applying to what they describe as "Two Dimensional Works" (which I understand to be the category that dictates use for most rendering), and I would like clarification of this point.

~~~~~

As the editorial licence is becoming more widespread on the store, an official FAQ to demystify its use would seem appropriate (and there is already a similar page clarifying details of the Interactive Licence).

 

Matt_Castle

I need to reiterate my request for further clarification of the terms of editorial licenced items.

Today's FN Vincent release includes the following promo, which is obviously the editorially licenced Rebel Texture Add-on for the Sci-Fi Pilot suit:

To my interpretation, using an EL product as part of advertising any other product would reasonably constitute a commercial usage - it may not be part of the product actually being sold, but it is still being used to promote a sold item. (Certainly, I have with assets from other stores specifically had to purchase a licence extension for such a use case - with personal use, promotion of a product, and inclusion in a product being different tiers)

Assuming all is well with this use (Daz have green-lit this promo image, and I will take their word on that), it means the two explanations I can think of are either that Daz has deemed such a use case is acceptable under the licence, or that they have provided this PA (or their PAs in general) a special extension to the editorial licence to permit such usage.

We as users need to know which is the case; not knowing muddies the waters for us regarding how we are actually permitted to use these products.

frank0314

We reported it

vwrangler

Matt_Castle said:

I need to reiterate my request for further clarification of the terms of editorial licenced items.

Today's FN Vincent release includes the following promo, which is obviously the editorially licenced Rebel Texture Add-on for the Sci-Fi Pilot suit:

Oops! they did it again.

https://www.daz3d.com/par-sci-fi-shipyard

Same outfit, but this time its in the hero image for the product, and three other images as well. Honestly, it strikes me that maybe Daz needs to clarify with vendors at the point when they submit promo renders that they shouldn't use any EL products in them. 

(I will admit to being a touch confused about how EL products can even be promoted at all, but that's another issue.)

 

Matt_Castle

Yes, it looks like product testing may well need some additional checks or reminders if ELs are indeed not considered valid for promos of other products, as that's twice in rapid succession.

I also note that the Millennium Falcon is in one of the other promos, and while I don't believe it's a product from the Daz store, it should probably be assumed that it's just best to not use any Star Wars models in promos.

(Although we did recently get Leia's gold bikini as a non-EL product, but I believe that's a copyright/trademark that Disney/Lucasfilm are now distancing themselves from; it seems it's a part of the franchise that isn't the best look and which they'd rather forget).

 

frank0314

That has now been passed on to Daz. Thank you for pointing it out.