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
I did a web search specificaly for editoril license 3d and here is what I found Note the last restriction
Allowed Editorial Uses
Types of Editorial Uses Not Allowed
Exactly right. We don't understand what is being offered, and Daz employees will not come back here to offer any explanation. If they expect the EULA to be the only and final word from Daz, and for each user to read and interpret the EULA for themselves, then Daz could at least come here and say THAT.
News, documentaries, and academics - that's it? No other uses?
This is a different license, the terms have already beens et out at the top of this thread. What other "editorial licenses" offer is completly beside the point and trying to extrapolate is simply causing additional confusion.
Dear Daz:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
And that right there is the problem.
...what Robert posted is pretty much what I have also found at several pro content sites. All the conditions fall under the term "editorial". This is what I and others have gone by..
What we are hearing here is basically Daz is planning to sell restricted IP content that cannot be used for individual profit. Thus it should simply be labelled "non commercial/personal use" only Specifics also need to be listed in clear non legalise terms as well as what constitutes "commercial and non commercial use" (some points such as contests were already brought up).
That would end all the speculation and help to keep people from running afoul of IP legal trouble.
As was also mentioned these products need to be clearly identified in the store as such and able to be filtered out, or have their own separate store site so community members don't waste their money and time.
Doing things in a more simple straightforward manner benefits all.
As I understand it, "non commercial/personal use only" is a much different license than editorial use. For example, an item with a typical non commercial use license could be used (posted on line) in an image with nudity or with someone wielding a sword. With an editorial license, either or both of these examples may not be acceptable fair use if the original IP holder feels it is damaging to their reputation/profits/brand. I copied what Robert Freise already posted and quoted it below. Note that fan art isn't mentioned as allowed use. As many here may already note, fan art is often acceptable to the IP holder in some situations. This seems as if it can be a rather slippery slope, and a bit of a moving target as to what might be acceptable and what isn't.
As I understand it, DAZ will not need to, or have authority to, monitor the use of any products sold under the editorial use licensing. Their responsibility is just to ensure anything that needs to be sold with an editorial license is sold and represented as having an editorial license. It is then the responsibility of the user to ensure they comply with editorial licensing terms (something that probably is not defined by DAZ - I have no clue who is responsible for defining editorial licensing terms and conditions). If the user fails to comply with the intent of editorial licensing and the IP owner discovers the inappropriate use, it is their responsibly (the IP owner) to notify the artist/creator of the work(s) to cease and desist, remove/destroy the images, and/or seek compensatory damages.
I agree with everyone else here wishing that DAZ would give an official response clarifying exactly what can and can not be done with an editorial licensed product. Examples would be greatly appreciated as well. Without a clear understanding regarding the appropriate use of this type of content, I seriously doubt I will ever purchase anything with an editorial license. TBH, it just feels wrong to me to purchase an item made to represent IP that does not belong to the person/company selling it. This seems to be a common practice/use of editorial licenses for 3D content (though a common use for stock photos and videos are images/videos where getting the permission of people in the video isn't practical/possible - for example videos captured on a cell phone by a bystander in a news event).
I avoid downloading anything that doesn't have a commercial license, but I would be super surprised if the main use for this isn't stuff similar to the Grimes collaboration where they partner with an IP or a celebrity to offer content, e.g. "New Batman movie's coming out! Download this official G8M Batsuit and enter your fanart in our Official Batman Contest!" Having an established license for that kind of thing is way less of a nightmare than trying to negotiate individual usage terms.
"Editorial" on most 3D sites is pretty handwavy and I mostly use it as a way to check whether a neat looking weapon is recognizably from an IP I have no familiarity with. In some cases I've picked up stuff from the store here and only later found out it was basically a 1:1 replica of something from The Witcher or whatever. On the one hand, I take private fanart commissions and it's nice to have options. On the other, I also do original work and it would be kind of helpful to have a clear line between "anime-inspired sword" and "literally just the S-Rank Glaive of Fandom Discourse from Genshin Impact with slightly different colors."
...there still needs to be some form of easily recognised identifier for these products so people don't purchase them by mistake. They should also not be offered a Daz+ Freebies or as Daz+ products as that would lessen reduce the value of membership. I still believe this should be its own unique category separate from the regular Daz products. or at the very least, have a filter to exclude them when shopping. If Daz is going to go by the definition of "Editorial Use licensing, then the restrictions should be presented in a very clear, straightforward and easy to understand format rather than a bunch of legalese "mumbo jumbo".
I will add, that the license needs to be clearly shown on the product, and ideally be able to be filtered out in shop listings, to reduce the friction of purchasing for those of us who care about licensing and purchasing with commercial potential in mind.
If we have to look at the individual item page, and look for the license link, and click on it, that increases the friction for purchase expontentially, and a number of us who need to be aware of it and have seen the rollout will choose to reduce our purchases in response to that.
