Just how restrictive IS the DAZ EULA?? The DAZ horse 2 is on sale... !
lynedazsite_43e7e078c5
Posts: 0
I had stopped shopping at DAZ way back before they changed the EULA. THEN when there was a great out cry over the change, I flat refused to shop here. I did NOT want to get locked into, or forced to agree to some really terrible restrictions...Then I heard they "changed it again or back" or something?? Still I refused to shop here, because I wasn't able to understand what was going on.
Now I understand they are again forcing one to agree "one time only" (with the excuse of having only zip files or some such from now on) to this EULA...to even get to one's downloads.... but still I have not been able to understand just what I have to agree to??
I am NOT a legalistic mind, and I AM dyslexic... trying to read that EULA is really confusing and taxing... and here comes the "must have" DAZ horse 2 on sale... BUT I don't REALLY have to have it, if agreeing to some cleverly worded EULA would end up making problems for me.
Can anyone help?
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
THe current EULA is actually less restrictive than the old one was, the one that you agree to every time you install a Daz .exe file.
As DAZ 3D is going over to zip files for everything in the near future then it needs to have people agree to the EULA as it will not be included in the zip. So you need to agree to the New EULA just the once and that is it. It is painless, it is not more harsh than the previous one, as I said it is instead less restrictive, but it does make a couple of things much clearer that it was in the older EULA. For a start it does deal wiith 3D printing, which wasn't in the old EULA because it didn't exist when the old EULA was formatted.
Thank you, that sort of helps, but does not make it clear in regards to OLDER DAZ purchases, and my own MORPHS of DAZ animals....I have WRITTEN permission on file from DAZ directly for providing my products as I did back then, when I had my store (now closed).
I am MOST concerned that in agreeing I end up with some sort of retro-active NEW restrictions where there was none, for my own morph sets...I am now giving away my own models and morph sets as community gifts. Also I ONLY do images with any models from anywhere, and post in galleries. I do not sell any images in any form.
Am I "safe" if I agree to the new EULA?
Yes, the New EULA does not overwrite the old EULA , except for where it allows more, or in regard to the 3D printing. (and as I said that is an addition because back when the old EULA was drawn up no one had even thought about 3D printing, it is a very new thing) ANy permissions that you have with DAZ 3D will still be current.
you can certainly sell your rendered images!
I love your wild cat morphs btw, used them in quite a few of my videos.
That means no more fretting over distributing geografts.
It also in theory means DAZ could attempt to force people to stop selling texture sets or other addons, but that would be insanely counterproductive [even for them] and I doubt it'd fly anyway.
Well that is too risky ... one...and TWO I have two DAZ products IN my cart, along with DS 4.5 AND the DSON Importer... BUT the importer is NOT free on my final page where I am asked to PLACE ORDER... so I am STOPPING, and will give up on the horse... so be it.
YES I did add the DAZ products to my cart FIRST before adding the importer...still it is NOT free...
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was risky. The new EULA grants even more rights than the previous one did. It doesn't take any away as far as I've been able to tell.
The DSON importer is free with $20 worth of DSON content, do you have that much in your cart?
As I read it, that applies to 'derived works' such as geografts since they use geometry taken from Daz figures to function. It would not apply to unique texture sets unless the set was merely a recoloured copy of existing textures, for example, rather than an entirely new set.
As I read it, that applies to 'derived works' such as geografts since they use geometry taken from Daz figures to function. It would not apply to unique texture sets unless the set was merely a recoloured copy of existing textures, for example, rather than an entirely new set.
They could argue their UVs were used for the flow of the texture, or that the body shape was used to model around for clothing, etcetera. But I doubt they'd do it. It would be difficult in most cases to assert that someone hadn't put in enough of their own work for an item to qualify as an original creation, and they have absolutely no reason to anyway.
are you sure you were logged in? I often forget to
To answer your question, YES I have over $28 in my cart before I added the DSON importer... But thanks anyway, I just don't like the unclear aspects of the EULA... DAZ could use it in various ways if they had a mind to... my life has enough stress... so I will just pass. I don't even use the original Mil horse much in my art...so with this situation ON TOP of the hoops I would have to jump through to get the new horse INTO my poser 9... well.... !
My thank to you all,
Lyne
They could argue their UVs were used for the flow of the texture, or that the body shape was used to model around for clothing, etcetera. But I doubt they'd do it. It would be difficult in most cases to assert that someone hadn't put in enough of their own work for an item to qualify as an original creation, and they have absolutely no reason to anyway.
