Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
And the problem with blocking access to old content unless users agree to alter previous agreements remains exactly the same. As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself. I doubt almost anyone does. It's the fact that it's retroactive, and that attempts are being made to force customers to accept it in order to access content purchased under a different agreement that's the problem. It's not a question as to which is better. Even with the best of intentions, coercion is still coercion and a terrible precedent.
The issue here could be entirely avoided while still accomplishing everyone' goals here.
First: Change the retroactive bit of the EULA presented on the downloads page, so it applies only to future downloads/purchases. This way customers aren't forced to alter previous agreements to gain access to one single piece of content, but if they do choose to use your servers to download another copy of a zip file, they will have agreed to the terms of the new EULA regarding it. There's a little room for contention here, if someone's made a purchase just before the change and didn't have time to download it before the new EULA went into effect, but that could be handled through support offering limited downloads of the installer versions.
Second: Set the current EULA to be agreed to at checkout. Customers would be required to accept the retroactive agreement if they chose to make any new purchases, while still retaining the ability to access their old content, if so desired, without agreeing to a new EULA for anything but the new copies of files.
No more property or old agreements being held hostage, while also no issues with customers gaining access to files without agreeing to an EULA.
So if the text were changed to make clear that the new EULA only applies to files you download from this point forward, but not to installers you've downloaded in the past, would that resolve this issue?
It would as far as I'm concerned. The only issue I see is that people are prevented from accessing any files at all unless they agree to something that encompasses all of them. I have no problems with the rest of the EULA; we were in dire need of some updates.
I'd have to do some legal research, but I'm leaning way over on the side of the consumer here. This is the nature of 3D, new technology is developed every day. The customer entered into an agreement with DAZ when the customer gave DAZ money... to change the terms of the contract after new technology is developed, which DAZ was well aware, is unfair to the customer and it's bad business. It's fine to change the EULA for products sold from this point forward, but to make it retro is a "Gotcha," it's ex post facto and that's what I object to. Something else to consider here... the EULA is a contract and contract law is very rigid because it's a written agreement. For one party to change the terms after money has been exchanged is, well, unethical and I believe it could be challenged with a win in court, if it came to that.
How is it gotcha, to say you're restricted on how you can use Daz products with a 3D printer? When you bought all the old stuff there were no options for 3D printing, so you could in no way have had any expectations to use Daz products on a 3D printer unrestricted. As far as everything you expected when you agreed to those old EULA's, nothing is different.
...actually this was in reference to 3D printing as it opens the door for P&P RPG players to have custom figures that are exact representations of their characters rather than having to "approximate" using an "off the shelf miniature" bought at the local gaming store.
I don't do MMOs as I have slow to spotty connectivity and 3D CG is already enough of a time sink for me (albeit a more productive one).
Okay then, well I don't see where it's a problem for you to make your own figures for yourself but you might be in violation if you made figures for other people and gave them away or sold them. Also there could be an issue if you had to use a third party for the actual printing and you supplied them with the meshes. If you had your own printer though and made a customer figure to match the character of an RPG and only you had that figure then the way I read the 3D printing portion of the EULA there should be absolutely no problem.
The problem is that they don't want to click the new EULA that is blocking access to the downloads of the old installers. They believe that Daz is trying to trick them into something they don't want to do. Near as I can tell all of the hysteria came from the wording that suggests they may have to delete all their old products if they don't agree to this new EULA. As I understand it that has been changed but the hysteria persists because some have claimed that they never clicked the new EULA but now have access to their downloads back. So at least in the case of some people it seems like they're being restricted in ways that others are not.
I could be wrong but that's what I get out of what people have been saying.
Well why not just have the EULA blocking access to the downloads be the old EULA and then put the new EULA at the checkout? That way all new purchases are covered by the new EULA and access to the downloads is only blocked by the same EULA they would have agreed to back when they intially bought the product. Then there would be no way that anyone could slip thru a crack because they never ran the installer back when they bought the item and by the time they did install it they ended up getting the zip.
