There's Always Another Sale Thread -- Discussions Only Pt 2

17071737576100

Comments

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    On somewhat related note... When is Utah moving to DST, next weekend?

  • Charlie JudgeCharlie Judge Posts: 12,730

    PerttiA said:

    On somewhat related note... When is Utah moving to DST, next weekend?

    Yes, Sunday March 10 at 2 am. 

  • MelanieLMelanieL Posts: 7,381

    PerttiA said:

    On somewhat related note... When is Utah moving to DST, next weekend?

    Ah, I'm glad you brought that up - I hadn't realised it would come so early (3 weeks before ours). I need to take that into account. 

  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 14,049

    MelanieL said:

    PerttiA said:

    On somewhat related note... When is Utah moving to DST, next weekend?

    Ah, I'm glad you brought that up - I hadn't realised it would come so early (3 weeks before ours). I need to take that into account. 

    Yes, it is very confusing for us cause we are used to each individual coming on around a certain time and when a time change happens between the US and UK it throws us all off because of the difference as to when it is changed.

  • MelanieLMelanieL Posts: 7,381

    frank0314 said:

    MelanieL said:

    PerttiA said:

    On somewhat related note... When is Utah moving to DST, next weekend?

    Ah, I'm glad you brought that up - I hadn't realised it would come so early (3 weeks before ours). I need to take that into account. 

    Yes, it is very confusing for us cause we are used to each individual coming on around a certain time and when a time change happens between the US and UK it throws us all off because of the difference as to when it is changed.

    Oh dear, do you have to get up early or does someone somewhere get a late night?! 

  • davesodaveso Posts: 7,003

    MelanieL said:

    frank0314 said:

    MelanieL said:

    PerttiA said:

    On somewhat related note... When is Utah moving to DST, next weekend?

    Ah, I'm glad you brought that up - I hadn't realised it would come so early (3 weeks before ours). I need to take that into account. 

    Yes, it is very confusing for us cause we are used to each individual coming on around a certain time and when a time change happens between the US and UK it throws us all off because of the difference as to when it is changed.

    Oh dear, do you have to get up early or does someone somewhere get a late night?! 

    i used to work in a hospital and was part of the crew that had to change the clocks on the medical equipment. It took hours prior to most things going on network.  

  • britscriptwriter said:

    Now I'm trying not to be too disappointed with my first experience of March Madness. Holding onto the hope that they'll have a wishlist sale with stacking discounts later this month...

    Most Daz sales seem to get better in the second half of the month.
  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 14,049

    MelanieL said:

    frank0314 said:

    MelanieL said:

    PerttiA said:

    On somewhat related note... When is Utah moving to DST, next weekend?

    Ah, I'm glad you brought that up - I hadn't realised it would come so early (3 weeks before ours). I need to take that into account. 

    Yes, it is very confusing for us cause we are used to each individual coming on around a certain time and when a time change happens between the US and UK it throws us all off because of the difference as to when it is changed.

    Oh dear, do you have to get up early or does someone somewhere get a late night?! 

    We try to have 24 hr coverage but it's not always possible with RL happening around us and sadly that has to come first since we volunteer for this. But, I only sleep about 4 hrs a day, a half hour to an hour at a time due to several medical issues so I'm usually in and out the entire day.

  • no noseno nose Posts: 310

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    no nose said:

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

    The way they are promoted suggests that to be highly likely, considering how allergic towards such products they have been before. 

  • HylasHylas Posts: 4,985

    It doesn't look like an official collab to me.

  • scorpioscorpio Posts: 8,415

    no nose said:

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

    The ones I looked at had editorial licences 

  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,319

    I think if any of this were official, that would be both a selling point and noted everywhere so that we would all know. It creates a strange situation where Daz and PAs are selling this stuff for profit and we're all told "Editorial Only!"

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,206

    people want it apparently 

    all the popular stuff on every site is fan art it seems

     

  • scorpio said:

    no nose said:

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

    The ones I looked at had editorial licences 

    These aren't the first; a couple weeks ago they debuted Battlestar Galactica (reboot) and Star Wars "fan art" offerings.

    I doubt they are licensed. One, these studios require certain notices and trademark/copyright symbols on licensed merchandise. Two, those licenses aren't cheap. Around 12 years ago, Hasbro's Wizards of the Coast division declined to renew their license with LucasFilm to publish Star Wars roleplaying/card/minis games for just that reason - too expensive - and Hasbro is a way bigger company with way bigger pockets than Daz3d. I imagine licenses for Star Wars have only gotten costlier since Disney now owns the IP plus inflation.

