Loading...
> >

A Thread for Items with the "Editorial License"

1…34689…26

Comments

  • Silent WinterSilent Winter Posts: 3,721

    Astrafel said:

    Don't mind me... As the items were scattered and getting burried, I'm just reconsolidating a list of the current EL items here for future reference...

     

    // Editorial License List //

    https://www.daz3d.com/retro-apartment-props-2

    https://www.daz3d.com/cyber-racer

    https://www.daz3d.com/r35-cyberpunk

    https://www.daz3d.com/mars-spider

    https://www.daz3d.com/easy-snap-alien-base

     

    Thanks :)
    Perhaps @Kerya could copy this list to the OP so it doesn't get buried as the page(s) tick over.

  • SofaCitizenSofaCitizen Posts: 1,889

    nomad-ads_8ecd56922e said:

    One thing I'm wondering about is whether Daz3D, by adding the EL as an option, wound up with a situation where staff aren't trying as hard as they used to to check and adjust incoming new products to be less like some movie or TV company's IP, in order to request minor modifications to the submitted product before making it available to us the buyers... since now it's simply easier and less stressful to just slap EL on it and go to the next subimtted product.  I don't get the impression this is what the intended purpose originally was for the EL, but it seems as if its what resulted from it.  And that bothers me, because some of these prodcuts, its pretty clear it would be danged easy to make minor changes in certain of these products to take out the "Too much like XYZ" factor.  Some of them, as trivial as simply deleting some distinctive 3D lettering off the object, or removing a couple of small pieces off a doorway or off of a wall, or something.

    When the discussions around the kitchen props was happening I believe it was mentioned that the PA was not in a position to make any changes and so they had to release the products under the EL. Thus, I believe that there is a "discussion phase" during submission where the PA would be offered a chance to fix their product and re-submit if they wanted instead of having it posted under the EL.

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024
    edited April 2023

    SofaCitizen said:

    I believe that there is a "discussion phase" during submission where the PA would be offered a chance to fix their product and re-submit if they wanted instead of having it posted under the EL.

    This has happened in the past.

    There was a car that was changed after the promo pictures were done, it was even released with the original pictures, but the car that the buyers received looked quite a lot different - No longer like a small 4x4 manufactured over on the eastern side of the newest Nato border.

    Edit; Found the original promo pictures
    https://posercontent.com/cyberpunk-pickup-truck

    This is how it looks now;
    https://www.daz3d.com/cyberpunk-pickup-truck
     

    Post edited by PerttiA on
  • AstraffelAstraffel Posts: 211

    @BeeMKay

    Thanks for creating a separate EL product list thread! I've bookmarked that one. I thought I'd mention that I couldn't decide whether it made more sense to list them old to new (as I inherently did while scrubbing through this thread) or new at the top and old at the bottom as they should appear in the store. Not sure if one is better or it even matters. Entirely up to you!

  • SofaCitizenSofaCitizen Posts: 1,889

    PerttiA said:

    SofaCitizen said:

    I believe that there is a "discussion phase" during submission where the PA would be offered a chance to fix their product and re-submit if they wanted instead of having it posted under the EL.

    This has happened in the past.

    There was a car that was changed after the promo pictures were done, it was even released with the original pictures, but the car that the buyers received looked quite a lot different - No longer like a small 4x4 manufactured over on the eastern side of the newest Nato border.

    Edit; Found the original promo pictures
    https://posercontent.com/cyberpunk-pickup-truck

    This is how it looks now;
    https://www.daz3d.com/cyberpunk-pickup-truck

    Hmmm, well it's not good if people bought the item with incorrect promo pictures - I'd like to think that if the PA altered the design to change enough infringeing elements they would re-do those. Although, perhaps not so easy if they outsourced those to someone else I guess.

    However, as someone who owns the altered version and has never played the game I am glad that it was changed to be suitably different.  That's just one opinion tho, I am sure others will have different ones.

  • lou_harperlou_harper Posts: 1,163
    edited April 2023

    I honestly don't see the issue. Editorial license has been around forever with stock photography. And it's even more complicated because of all the various rights issues. I've been making book covers for years, so I had to learn a lot about this stuff. If anything, EL means that the store can sell stuff like the face hugger and hobbyist can use it to their hearts' content. If not for the EL DAZ couldn't sell them at all in fear of litigation. I remember a few years ago there was an awesome Gollum figure that disappeared within a day.

