Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
There is this one too:
https://www.daz3d.com/t163-race-car
These things are starting to show up too often
I think so, too.
This one looks really nice.
Just wonder, how to change its parts to make possible to use it less restricted.
If one uses any part of such item, the result has the same restrictions as the original
Even if you extract just a bolt and kit-bash it to a totally different model, it will get the Editorial License. It works that way.
The only solution is to totally avoid that kind of licensing, since it can affect the entirety of the works.
+1
Whilst it is inspired by 60s race cars it look pretty generic to me. I confess I don't know much about this area does anyone know of which specific vehicle it is so close to that an EL licence is needed?
interestingly though is the newly released Stinger GTR Coupe https://www.daz3d.com/stinger-gtr-coupe didn't get hit with the EL and it even says in the descriptionit's it is a conversion based on an iconic car unless marketing missed this one and put the EL on later
As stated before, Daz cannot currently do this. Their system cannot separately track which users bought a standard licence and which bought an editorial licence, but they also have to continue to correctly tell people who've already bought it that they have a standard licence (they cannot unilaterally change the sales contract after purchase is complete).
If they determine an already released product should really have an EL, they will leave it with a standard licence, but pull said product from further sale.
Indeed, they won't change the licence on existing product to a more restrictive one. They could release another version of the product with a new SKU and EL after they made the "standard licence" product inactive though.
It's Lola T163 from end of the 60's
Have to admint, I was fully expecting this to be EL, it means I'm really not sure how they are classified now
Maybe they asked the IP holder for permission.
I know nothing about cars, but if it looks like a type of car but not a specific model, then it doesn't have to be EL.
By Paranoia level
From what I've seen I can model a generic blender square base with push buttons, pitcher graduated or not with a lid, and it could get an EL just because it looks similar to any one of the thousands of blenders on the market
Dammit. I didn't catch this one until after the purchase. Refund request submitted.
Ahh yes, you are right, they are very similar, even the same name.
True, but you don't need to be worried that they will downgrade any licence you purchased.
I'm not certain what Daz does in the event they sell something they never should have (if it proves to be complete plagiarism of someone else's work that the vendor had no right selling, for example), as I've never knowingly purchased any such product (my assumption is that they would have to contact buyers and refund them), but for the most part licences are fixed once you purchase them.
Well ... though I don't quite agree with the way they've handled these IP-problematic kits*, I should note that the appliances that got EL slapped on that kitchen-props set were not just "similar." If I look at a prop and immediately think, "Oh, that is obviously supposed to be [this particular brand of appliance]," right down to the font used in the logo, then it's not paranoia on Daz' part to be worried about it. I agree that blenders are much of a muchness**, but trust me, I have that kit and it was much more of an issue than just resemblance.
* I think the "editorial license" should serve as a warning only and an ass-cover for Daz: "We know that this kit has something in it that violates someone else's trademark and/or copyright, and now we've made sure you know, so when the people who own that trademark and/or copyright come out with a team of lawyers, they can sue you and not us. Proceed at own risk." Since it's unenforceable, it's basically what they're doing anyway, so they should be more honest about it.
** Unless you're modelling an original Waring Blendor--that is not a typo, that's how Fred Waring spelled it back in the day, and for a long time other people who were making imitation blenders went to some trouble to make their base NOT look like Waring's distinctive round, almost conical base, lest they get into trouble ...so you see this is not just a thing Daz has to be careful about.
https://libraries.psu.edu/about/collections/fred-warings-america/fred-warings-blendor
That's why I specified generic as in no name
My point was, Daz is not going to slap EL on you for making a generic blender. They very well may slap EL on you for making a blender that looks exactly like one specific particular model of blender in the real world.
I'm not aiming at you personally. I just think that some of the discussion about the EL here is a little overblown. I don't think their standards are THAT arbitrary. Every time I've seen EL applied so far, I've looked at the item and said, "Oh, yeah, that's a clear case of infringement." I mean, I've never yet been mystified WHY any of the items got slapped with EL.
I wasn't worried that they would increase the price of $1.99 Platinum Club items either because they said they wouldn't, but...
That is a different thing, who signed the promise?
If Daz were to downgrade the license on items one has already bought, it would be the same as a car dealership would come to your home and remove the engine after you have paid for the car in full.
That was, what, ten years ago?
Two years, actually. That was what they said when they first raised the prices of new Platinum Club items and renamed it to Daz+.
That said, there is a not-insignificant difference between, effectively, "we've changed our minds about this thing that is entirely within our control and is not a legally binding promise regarding stuff you don't actually own yet," and "We're changing your terms of ownership on this thing you bought with one set of legal terms so that this other set of legal terms applies." That's why Killmonger hair had to be withdrawn rather than just having its license changed (which they in fact tried and apparently realized that it couldn't work that way).
Honestly, I was astonished that they allowed Killmonger hair into the store with that name at the time -- it had several separate live copyrights (I checked the copyright database after it went on sale, because the name and how it was presented were so surprising) and two separate wordmarks (again, I checked) and one should not blithely take on the House of Mouse and its subsidiaries like that.
looks like vehicles seem to be the most riskiest content to make here since the slightest detail could automatically have it slapped with the EL license. did DAZ somehow get the big automakers' IP lawyers on them?
I have a question about one of the products mentioned here - Killmonger hair and beard. Can I still use this product? I bought it a long time ago when it was active. I also own other products no longer in the store, can I still use those (namely Gou Luk bundle)?
Yes, you should still be able to use them... just be careful of the context, and be aware of the source material in terms of what you make with it with things like Killmonger Hair and Beard.