There is no way anyone went to the download page without accepting the EULA, Not at all sure where that idea came from. To download you either clicked the EULA that is shown before the Download page appears, or you click the EULA when you install the DIM, to download that way.
And the problem with blocking access to old content unless users agree to alter previous agreements remains exactly the same. As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself. I doubt almost anyone does. It's the fact that it's retroactive, and that attempts are being made to force customers to accept it in order to access content purchased under a different agreement that's the problem. It's not a question as to which is better. Even with the best of intentions, coercion is still coercion and a terrible precedent.
The issue here could be entirely avoided while still accomplishing everyone' goals here.
First: Change the retroactive bit of the EULA presented on the downloads page, so it applies only to future downloads/purchases. This way customers aren't forced to alter previous agreements to gain access to one single piece of content, but if they do choose to use your servers to download another copy of a zip file, they will have agreed to the terms of the new EULA regarding it. There's a little room for contention here, if someone's made a purchase just before the change and didn't have time to download it before the new EULA went into effect, but that could be handled through support offering limited downloads of the installer versions.
Second: Set the current EULA to be agreed to at checkout. Customers would be required to accept the retroactive agreement if they chose to make any new purchases, while still retaining the ability to access their old content, if so desired, without agreeing to a new EULA for anything but the new copies of files.
No more property or old agreements being held hostage, while also no issues with customers gaining access to files without agreeing to an EULA.
What you are missing is first that there is no binding agreement/contract from just the purchase because the EULA is in the installer. So if you bought something but haven't installed it, you haven't made that contract yet. Now what fixmypcmike is suggesting is somewhat of an out of the ordinary circumstance that does in fact sometimes happen.
So for example, lets say 4 years ago you bought a really cool looking prop. You downloaded it but then something came up that distracted you for several weeks and so you never installed the new prop. When you finally get back to it you've lost interest in what you were planning on doing with it so rather then installing it you just put it wherever you store the installers you download. 4 years go by and it's today, you're looking thru the Daz site for something to finish off the scene you've been working on and you come across this old prop. It's exactly what you need to complete your scene. You remember that you bought it previously and so you go to find it in your runtime but it's not there. Then you remember you never installed it. So you look for it in your stored installers and can't find it there either because two years ago you were reorganizing where you store your installers and accidentally deleted that file without realizing it. You're puzzled why it's not there but you're certain you bought it which you confirm by checking your order history. So you shrug your shoulders and just assume that you only thought you download it and you reset the download. Except now all the installers have been changed to zips and since the zips don't have a way of forcing you to agree to an EULA you end up installing this prop without ever once having agreed to an EULA.
Now while I agree that this does create an unitended situation I do have to wonder about places like Renderosity, Runtime DNA, Content Paradise and countless other stores selling 3D content packaged in zips where the EULA is there within the zip. Is it being suggested that anybody who ever bought content from those places aren't bound to any EULA because they were never forced to click on something saying they accept it? It seems more likely that just by virtue of installing it and the EULA being in the zip they are bound to it and it's their fault for not bothering to read the EULA that got placed on their hard drive when they unzipped those zips.
If so then a more easy solution would to be to just include an EULA in the zips like everyone else does.
Well I know of at least one person who says they were blocked and never clicked on the EULA, then they heard Daz stopped blocking things and so they checked and they were no longer blocked. I'm not sure if that was some sort of site glitch or if that person clicked the EULA without realizing it or what? Frankly I don't see what the problem is except for the fear created by the language that said they had to delete everything they ever bought if they choose to not accept the new EULA.
Keep in mind, I have no problem with the new EULA and clicked it the first time I saw it, after reading it of course. None of it really matters to me because as a pure hobbyist that will only ever be using this stuff to make images for myself or to post online to show my artwork to others, there is no chance I'll ever come into violation of the old or new EULAs.