    Post edited by lou_harper on
  • NotAnArtistNotAnArtist Posts: 384

    Astrafel said:

    Don't mind me... As the items were scattered and getting burried, I'm just reconsolidating a list of the current EL items here for future reference...

     

    // Editorial License List //

    https://www.daz3d.com/retro-apartment-props-2

    https://www.daz3d.com/cyber-racer

    https://www.daz3d.com/r35-cyberpunk

    https://www.daz3d.com/mars-spider

    https://www.daz3d.com/easy-snap-alien-base

     

    Thank you! Very good idea!

  • NotAnArtistNotAnArtist Posts: 384

    Why is there a Volkswagen (bus), literally named as such, on sale at the R-word's site? Lots of other cars, planes, etc like that, too.

    Their licenses say: "You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation."

    So there! I rest my case! And, of course, I don't understand my case.

  • nomad-ads_8ecd56922enomad-ads_8ecd56922e Posts: 1,951

    SofaCitizen said:

    nomad-ads_8ecd56922e said:

    One thing I'm wondering about is whether Daz3D, by adding the EL as an option, wound up with a situation where staff aren't trying as hard as they used to to check and adjust incoming new products to be less like some movie or TV company's IP, in order to request minor modifications to the submitted product before making it available to us the buyers... since now it's simply easier and less stressful to just slap EL on it and go to the next subimtted product.  I don't get the impression this is what the intended purpose originally was for the EL, but it seems as if its what resulted from it.  And that bothers me, because some of these prodcuts, its pretty clear it would be danged easy to make minor changes in certain of these products to take out the "Too much like XYZ" factor.  Some of them, as trivial as simply deleting some distinctive 3D lettering off the object, or removing a couple of small pieces off a doorway or off of a wall, or something.

    When the discussions around the kitchen props was happening I believe it was mentioned that the PA was not in a position to make any changes and so they had to release the products under the EL. Thus, I believe that there is a "discussion phase" during submission where the PA would be offered a chance to fix their product and re-submit if they wanted instead of having it posted under the EL.

    Yup, and I deliberated about inserting the extra detail on that one into the post you're commenting on, that in THIS case they left the product the same because the merchant wasn't in a position to change this particular product at this time, but the point I was making is that situations analogous to that distinctive-lettering thing are going to happen again (but without the he-can't-fix-it-right-now problem), have probably happened before (and got fixxed then), and except for once-in-a-blue-moon situations like the one that happened with that kitchen-appliances product, they'd normally be trivially easy to fix in order to avoid needing to apply the EL restriction.  The question still stands:  would all of these have been readily altered accordingly, to make the product just genericaified enough to avoid the IP trouble if this EL thing wasn't in Daz3D's new toolbox?  Has the EL thing unwittingly become a crutch?  An easy way to avoid 15 minutes, or a few extra hours, of work at the Daz3D end of things?

  • PixelSploitingPixelSploiting Posts: 898

    I remember there was one G8F character obviously based on a race from DnD setting (and a video game) that was first sold as it was made, then was immediately changed to something generic blue-skinned. Nowadays probably it would sell unaltered, but under EL.

  • BeeMKayBeeMKay Posts: 7,019
    edited April 2023

    Astrafel said:

    @BeeMKay

    Thanks for creating a separate EL product list thread! I've bookmarked that one. I thought I'd mention that I couldn't decide whether it made more sense to list them old to new (as I inherently did while scrubbing through this thread) or new at the top and old at the bottom as they should appear in the store. Not sure if one is better or it even matters. Entirely up to you!

    Yes, I intend to add the SKU and the release date, and perhaps vendor/DAZ plus/DO to the listing. Thanks for doing the legwork, though. smiley

    EDIT: I've added the xtra info into the listing. Let me know if it works, or if it's too cluttered.