    Also Paramount has often been unfriendly to fans wanting to play with Star Trek, even for free. At one point, all the Star Trek fan clubs had to start calling themselves generic SF fan clubs because Paramount had a fit about them being named Star Trek Starship Crews (with names never used on the shows/movies). They've relented on that and the clubs are official and back to being crews. However, it makes me skeptical that they'd go for a deal like "we sell these for a profit so fans can make Trek art they aren't allowed to sell."

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    miladyderyni_173d399f47 said:

    I doubt they are licensed. One, these studios require certain notices and trademark/copyright symbols on licensed merchandise. Two, those licenses aren't cheap. Around 12 years ago, Hasbro's Wizards of the Coast division declined to renew their license with LucasFilm to publish Star Wars roleplaying/card/minis games for just that reason - too expensive - and Hasbro is a way bigger company with way bigger pockets than Daz3d. I imagine licenses for Star Wars have only gotten costlier since Disney now owns the IP plus inflation.

    We have no knowledge about possible conditions on such aggreement, if there is one or not, but I can think of scenarios how something could be aggreed upon, especially when there was mutual benefit and with that, I'm not talking about one paying the other for something.

  • britscriptwriterbritscriptwriter Posts: 61
    edited March 7

    no nose said:

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

    As far I understand it, fans can make fan art / fan fiction so long as we don't charge any money for whatever we make. However I wouldn't even get to that stage with these products. What makes me nervous is the fact that they have clearly replicated things from these movies/shows and are charging money for the products, all of which appear to be unofficial. It's a bit too much of a grey area for me, but I can imagine a time in the future where they might be asked to remove it all, so for me personally, I'll be staying away from them. Obvs I could be completely wrong but that's my perspective on it as a risk averse kinda fella :)

    Post edited by britscriptwriter on
  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 6,873
    edited March 7

    britscriptwriter said:

    no nose said:

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

    As far I understand it, fans can make fan art / fan fiction so long as we don't charge any money for whatever we make. However I wouldn't even get to that stage with these products. What makes me nervous is the fact that they have clearly replicated things from these movies/shows and are charging money for the products, all of which appear to be unofficial. It's a bit too much of a grey area for me, but I can imagine a time in the future where they might be asked to remove it all, so for me personally, I'll be staying away from them. Obvs I could be completely wrong but that's my perspective on it as a risk averse kinda fella :)

    The irony is that if you go to Comic-Con (or Wondercon or any comic convention) it's totally fine to sell all kinds of fan art and it's not only allowed but it's expected and encouraged. I've had fan art in the Comic-Con official catalog, sold in the official art show and sold at a booth and almost every artist and creator sells fan art there. Never was there a legal issue. 

    Whose trademark would we be violating? DAZ's or ViacomCBS, NBC Universal, and Disney's? I'm not going to purchase the fan art stuff sold here to make sure I don't break the Daz TOS but I've downloaded free fan outfits and morphs in the past and created my own textures for existing outfits and I have no qualms about it. If you search the internet, there are many fan outfits available for free for DAZ characters. So is DAZ paying ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney for the rights to use their IP? And if so, why isn't it legal for us to use it commercially? They are making more of a profit off of it than any of us artists would. 

    Personally I'm more concerned about products that depict real people who can be posed in uncompromising positions. Now people are doing that with AI, and DAZ renders still do look pretty fake but I care more about Katee Sakhoff's wellbeing than ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney's. I just hope the Daz artists only use characters based on real people in good taste.

    Post edited by Wonderland on
  • tsroemitsroemi Posts: 2,742

    Wonderland said:

    britscriptwriter said:

    no nose said:

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

    As far I understand it, fans can make fan art / fan fiction so long as we don't charge any money for whatever we make. However I wouldn't even get to that stage with these products. What makes me nervous is the fact that they have clearly replicated things from these movies/shows and are charging money for the products, all of which appear to be unofficial. It's a bit too much of a grey area for me, but I can imagine a time in the future where they might be asked to remove it all, so for me personally, I'll be staying away from them. Obvs I could be completely wrong but that's my perspective on it as a risk averse kinda fella :)

    The irony is that if you go to Comic-Con (or Wondercon or any comic convention) it's totally fine to sell all kinds of fan art and it's not only allowed but it's expected and encouraged. I've had fan art in the Comic-Con official catalog, sold in the official art show and sold at a booth and almost every artist and creator sells fan art there. Never was there a legal issue. 

    Whose trademark would we be violating? DAZ's or ViacomCBS, NBC Universal, and Disney's? I'm not going to purchase the fan art stuff sold here to make sure I don't break the Daz TOS but I've downloaded free fan outfits and morphs in the past and created my own textures for existing outfits and I have no qualms about it. If you search the internet, there are many fan outfits available for free for DAZ characters. So is DAZ paying ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney for the rights to use their IP? And if so, why isn't it legal for us to use it commercially? They are making more of a profit off of it than any of us artists would. 