I think there's some confusion because originally you were blocked from any of your account pages if you didn't agree to the EULA, whereas now only the downloads are blocked.
As for whether DAZ 3D's lawyers are right that just putting the EULA in the zip, rather than having the user actively agree to it, is something that would make a difference if it came to enforcing the EULA, not only am I not a lawyer, I doubt I can read fast enough to keep up with an argument between DAZ 3D's lawyers and the lawyers working for other brokerages.
The problem is that they don't want to click the new EULA that is blocking access to the downloads of the old installers. They believe that Daz is trying to trick them into something they don't want to do. Near as I can tell all of the hysteria came from the wording that suggests they may have to delete all their old products if they don't agree to this new EULA. As I understand it that has been changed but the hysteria persists because some have claimed that they never clicked the new EULA but now have access to their downloads back. So at least in the case of some people it seems like they're being restricted in ways that others are not.
I could be wrong but that's what I get out of what people have been saying.
That's not what's going on at all. The problem is DAZ won't allow access to any old downloads unless customers alter previous agreements relating to all of them. The actual content of the new EULA [besides the retroactive bit] is irrelevant to the issue.
What you are missing is first that there is no binding agreement/contract from just the purchase because the EULA is in the installer. So if you bought something but haven't installed it, you haven't made that contract yet. Now what fixmypcmike is suggesting is somewhat of an out of the ordinary circumstance that does in fact sometimes happen.
So for example, lets say 4 years ago you bought a really cool looking prop. You downloaded it but then something came up that distracted you for several weeks and so you never installed the new prop. When you finally get back to it you've lost interest in what you were planning on doing with it so rather then installing it you just put it wherever you store the installers you download. 4 years go by and it's today, you're looking thru the Daz site for something to finish off the scene you've been working on and you come across this old prop. It's exactly what you need to complete your scene. You remember that you bought it previously and so you go to find it in your runtime but it's not there. Then you remember you never installed it. So you look for it in your stored installers and can't find it there either because two years ago you were reorganizing where you store your installers and accidentally deleted that file without realizing it. You're puzzled why it's not there but you're certain you bought it which you confirm by checking your order history. So you shrug your shoulders and just assume that you only thought you download it and you reset the download. Except now all the installers have been changed to zips and since the zips don't have a way of forcing you to agree to an EULA you end up installing this prop without ever once having agreed to an EULA.
I didn't miss anything. The now-bolded bit was there to address this exact concern.
That's not what's going on at all. The problem is DAZ won't allow access to any old downloads unless customers alter previous agreements relating to all of them. The actual content of the new EULA [besides the retroactive bit] is irrelevant to the issue.
The change isn't really a change it's an addendum to address an issue that didn't exist at the time the original agreement was made. Since there are scenarios where no agreement has been made because someone may not have installed something they bought in the past it's not unreasonable for daz to try to correct the situation by forcing people to a blanket EULA. In order for it to be considered illegal in court Daz would have to be trying to change something they allowed in the previous agreement like if they said you could sell your renders in the intial EULA and then changed it to you can't sell your renders in the new one. That then would be illegal. To address 3D printing which didn't exist on the open market when the old agreement was drafted is not illegal and since nobody bought those older items with the expectation to be able to use them on a 3D printer with absolutely no restriction then Daz isn't doing something that's unfair to the customer.
What you are missing is first that there is no binding agreement/contract from just the purchase because the EULA is in the installer. So if you bought something but haven't installed it, you haven't made that contract yet. Now what fixmypcmike is suggesting is somewhat of an out of the ordinary circumstance that does in fact sometimes happen.