    Post edited by BeeMKay on
  • nemesis10nemesis10 Posts: 3,421

    nomad-ads_8ecd56922e said:

    SofaCitizen said:

    nomad-ads_8ecd56922e said:

    One thing I'm wondering about is whether Daz3D, by adding the EL as an option, wound up with a situation where staff aren't trying as hard as they used to to check and adjust incoming new products to be less like some movie or TV company's IP, in order to request minor modifications to the submitted product before making it available to us the buyers... since now it's simply easier and less stressful to just slap EL on it and go to the next subimtted product.  I don't get the impression this is what the intended purpose originally was for the EL, but it seems as if its what resulted from it.  And that bothers me, because some of these prodcuts, its pretty clear it would be danged easy to make minor changes in certain of these products to take out the "Too much like XYZ" factor.  Some of them, as trivial as simply deleting some distinctive 3D lettering off the object, or removing a couple of small pieces off a doorway or off of a wall, or something.

    When the discussions around the kitchen props was happening I believe it was mentioned that the PA was not in a position to make any changes and so they had to release the products under the EL. Thus, I believe that there is a "discussion phase" during submission where the PA would be offered a chance to fix their product and re-submit if they wanted instead of having it posted under the EL.

    Yup, and I deliberated about inserting the extra detail on that one into the post you're commenting on, that in THIS case they left the product the same because the merchant wasn't in a position to change this particular product at this time, but the point I was making is that situations analogous to that distinctive-lettering thing are going to happen again (but without the he-can't-fix-it-right-now problem), have probably happened before (and got fixxed then), and except for once-in-a-blue-moon situations like the one that happened with that kitchen-appliances product, they'd normally be trivially easy to fix in order to avoid needing to apply the EL restriction.  The question still stands:  would all of these have been readily altered accordingly, to make the product just genericaified enough to avoid the IP trouble if this EL thing wasn't in Daz3D's new toolbox?  Has the EL thing unwittingly become a crutch?  An easy way to avoid 15 minutes, or a few extra hours, of work at the Daz3D end of things?

    I think that what is missed here is that Daz3d is mainly a broker.  As I follow various artists who make products for Daz3d, my impression is that it is getting harder to get products past approval.  Since Daz3d doesn't make most of the products (even Platinum Club things are often buyouts),  there is probably little time and money difference between asking the artist to remake a given product or having endless meetings  about what kind of license a product gets.  Editorial licenses are pretting common through the graphic world and don't seem to be handed out right and left. They are probably quite aware of the people who will reject a product because of the licensing,  the people who will accidently use the product and expect Daz3d to protect them legally, etc...  

  • SofaCitizenSofaCitizen Posts: 1,889

    nemesis10 said:

    nomad-ads_8ecd56922e said:

    Yup, and I deliberated about inserting the extra detail on that one into the post you're commenting on, that in THIS case they left the product the same because the merchant wasn't in a position to change this particular product at this time, but the point I was making is that situations analogous to that distinctive-lettering thing are going to happen again (but without the he-can't-fix-it-right-now problem), have probably happened before (and got fixxed then), and except for once-in-a-blue-moon situations like the one that happened with that kitchen-appliances product, they'd normally be trivially easy to fix in order to avoid needing to apply the EL restriction.  The question still stands:  would all of these have been readily altered accordingly, to make the product just genericaified enough to avoid the IP trouble if this EL thing wasn't in Daz3D's new toolbox?  Has the EL thing unwittingly become a crutch?  An easy way to avoid 15 minutes, or a few extra hours, of work at the Daz3D end of things?

    I think that what is missed here is that Daz3d is mainly a broker.  As I follow various artists who make products for Daz3d, my impression is that it is getting harder to get products past approval.  Since Daz3d doesn't make most of the products (even Platinum Club things are often buyouts),  there is probably little time and money difference between asking the artist to remake a given product or having endless meetings  about what kind of license a product gets.  Editorial licenses are pretting common through the graphic world and don't seem to be handed out right and left. They are probably quite aware of the people who will reject a product because of the licensing,  the people who will accidently use the product and expect Daz3d to protect them legally, etc...  

    I get the feeling that the EL appearing is more of an inevitable event than anything else - whether it was due to too many products in the past skirting close to things they shouldn't, some legal advise that was made, the shifting legal landscape, some other reason or combination of all of them it was probably always going to appear. I don't like it but I understand why it has to exist these days. In some (small) ways it is actually a good thing since, while I am no legal expert, I don't think even the standard licence is a "get out of jail free card" for avoiding legal issues. If you poke the IP-holder hard enough then they will still come after you regardless of what the product licence says. So, the EL is a bit more of a heads-up that this product resembles someone else's IP which is handy if you were not aware of the existance of the original - a fact that has already been seen earlier in this thread.