If it uses their UVs, then it requires the use of the product that has those UVs to function, and so is allowed under the terms of the agreement.
The main thing people were screaming about with the previous version of the EULA was that it purported to require you to delete all your old content if you didn't agree to it. Such a requirement is, of course, completely illegal.
This is the hairy part:
Oh dear why do we have to resurrect all the old arguments about some wording that was changed as soon as people started complaining about it. The other objections to the acceptance of the new EULA were always specious arguments at best, and sometimes inaccurate at worst.
The New EULA, as it stands, has been there for some time now, and as stated several times is less restrictive than the old one was, but does contain some specifics about techniques that were not available when the original EULA was drafted some years ago.
3D printing will require a separate add on license, which is not available yet, before people can produce 3D prints of the products they purchase form DAZ 3D, but 2D printing is allowed, as it always, as is using the UV template to produce new skins and textures for the models.
Redistributing the actual mesh of DAZ 3D and PA items is strictly prohibited (unless specific permission has been given) but that was always there, in every version of the EULA.
Other new techniques such as geografting and shrink wrapping are also addressed in the new EULA, in order to protect DAZ 3D's intellectual property, as they do use the actual mesh is all. Daz 3D aims to help it's customers and make things easier for them to work in the way that is best for all concerned.
...Are you even reading my posts? That 'some wording' regarding deleting items is not what I have or ever had a problem with, and the potentially troublesome section I posted is in the current EULA.
If your comment was directed at someone else I apologize profusely, but since so far the only actual mention of that in this thread was to point out that the 'delete old content' bit was removed, I don't really see what concern you're trying to minimize here. Everybody and their dog knows it's gone, nobody's worried about that part anymore, constantly saying that they are when there are actually other issues is just setting up a straw man.
If you download (or previously downloaded) an installer (as opposed to a zip), you can choose to follow that EULA instead. If the issue is being asked to agree to a EULA after purchasing, it was the same way before, only now it's before downloading as opposed to while installing.
Yes. It would be much less troublesome, and probably more legally sound, if it contained a clause like this one: "This agreement shall not be construed to diminish any rights with regard to the use of previously purchased content."*
*I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. An actual lawyer could probably come up with better wording.
The new EULA is honestly better, however the attempt to apply terms retroactively to old purchases and downloads without offering a choice if people wish to access said older purchases is still troublesome and a very bad precedent. Yes, in this case the new EULA offers more freedom. But the method of going about is is still bad. Imagine if it had offered less freedom. Let's relate it to someone randomly shoving their hand into your pocket on the street; it's still wrong whether he's giving you fifty bucks or trying to take fifty bucks from you. The sad thing is it could all be fixed with minor changes. I honestly don't understand why DAZ would want to have an EULA under terms that are so questionable. They could guard their rights without setting a precedent of retroactively changing previous agreements and leaving little choice in the matter if you want to continue to exercise your rights under those agreements.
There are no real problems with the EULA at all. All you've done is muddy the waters thus confusing someone who had a question about it. Not helpful. And we've lost a potential addition to the community we've all known and appreciated for several years.
Thanks a lot.
Confusing? I quoted the only potentially troublesome part I could see that remained, explained that it was almost certainly not an actual issue, and answered a straight question regarding whether the new EULA applied to previous content. It does as currently written. I will never apologize for an honest answer, nor can I believe anyone here would promote being dishonest by answering in any other way.
What in the world should have been said? "No, it doesn't have anything about applying to previous purchases, please don't read it to find out..." Of course not. Especially after someone had said the new EULA does not 'overwrite' the old one, which was most likely a misunderstanding but blatantly untrue.
And like an incredibly strange number of people, you're taking my issue with the way DAZ handles getting people to accept the EULA and essentially screaming "LOOK THEY DON'T LIKE THE EULA." Which is...not what I'm saying. At all. I've said numerous times that the EULA as written grants more rights than the old one and my only quibble is that one must alter previous agreements by accepting it in order to access content. If I can make that any clearer, say how, otherwise, stop pretending I'm complaining about the EULA itself. That is, once again, a straw man, and what's truly muddying the waters here.
Yes, I've suggested changing it, but that's only because it's the easiest way to remove the difficulty while keeping the way the store works currently, and the store needs to work the way it does currently. Changing the store while making sure items stayed secure would be far more complicated.
Also, lost an addition to the community? I doubt she'll be forced to stop rendering because she doesn't use the DAZ Horse 2, which if anything is the fault of what appears to be yet another store glitch.