So for example, lets say 4 years ago you bought a really cool looking prop. You downloaded it but then something came up that distracted you for several weeks and so you never installed the new prop. When you finally get back to it you've lost interest in what you were planning on doing with it so rather then installing it you just put it wherever you store the installers you download. 4 years go by and it's today, you're looking thru the Daz site for something to finish off the scene you've been working on and you come across this old prop. It's exactly what you need to complete your scene. You remember that you bought it previously and so you go to find it in your runtime but it's not there. Then you remember you never installed it. So you look for it in your stored installers and can't find it there either because two years ago you were reorganizing where you store your installers and accidentally deleted that file without realizing it. You're puzzled why it's not there but you're certain you bought it which you confirm by checking your order history. So you shrug your shoulders and just assume that you only thought you download it and you reset the download. Except now all the installers have been changed to zips and since the zips don't have a way of forcing you to agree to an EULA you end up installing this prop without ever once having agreed to an EULA.
I didn't miss anything. The now-bolded bit was there to address this exact concern.
No you are missing things, in your bolded part you suggest the change should only apply to new purchases but the change needs to be made for the older purchase even more since the older purchases run off an agreement that didn't address the 3D printer issue. As it stands now if people don't have to agree to the new EULA then technically they have no restrictions on using that old content with 3D printers. So Daz is trying to just take care of it all in one shot with one EULA. I agree with you and others who feel their old purchases are being held hostage because I just really don't see enough people being able to afford to use 3D printers to necessitate such an insistent way of correcting the problem. Far more copyright protection breeches happen daily and have been for years with piracy then I ever see happening from supplying a 3rd Party with 3D meshes in order for them to print something up for a customer.
Actually, technically the old EULA was saying 3D printing was a definite NO NO, but was specific about it.. The new EULA is not only less restrictive in some places, but also holds out the promise of a specific license for 3D printing to come.
I didn't miss anything. The now-bolded bit was there to address this exact concern.
No you are missing things, in your bolded part you suggest the change should only apply to new purchases but the change needs to be made for the older purchase even more since the older purchases run off an agreement that didn't address the 3D printer issue.
No, read it again.
I suggested that users should be presented a non-retroactive EULA which would apply to any any new purchases or downloads [highlighted the relevant part to point it out], so they're not being made to alter agreements on all old content just because they decide to download one piece of it.
After that I suggested if DAZ wants to keep the retroactive bit, they should simply make agreeing to the EULA as-is a condition for making new purchases, in addition to the previously suggested change.
That's not what's going on at all. The problem is DAZ won't allow access to any old downloads unless customers alter previous agreements relating to all of them. The actual content of the new EULA [besides the retroactive bit] is irrelevant to the issue.
The change isn't really a change it's an addendum to address an issue that didn't exist at the time the original agreement was made. Since there are scenarios where no agreement has been made because someone may not have installed something they bought in the past it's not unreasonable for daz to try to correct the situation by forcing people to a blanket EULA. In order for it to be considered illegal in court Daz would have to be trying to change something they allowed in the previous agreement like if they said you could sell your renders in the intial EULA and then changed it to you can't sell your renders in the new one. That then would be illegal. To address 3D printing which didn't exist on the open market when the old agreement was drafted is not illegal and since nobody bought those older items with the expectation to be able to use them on a 3D printer with absolutely no restriction then Daz isn't doing something that's unfair to the customer.
An addendum is a change. True, adding one is not illegal.
Refusing to allow access to any content unless users change their previous agreements regarding all content is definitely questionable. It doesn't matter whether the new agreement is nicer or not.
As chohole pointed out, the old EULA covered 3D printing by only allowing 2D images.
Because I feel like this is bouncing off of deaf ears by now, I'd like to reiterate that I have no problem with the terms of the EULA itself. Saying "but it's better" is completely missing the issue.
YES!!!
They Set my files FREE, the agree is off my download files, pulled it up & as soon as I seen it, I always closed it, it didn't come up I was shocked, downloaded the one's I needed, Happy camper.