    Now that the EL exists, any PA should be fullly aware that if they make something that can reasonably be likened to someone else's IP then it will get sold under the EL. Thus, they can still do it anyway and sell it for hobbists and fan-art renders or they can make enough suitable changes to make it available for comercial usage but perhaps not quite catch the fan-artists.

    Again, I don't really like it but this is the world we live in. If Daz got rid of the EL then these products would just get rejected and either have to be changed, binned or sold elsewhere - either under a similar EL or at a different site that is more happy to roll the legal dice.

     

  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,328

    NotAnArtist said:

    Why is there a Volkswagen (bus), literally named as such, on sale at the R-word's site? Lots of other cars, planes, etc like that, too.

    Their licenses say: "You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation."

    So there! I rest my case! And, of course, I don't understand my case.

    My guess would be, they are less concerned with consequences. Maybe they are small enough that no one in the larger world notices or cares? It's odd. I recall only one case where an item there was modified due to IP concerns, and the IP owner was Disney. The House of Mouse owns a lot of IP.

  • lou_harperlou_harper Posts: 1,163

    NotAnArtist said:

    Why is there a Volkswagen (bus), literally named as such, on sale at the R-word's site? Lots of other cars, planes, etc like that, too.

    Their licenses say: "You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation."

    So there! I rest my case! And, of course, I don't understand my case.

    Do they at any point state that they take legal responsibility? Stock photo sites do. Because if you use that Volkswagen for something commercial and get sued you're on the hook. You can point at the store where you bought the 3D file, they'll just shrug. Here are some known image restrictions from Shutterstock:

    https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions-Brands-and-Trademarks

    https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions-Objects-and-Subjects

    Specifically about Volkswagen:

    "

    Volkswagen (VW)

    • The names "Volkswagen" and "VW," as well as all vehicle names and designs, such as the VW Beetle and Camper Van, are trademarked

    • Volkswagen, VW, and all vehicles names cannot be included in the metadata for commercial use

    • Illustrations/vectors of any Volkswagen vehicle, or ones that closely resemble a VW, are unacceptable for commercial and editorial use; this includes icon sets

    • Photographs and footage that include VW vehicles are only acceptable for editorial use with a proper caption."

     

     

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    Torquinox said:

    NotAnArtist said:

    Why is there a Volkswagen (bus), literally named as such, on sale at the R-word's site? Lots of other cars, planes, etc like that, too.

    Their licenses say: "You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation."

    So there! I rest my case! And, of course, I don't understand my case.

    My guess would be, they are less concerned with consequences. Maybe they are small enough that no one in the larger world notices or cares? It's odd. I recall only one case where an item there was modified due to IP concerns, and the IP owner was Disney. The House of Mouse owns a lot of IP.

    Or, they have asked the IP holder for a permission. 

  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,328

    PerttiA said:

    Torquinox said:

    NotAnArtist said:

    Why is there a Volkswagen (bus), literally named as such, on sale at the R-word's site? Lots of other cars, planes, etc like that, too.

    Their licenses say: "You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation."

    So there! I rest my case! And, of course, I don't understand my case.

    My guess would be, they are less concerned with consequences. Maybe they are small enough that no one in the larger world notices or cares? It's odd. I recall only one case where an item there was modified due to IP concerns, and the IP owner was Disney. The House of Mouse owns a lot of IP.

    Or, they have asked the IP holder for a permission. 

    Maybe. No way to know. 

  • PixelSploitingPixelSploiting Posts: 898

    My best guess is that the other sites operating more like digital flea markets do not take responsibility and if anything happens it's on the vendor selling it.

  • lou_harperlou_harper Posts: 1,163

    Torquinox said:

    PerttiA said:

    Torquinox said:

    NotAnArtist said:

    Why is there a Volkswagen (bus), literally named as such, on sale at the R-word's site? Lots of other cars, planes, etc like that, too.

    Their licenses say: "You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation."