    Personally I'm more concerned about products that depict real people who can be posed in uncompromising positions. Now people are doing that with AI, and DAZ renders still do look pretty fake but I care more about Katee Sakhoff's wellbeing than ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney's. I just hope the Daz artists only use characters based on real people in good taste.

    I think that's a very good point you're making here - people truly often seem to forget that celebs are real persons, too, and can be hurt by what is done with their digital likenesses. But of course, as you also note, that train has already left the station for all of us with AI and deep fakes, I fear. 
    Concerning the copyrights, I feel the posters above are maybe not so much worried about the corporations' well-being but the artists and hobbyists using these assets, and then getting sued.

  • HylasHylas Posts: 4,985

    Wonderland said:

    Personally I'm more concerned about products that depict real people who can be posed in uncompromising positions. Now people are doing that with AI, and DAZ renders still do look pretty fake but I care more about Katee Sakhoff's wellbeing than ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney's.

     

    Yes! Yes.

    Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, I have bought and used celebrity likenesses myself (although I've been moving away from that lately). But I do find it weird how quite a few users are so concerned about the rights of corporations, but the rights of the individual doesn't seem to matter very much. Priorities, please.

  • TorquinoxTorquinox Posts: 3,319

    Hylas said:

    Yes! Yes.

    Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, I have bought and used celebrity likenesses myself (although I've been moving away from that lately). But I do find it weird how quite a few users are so concerned about the rights of corporations, but the rights of the individual doesn't seem to matter very much. Priorities, please.

    This is my only priority: 3D sites offering paid editorial-licensed content and the folks who make the stuff are profiting from doing that, but the license says pictures I make with it are personal use only. My only meaningful response is not to buy it.

  • memcneil70memcneil70 Posts: 4,113

    Hylas said:

    Wonderland said:

    Personally I'm more concerned about products that depict real people who can be posed in uncompromising positions. Now people are doing that with AI, and DAZ renders still do look pretty fake but I care more about Katee Sakhoff's wellbeing than ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney's.

     

    Yes! Yes.

    Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, I have bought and used celebrity likenesses myself (although I've been moving away from that lately). But I do find it weird how quite a few users are so concerned about the rights of corporations, but the rights of the individual doesn't seem to matter very much. Priorities, please.

    I rarely know the celebs referred to when someone identifies them as the source for a new character, I just don't watch TV or movies since the 90s. But, I still respect the PA's characters and treat them with respect.

    The Star Trek items I bought and have coded each one in my Smart Content with a sub-category 'Star Trek Caution' and plan to use for one use only.

  • Wonderland said:

    britscriptwriter said:

    no nose said:

    So can someone explain to me how stuff like the Star Trek products that were released today aren't a huge copyright concern? It's not just clearly inspired, I'm pretty sure the Nova and Next Generation are practically the same. Did Daz strike some kind of deal with these companies?

    As far I understand it, fans can make fan art / fan fiction so long as we don't charge any money for whatever we make. However I wouldn't even get to that stage with these products. What makes me nervous is the fact that they have clearly replicated things from these movies/shows and are charging money for the products, all of which appear to be unofficial. It's a bit too much of a grey area for me, but I can imagine a time in the future where they might be asked to remove it all, so for me personally, I'll be staying away from them. Obvs I could be completely wrong but that's my perspective on it as a risk averse kinda fella :)

    The irony is that if you go to Comic-Con (or Wondercon or any comic convention) it's totally fine to sell all kinds of fan art and it's not only allowed but it's expected and encouraged. I've had fan art in the Comic-Con official catalog, sold in the official art show and sold at a booth and almost every artist and creator sells fan art there. Never was there a legal issue. 

    Whose trademark would we be violating? DAZ's or ViacomCBS, NBC Universal, and Disney's? I'm not going to purchase the fan art stuff sold here to make sure I don't break the Daz TOS but I've downloaded free fan outfits and morphs in the past and created my own textures for existing outfits and I have no qualms about it. If you search the internet, there are many fan outfits available for free for DAZ characters. So is DAZ paying ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney for the rights to use their IP? And if so, why isn't it legal for us to use it commercially? They are making more of a profit off of it than any of us artists would. 

    Personally I'm more concerned about products that depict real people who can be posed in uncompromising positions. Now people are doing that with AI, and DAZ renders still do look pretty fake but I care more about Katee Sakhoff's wellbeing than ViacomCBS, NBCUniversal and Disney's. I just hope the Daz artists only use characters based on real people in good taste.

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. By 'they' I meant Daz, not us regular folk (e.g. ...the fact that the Daz store products have clearly replicated these things...). So my concern was about Daz eventually being asked to stop selling these (apparently) unofficial products, and potentially ruining the validity of anything we created with said products. And that's why I will steer clear of the products.