Note: Yes, I have purchased digital content that I can only use on a non-commercial and in some cases purely personal basis, but in all such cases that was a conscious decision for me. What we're all asking for is that it be clear so we can make that conscious decision without added footwork, and more importantly tell us whether or not you're going to do so before rolling this license out, so that we know how to handle it.
Remind me again, anyone, please, when was the last time this thread got any official post from Daz?
My trust in Daz is getting a bit low now.
I'm not risking getting sued by using "editorial use only" content on the Internet. I don't care how the license is worded.
This is not the place for legal debates, if you want legala dvice you need to consult an actual lawyer.
It really isn't. If Daz's use of terminology is inconsistent with what is standard across other companies in the stock assets industry - or even what the licences actually cover (this would rule out many genuine editorial uses) - it will cause unnecessary confusion and possible licence misuse.
Lots of people are very poor with legalese. Despite it being specified in the EULA, I regularly have to clear up confusion with people on Discord about what an "interactive licence" covers, simply because the choice of naming completely muddies the water; as is, a pre-rendered "Choose your own adventure" could definitely be thought of as an interactive experience, but would not require the licence. A live-rendered tech demo might allow no viewer input, but definitely would. Anyone who's spent enough time assisting the community has to know that this disjoint between the actual terms of the licence and its naming does cause misunderstandings, and I think it is extremely ill-advised for Daz to launch another licence where the naming contradicts common usage or logical interpretation.
Daz's primary stipulation here appears to be that these are non-commercial licences, which is actually a circumstance "editorial use" typically permits - US fair use specifically mentions reporting on newsworthy events as a legitimate justification for the use of copyrighted materials, and almost all of the most prominent news reporting is a commercial exercise, so users who actually appreciate the meaning of "editorial use" (as opposed to the Internet's common and very warped definition of "Hey, if I post this is Fair Use, that counts, right?") are being baited to grab the wrong end of the stick regarding commercial use
... or indeed, to misunderstand they're not permitted to use the asset at all, because their circumstances do not relate to a permissible Fair Use.
The naming of the licence is not inconsequential, and quite frankly, even calling it something like a "Butterscotch licence" or a "Cornfield licence" would be a better choice, because at least then the licence name provides no misdirecting clues about its usage.
If the term "editorial use" is not clearly defined in the EULA, then either party can claim their own interpretation based on whatever precedents are admissible in court, even other cases involving similar disputes. It may not be of much consequence if it is only discussed in the forums since the usage is governed by the EULA, not what anyone says on these forums.
Editorial use is the title, the terms are whatever the license says they are regardless of the tile.
After reading this thread and researching on line I've concluded that using a "product" with this type of license would be like searching a minefield for the mines with a sledge hammer
...+1
Perfect analogy.
Anyway, when this is supposed to start? I'm doing my shopping with both eyes open wide looking for any hint of different licensing on the stuff.
As far as I can tell, July 12... Unless Jack Tomalin is a DAZ employee too... I get confused by the addition of "DAZ" to some administrators names, I used to think only employees of DAZ did that, but now I'm not that sure...
If that's the case then July 13...
So... almost a month.
Which is pretty on track for "DAZ Soon".
you can edit your username but it is discouraged
I was Wendy_Carrara for a while, still am on Facebook
Good point, and when I went back to review the announcement from Daz_Travis, I noticed the situation is even worse. We've been discussing the "Editorial License" aspect but note that in addition to that, Daz_Travis mentioned that other products could have other additional restrictions. See point two below:
Note that this is entirely separate from the "Editorial License" bullet point. So apparently when you think of buying something from the Daz store, you will not only have to be careful that it doesn't fall under that restricted license, but also that there aren't any other unique license restrictions which apply only to that one particular item.
As has been said above, this is turning into a real minefield. Buyer beware indeed!
Oh, boy! So along with the "Editorial License" there will also be a "Trademark Permission" thing?
Definitely we need a totally separated store far away from here.
And to add to the repeating chorus, when will items that fall under the 'editorial license' (whatever that may imply for usage) hit the store, and how will we recognise them?
That at least should be easy to answer for DAZ.
And clearly marked 'editorial' items in the store will save me the trouble of returning them should I accidentally buy one.
...this is going to drive people away, particularly if the other restricted content is not segregated or can be filtered out.
Slogging through the store today is still a pain as they need more categories and filters. On the Store Software Update thread I even asked about a filter that would remove all dForce items (which probably won't happen).
I'm surprised this thread is still alive, because with no further info from Daz, all of this is just "speculation" and unanswered questions.
Yeah, I figure I'll wait til there's actually something in the store with the 'Editorial' license to decide how I feel about them.
Probably hasn't been closed because it's a DAZ official thread started by an actual employee.
From the above post "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."
WHAT? Specifically what are ALL the additional restrictions, and exactly what are ALL the products that have additional license restrictions, and WHERE EXACTLY is this information posted - I'd like a link please, and not an "example" but the complete list of additional restrictions and a complete list of all the products that have additional restrictions.
I'm hoping this all silently disappears like Daz Connect encryption. The level of expressed customer concerns seems similar.