    So there! I rest my case! And, of course, I don't understand my case.

    My guess would be, they are less concerned with consequences. Maybe they are small enough that no one in the larger world notices or cares? It's odd. I recall only one case where an item there was modified due to IP concerns, and the IP owner was Disney. The House of Mouse owns a lot of IP.

    Or, they have asked the IP holder for a permission. 

    Maybe. No way to know. 

    I doubt it. But in reality most IP holders don't bother with small fry. Disney, on the other hand, is very aggressive about this stuff and have a fleet of lawyers.

  • Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 2,567

    lou_harper said:

    I honestly don't see the issue. Editorial license has been around forever with stock photography. And it's even more complicated because of all the various rights issues.

    The core issue is that Daz, for a very long time, have only had one standard licence. Consumers are used to that state of affairs, and act with that in mind.

    This breaks down into two core problems.

    1) These products can easily be added to the cart without ever being told they have a restricted licence. (It's only shown on the product page, not the listing page or in the cart, and a lot of these products have been Daz+ items that users may add to the cart simply to trigger a "with a new item" deal).
    2) These products are shown in the Daz Studio library without any warning they have a restricted licence.

    Let's say I've bought https://www.daz3d.com/retro-apartment-props-2 - and, let's assume I bought it knowing the restricted licence (but I know some people missed this). However, 18 months down the line, I've been commissioned to do a render - I need a clock, I search for "clock" in Smart Content, and it shows me the clock from the product. I think "Ooh, that's nice, I'll use that one". If I do not remember this prop is from this restricted licence product, the program will give me absolutely no warning.

    These products, for lack of a better term, "poison" libraries. If I install them, I can no longer trust that I can use everything and anything smart content shows me, and I will in future have to manually verify every last prop I use for any commercial render.

    Daz's simple and unrestrictive licencing model has until now been one of their major selling points. If they are going to complicate that system, they need to make every effort to keep the changes as simple and easy for users to comply with as they can.

  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,328

    lou_harper said:

     But in reality most IP holders don't bother with small fry. Disney, on the other hand, is very aggressive about this stuff and have a fleet of lawyers.

    This^

  • NotAnArtistNotAnArtist Posts: 384

    Torquinox said:

    NotAnArtist said:

    Why is there a Volkswagen (bus), literally named as such, on sale at the R-word's site? Lots of other cars, planes, etc like that, too.

    Their licenses say: "You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation."

    So there! I rest my case! And, of course, I don't understand my case.

    My guess would be, they are less concerned with consequences. Maybe they are small enough that no one in the larger world notices or cares? It's odd. I recall only one case where an item there was modified due to IP concerns, and the IP owner was Disney. The House of Mouse owns a lot of IP.

    Rendero isn't really small, is it? It's affiliated with Poser, and has been around for a long time. They have a ton of creators, and is likewise loaded with high quality props (along with a lot of otherwise, like any site). They have to be aware of problems, if there are any, of having "Volkswagen" displayed right there in the product's name!

    Segue:
    I've assumed that when an EL is added to a product, the price goes up. So someone receives the extra money & I've wondered who... But that's not the case, actually, or is it?
    If not, then the license is indeed just an alert to us about a possible danger.

    I have to admit, since it's obvious, that I know nothing in these issues. From the beginning of my dive into this hobby, I've preferred to use it for fun. No "hard work!" So this subject has me very confused...

    I've spoken with the person who wants me to produce images for her children's books, and she assures me that the images she wants from me will have no relationship to any corporates. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy myself. I hope we all can do that, one way or another. Too much to worry about as it is in this world.

    Cheers to you all! ...I'll stay tuned, though;-)

  • nemesis10nemesis10 Posts: 3,421

    Rendero isn't really small, is it? It's affiliated with Poser, and has been around for a long time. They have a ton of creators, and is likewise loaded with high quality props (along with a lot of otherwise, like any site). They have to be aware of problems, if there are any, of having "Volkswagen" displayed right there in the product's name!

    Segue:
    I've assumed that when an EL is added to a product, the price goes up. So someone receives the extra money & I've wondered who... But that's not the case, actually, or is it?
    If not, then the license is indeed just an alert to us about a possible danger.