It was no biggie just didn't agree to being forced to sign for older buys. lol
Now it's time to go SHOPPING!!!! lol :D
The change isn't really a change it's an addendum to address an issue that didn't exist at the time the original agreement was made. Since there are scenarios where no agreement has been made because someone may not have installed something they bought in the past it's not unreasonable for daz to try to correct the situation by forcing people to a blanket EULA. In order for it to be considered illegal in court Daz would have to be trying to change something they allowed in the previous agreement like if they said you could sell your renders in the intial EULA and then changed it to you can't sell your renders in the new one. That then would be illegal. To address 3D printing which didn't exist on the open market when the old agreement was drafted is not illegal and since nobody bought those older items with the expectation to be able to use them on a 3D printer with absolutely no restriction then Daz isn't doing something that's unfair to the customer.
An addendum is a change. True, adding one is not illegal.
Refusing to allow access to any content unless users change their previous agreements regarding all content is definitely questionable. It doesn't matter whether the new agreement is nicer or not.
As chohole pointed out, the old EULA covered 3D printing by only allowing 2D images.
Because I feel like this is bouncing off of deaf ears by now, I'd like to reiterate that I have no problem with the terms of the EULA itself. Saying "but it's better" is completely missing the issue.
Adding a change is not illegal if addressing something that could not have possibly been addressed when the original agreement was drawn up. For example a few years back the consumer protection act was put into law to prevent credit card companies from taking advantage of consumers. Immediately afterwards the credit card companies sent out changes to their agreements with customers to incorporate these changes since obviously they didn't have a crystal ball to peer into the future and anticipate these changes in the law. Now had there been no new law and they just decided they were going to change things arbitrarily that then would be the illegal move.
It's possible to interpret the old EULA as covering something because it doesn't specifically mention it and therefore one could extrapolate that it's not allowed because nothing says it's allowed but another could also extrapolate that it's not forbidden because it's not specifically forbidden. Contracts typically try to prevent such grey areas which is why they often end up looking like a bunch of confusing legalese but ultimately it's best for everyone involved if a contract spells out specifically what is and isn't allowed rather then to trust what can be infered by an omission of something.
The old EULA states "All other rights with respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ3D (and its licensors)."
I believe that makes explicit that any use not covered is forbidden.
...actually this was in reference to 3D printing as it opens the door for P&P RPG players to have custom figures that are exact representations of their characters rather than having to "approximate" using an "off the shelf miniature" bought at the local gaming store.
I don't do MMOs as I have slow to spotty connectivity and 3D CG is already enough of a time sink for me (albeit a more productive one).
Okay then, well I don't see where it's a problem for you to make your own figures for yourself but you might be in violation if you made figures for other people and gave them away or sold them. Also there could be an issue if you had to use a third party for the actual printing and you supplied them with the meshes. If you had your own printer though and made a customer figure to match the character of an RPG and only you had that figure then the way I read the 3D printing portion of the EULA there should be absolutely no problem.
...well considering I am not of the economic strata to afford my own high quality 3D printer to do a detailed 25mm figure, I would need to send the mesh to a third party service. That's a real bugger especially since I would be paying them with my own hard earned money to do a one time 3D print (that I would have to detail myself) of an original character of my own design. If they went and produced additional copies for retail afterwards, then Daz3D's (as well as my own because I have the copyright to the character likeness) legal argument should be with them not me.
I'm a little confused...
Are we not allowed to 3D print?
I never have, and i know the model has to be a certain way and a closed mesh and so on, but I have considered it..... to make game miniatures to play with....
Does this new EULA mean that's not allowed????
Because that would be a real letdown and I don't see how its much different between making a picture or making a physical 3d print. :(
...good point as you are able to sell prints of your rendered works, but cannot make a 3D mini through a third party service expressly for your own use.
It was not allowed under the old EULA. Under the new EULA you will need a special license for 3D printing.
let me guess, you have to pay extra for it?
and how do you get a special license?
sheesh.....
...and just how much will it cost? I've seen the special licences for game developers and those are way out of the budgets of many of us here.
They aren't in the store yet. I have no idea how much they'll be.