  • It's possible to worry about Daz users, Daz artists and Daz. In fact, I think that's a pretty solid trinity. If any of the three suffer, then the others suffer too.

    I'm a user and I can best worry about myself by not buying and using editorial items, but that doesn't stop me worrying about the other two. I'd worry less if there was clarity around how official editorial items are.

  • doubledeviantdoubledeviant Posts: 1,138
    edited March 9
    Sale seems rather bad still. Prices for new releases get worse the next day if you didn't impulse buy the first day - which is contrary to what the token system incentivizes (fewer but larger carts).

    Half of the "big release" this week features editorial licensing (with the other half seeming to be more-or-less recolored versions of the editorial content, which feels risky to buy for commercial use).

    The gift card sale might have made the difference for a handful of new releases, but it's over after a single day.

    The grab bags are more expensive than I recall from past sales, and the discount doesn't stack with other offers to make up the difference.

    I suppose some back catalog items are available for okay-ish prices, and I'll shop the wishlist a bit, but at this point I'm leaning toward grabbing Mechasar's Talia and calling it a week (since my tokens expire tonight, meaning that any better offers tomorrow are completely worthless).

    Would've been nice if they'd discontinued tokens before the sale and offered good March Madness deals instead. Or ran the offers longer. Or had a proper catch-up with release day prices returning.
    Post edited by doubledeviant on
  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 6,873
    edited March 10

    tsroemi said:

     

    I think that's a very good point you're making here - people truly often seem to forget that celebs are real persons, too, and can be hurt by what is done with their digital likenesses. But of course, as you also note, that train has already left the station for all of us with AI and deep fakes, I fear. 
    Concerning the copyrights, I feel the posters above are maybe not so much worried about the corporations' well-being but the artists and hobbyists using these assets, and then getting sued.

    I think it's highly unlikely an individual artist would be sued (unless they are famous and making a lot of money from it.) But you can get a cease and desist and if you don't comply, it could maybe turn into a lawsuit. I did get a cease and desist email from NBC/Universal after posting a a Battlestar Galactica art piece for sale that was commissioned by the Battlestar Galactica Fan Club and sold at their booth at cons. I removed it but could have fought it because it was PARODY. In fact I may post it again although my art has gotten better since then, I was using V4! I created a character based on Six played by Tricia Helfer and ironically I ran into her at a charity event and showed it to her and she loved it and complimented me that I gave her a body that looked like her own because most artists make her look like Pamela Anderson lol. Anyway, I'm thinking of redoing it or reposting it for sale and if they send another cease and desist will fight it because it was definitely parody and the actress herself loved it! She even wanted to sell it on her website to make money for her charity! And the only reason I got caught is that I tagged it as Battlestar Galactica. If I repost I will tag Battlestar Galactica Parody right in the description!

    Post edited by Wonderland on
  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 6,873
    edited March 10

    Double post again! Every time I post from Firefox on my iPad I get a double post!

    Post edited by Wonderland on
  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    Wonderland said:

    Double post again! Every time I post from Firefox on my iPad I get a double post!

    Do not push "post comment" twice and do not refresh the page - Both are sending the post again. 

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    Not the best carts, but 62 items for $60 at 95% off gets a lot of older items off my wishlist

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,040
    edited March 11

    Wonderland said:

    tsroemi said:

     

    I think that's a very good point you're making here - people truly often seem to forget that celebs are real persons, too, and can be hurt by what is done with their digital likenesses. But of course, as you also note, that train has already left the station for all of us with AI and deep fakes, I fear. 
    Concerning the copyrights, I feel the posters above are maybe not so much worried about the corporations' well-being but the artists and hobbyists using these assets, and then getting sued.

    I think it's highly unlikely an individual artist would be sued (unless they are famous and making a lot of money from it.) But you can get a cease and desist and if you don't comply, it could maybe turn into a lawsuit. I did get a cease and desist email from NBC/Universal after posting a a Battlestar Galactica art piece for sale that was commissioned by the Battlestar Galactica Fan Club and sold at their booth at cons. I removed it but could have fought it because it was PARODY. In fact I may post it again although my art has gotten better since then, I was using V4! I created a character based on Six played by Tricia Helfer and ironically I ran into her at a charity event and showed it to her and she loved it and complimented me that I gave her a body that looked like her own because most artists make her look like Pamela Anderson lol. Anyway, I'm thinking of redoing it or reposting it for sale and if they send another cease and desist will fight it because it was definitely parody and the actress herself loved it! She even wanted to sell it on her website to make money for her charity! And the only reason I got caught is that I tagged it as Battlestar Galactica. If I repost I will tag Battlestar Galactica Parody right in the description!

    ...I'm surprised I didn't get such a notice from Disney/Pixar for my Merida character  

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
This discussion has been closed.