    I have to admit, since it's obvious, that I know nothing in these issues. From the beginning of my dive into this hobby, I've preferred to use it for fun. No "hard work!" So this subject has me very confused...

    I've spoken with the person who wants me to produce images for her children's books, and she assures me that the images she wants from me will have no relationship to any corporates. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy myself. I hope we all can do that, one way or another. Too much to worry about as it is in this world.

    Cheers to you all! ...I'll stay tuned, though;-)

     

    On a practical level, most companies don't pay too close attention when their IP is stolen. What generally happens is someone reports it, the company issues a notice to the customer that they may not use the IP commercially, they issue a notice to the company  and the product is pulled and removed from the library (i have a few Daz products that were removed from the library when a creator "borrowed" something they shouldn't in the old days).  Where it is a problem is exactly the sort of situation you describe: you are makin an illustration for a commercial product, the "borrowed" ip is noticed, you have to delete your work, you get a bad reputation, ans suffer a commercial loss.  How companies deal with it is that they simply pull the product if detected but it isn't any great commercial loss since the original owner is interested whether it shows up in a public facing commercial product.  Here, there are enough people who have enough purchases that keeping track of that someone might accidently put something in that illustration for an Amazon e-book cover.  If you watch enough tv or movies, you notice the sticker that is placed over the logo because Apple gets angry if a bad guy uses their product.  

  • richardandtracyrichardandtracy Posts: 5,678
    edited April 2023

    kyoto kid said:

    PerttiA said:

    kyoto kid said:

    Why can't we get decent cyberpunk cars without ties to a company's IP?  The last one without an editorial licence looked ridiculous., My riggers would be laughed out of town driving it.

    One should not model vehicles if one doesn't know how it's done...

     ...interesting that vehicles sold here before this became a thing such as the Spy Car V-12 (an Aston Martin DBZ5) Teuf Teuf (a Citroen  2CV)  and Car Ranger (Rover Land Ranger) didn't raise a fuss but now a cypberpunk version of an existing car does. 

    There are a number of items, particularly cars, where people are getting more timid as time goes on. If you look at Panamawo's Deudeuche on Rendo, they have made a 1950's 2CV, 2CV Van and 2CV Safari each weth an accurate copy of the Citroen logo in use at the time. Roll forward 7/8 years or so and the copy of the Merc Sprinter bus on Rendo now has 4 arms on the logo rather than 3 so as to avoid copyright.

    I can't see how the source isn't obvious and 'Good Advertising' for objects.

    I can see how people might want to keep control of their image, but there are real life doppelganger's (I met my own working in a fast food restaurant in Arizona while on honeymoon) and would a well known person then have the right to prevent their doppleganger from taking part in salacious videos? I seriously doubt it. So how /why do they try with digital dopplegangers?

    This all smacks of timidity in the face of rapacious greed exhibited by some lawyers who see such timidity as a route to extortion of funds. 

    Regards,

    Richard

     

    Post edited by richardandtracy on
  • ANGELREAPER1972ANGELREAPER1972 Posts: 4,508

    just saw this picture of the Japanese Spider Crab which could be a good swap for the mars spider if that was altered and could have a tail An archival image of a man holding a Japanese spider crab. The crab is enormous, with long limbs that occupy most of the photo.

  • BeeMKayBeeMKay Posts: 7,019
    edited April 2023

    richardandtracy said:

    There are a number of items, particularly cars, where people are getting more timid as time goes on. If you look at Panamawo's Deudeuche on Rendo, they have made a 1950's 2CV, 2CV Van and 2CV Safari each weth an accurate copy of the Citroen logo in use at the time. Roll forward 7/8 years or so and the copy of the Merc Sprinter bus on Rendo now has 4 arms on the logo rather than 3 so as to avoid copyright.

    I can't see how the source isn't obvious and 'Good Advertising' for objects.

    I can see how people might want to keep control of their image, but there are real life doppelganger's (I met my own working in a fast food restaurant in Arizona while on honeymoon) and would a well known person then have the right to prevent their doppleganger from taking part in salacious videos? I seriously doubt it. So how /why do they try with digital dopplegangers?

    This all smacks of timidity in the face of rapacious greed exhibited by some lawyers who see such timidity as a route to extortion of funds. 

    Regards,

    Richard

     

    Not so much timidity as preventing the loss of their trademark due to lack of protecting/defending it: https://secureyourtrademark.com/blog/trademark-101-can-lose-trademark/

     

    Post edited by BeeMKay on
  • NotAnArtistNotAnArtist Posts: 384

    nemesis10 said:

    Rendero isn't really small, is it? It's affiliated with Poser, and has been around for a long time. They have a ton of creators, and is likewise loaded with high quality props (along with a lot of otherwise, like any site). They have to be aware of problems, if there are any, of having "Volkswagen" displayed right there in the product's name!

    Segue:
    I've assumed that when an EL is added to a product, the price goes up. So someone receives the extra money & I've wondered who... But that's not the case, actually, or is it?
    If not, then the license is indeed just an alert to us about a possible danger.

    I have to admit, since it's obvious, that I know nothing in these issues. From the beginning of my dive into this hobby, I've preferred to use it for fun. No "hard work!" So this subject has me very confused...

    I've spoken with the person who wants me to produce images for her children's books, and she assures me that the images she wants from me will have no relationship to any corporates. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy myself. I hope we all can do that, one way or another. Too much to worry about as it is in this world.

    Cheers to you all! ...I'll stay tuned, though;-)

     

    On a practical level, most companies don't pay too close attention when their IP is stolen. What generally happens is someone reports it, the company issues a notice to the customer that they may not use the IP commercially, they issue a notice to the company  and the product is pulled and removed from the library (i have a few Daz products that were removed from the library when a creator "borrowed" something they shouldn't in the old days).  Where it is a problem is exactly the sort of situation you describe: you are makin an illustration for a commercial product, the "borrowed" ip is noticed, you have to delete your work, you get a bad reputation, ans suffer a commercial loss.  How companies deal with it is that they simply pull the product if detected but it isn't any great commercial loss since the original owner is interested whether it shows up in a public facing commercial product.  Here, there are enough people who have enough purchases that keeping track of that someone might accidently put something in that illustration for an Amazon e-book cover.  If you watch enough tv or movies, you notice the sticker that is placed over the logo because Apple gets angry if a bad guy uses their product.  

     Thanks for the comments, Nemesis.

    I am taking your, and several others comments to heart. Even though it doesn't seem likely that the props I mentioned, at Rendero, have had any problems. We know that lots of those props have been on sale there for several years. If any had been an issue for someone, wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? The forums?

    However, If I created a book with images rendered from those props and it were to become a best-seller, then maybe things would change. And maybe monkeys might fly out of my...

    My "professional" work will involve simple, mostly toony images. In the book, we want to make it fun for kids, using silly images, goofy things... Just not Disney's Goofy:-)

  • nemesis10nemesis10 Posts: 3,421

    Thanks for the comments, Nemesis.

    I am taking your, and several others comments to heart. Even though it doesn't seem likely that the props I mentioned, at Rendero, have had any problems. We know that lots of those props have been on sale there for several years. If any had been an issue for someone, wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? The forums?

    However, If I created a book with images rendered from those props and it were to become a best-seller, then maybe things would change. And maybe monkeys might fly out of my...

    My "professional" work will involve simple, mostly toony images. In the book, we want to make it fun for kids, using silly images, goofy things... Just not Disney's Goofy:-)

    I have had enough conversations with 3D artists from both stores and have a long enough memory to remember products being pulled from both stores....  I just wanted to clarify that the bad stuff would happen to the person using the infringing IP publicly.  There are a slew of stores that exist ripping content from video games, reselling stolen products from Daz3d and Renderosity (warez), and so on.  Like many a dodgy enterprise, they rely on unethical customers and obscurity.  The bigger stores make the occasional mistake or turn a blind eye ("somethinghub").  I have occasionally had to create art for old jobs including creating a mural for a public building that has to remain there by law for at least 150 years so every element was carefully handmade.  I remember delivering the files so they could be fabricated in brushed aluminum and sandblasted glass.  

  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,692

    This new release item, featured on todays sale page, has an editorial license.

    https://www.daz3d.com/cyberpunk-coupe-car

  • xyer0xyer0 Posts: 5,934

    Thanks. Out of the cart.

Sign In or Register to comment.