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
When really wild/strange/outrageous stuff happens involving Daz, history suggests it's almost always a glitch or mistake or misunderstanding.
No need to make drastic plans until there's more information.
I am looking at my copy of the promo pages I made on 5 May 2018 and except for the 'Optional License Add-Ons: for *Interactive License' is mentioned.
But, to be fair, I did immediately recognize it from the movie Black Panther, except there are a lot of various hair colors beyond the basic black. But haven't other hairs from popular culture been recreated and sold as 3D products?
I don't sell my renders, no way I am good enough. So I am not impacted, but I agree with others that note that this is not a good move unless they have been ordered by a legal settlement.
Yeah, I am also not likely to financially benefit from any renders anytime soon, if ever. However, many people can and do and a retro-active downgrade of a licence is pretty alarming and so hopefully it is a mistake by some automated bot or something.
Can someone explain why a hair and beard would be under the Editiorial License, seeing as anyone with that hair type can grow their hair and beard like that. This product makes no sense for this type of license.
https://www.daz3d.com/killmonger-hair-and-beard-for-genesis-3-and-8
Probably because of the name Killmonger, he's a Marvel comics character... I'd imagine a simple re-name might fix that, but who knows... maybe the PA doesn't want to change that because they feel the name helps sell it?... it'd be like naming a handlebar mustache "Snidely Whiplash Stache For Victoria 9" and then changing it to "Handlebar Mustache for Victoria 9"... nobody would want it for their bearded lady renders because it wouldn't have that celebrity connotation that Snidely Whiplash does... it'd be a downgrade.
wasn't we assured that that would never happen with older products I got into trouble for suggesting asking if that would happen too
sort of off topic but not in my memories on facebook was astory of an artist who got sued over a tattoo because the image looked too much like a photo of a celebrity a photographer too, the artist admitted they used it as a referance but changed it slightly. This was hinting at any tattoos could be sued over over rights issue so if can do that then hair styles could be up for grabs too- oh was just googling for story and a tatto artist sued gaming company Take-Two for similar tattoos on characters in wresting games WWE 2K and she won so again if that hair can go on restricted whatabout the tattoos and some makeups really wheredoes this end
always in court
the 20th and 21st centuries have the most restrictions on human expression, creativity and the arts of any age
I have taken more than one law course during my various careers that involved contract law. Offer and acceptance. Once an offer is made and accepted the terms of such contract cannot be revised.
Yes, that's as how I understand it.
I do not believe it would be legal for Daz to change the terms of a previous purchase, and while they could alter the terms for future purchasers, their system will then need to be able to keep track of which licence each individual user purchased the product under. It would not be acceptable for the system to (as it currently seems to) tell previous purchasers that they have an editorial licence for this product.
~~~~~
Also, as I've never had an answer to this, I really think this may need clarification:
The only place the Daz EULA mentions "Editorial" is under the "Three-Dimensional Works" section of the licence. As currently presented, it would therefore only actually seem to affect creators who want to produce add-on products for Editorial licence options.
I also feel the terms here are contraditory. US Fair Use Doctrine does not require that the use must be non-commercial. (Non-commercial means that the usage is more likely to be found fair, but the whole meaning of "editorial" relates to newsworthiness and the like, and nearly all major news sources are commercial). "Fair Use" has a lot of implications, and I think it needs to be straightened out whether this is intended as an editorial licence or a non-commercial one, because the two terms aren't synonymous.
If they are starting to change licenses for previous purchases, they need to notify customers via email and offer a full refund.
I surely hope this is a mistake. If not, remember the power of your pocketbook.
I've received no answer so far to my ticket (and it might be a few days). It might be a safety precaution and perhaps the product will be brought back under a new name.
Nevertheless, this is rather problematic, if the editorial license remains in place. I am using the hair for a character in a story, which I intend to be commercial, so if push comes to pull, I have quite a few images I will have to change the character design, and there's the images that need to be re-rendered.
Ok, here is a random question I just thought of: Why is DAZ3D selling editorial licenses (ELs) for products inspired by other IP? Killmonger Hair and Beard is obviously inspired by Erik Killmonger's hair from Black Panther. Mars Spider is clearly a face hunger from the Aliens franchise, and Easy Snap Alien Base looks like the space jockey space ship. And the X-Fashion Olympain Warrior Outfit is has a few tweeks from Wonder Woman's films. Now, I completely understand if creators come up with an original concept and want to market that, but want to protect their IP with ELs.
Is it some sort of legal strategy to protect themselves from artists "misusing" the products sold or a cash grab for popular "inspired-by" products?
Also: these products NEED to be marked in the Smart Content library, not just on the website. If they are going back and changing the licenses to editorial ones, it's completely unfair to the customer base.
If not addressed, Daz can no longer be trusted as a provider of content - the editorial license is specifically a non-commercial license, and commercially using so much as a single element from a product with a changed license - even in a form that does not resemble or infringe upon the supposedly protected IP - would be disallowed. And this could happen with nearly any product, anytime, since Daz is unlikely to be aware of all of the influences and inspirations of PAs at the time products are accepted to the store.
The editorial license has been poorly conceived from the start - it offers Daz no real protection, as selling infringing content could be pursued by a rights holder regardless of how it is licensed, as Daz is still making money from such sales.
And since the introduction of the editorial license has not brought a wave of content licensed from major IP holders to the store - as some of us expected might be the case - I do not see a benefit for even casual hobbyists. Still, it had been applied sparingly enough to be a minor annoyance - until now.
I will give Daz the benefit of the doubt for one or two days, but this matter needs to be addressed immediately, in a clear and direct fashion.
Not only unfair, but braking the legally binding contract they made with the client when the client made the purchase.
On the Daz+ members forum in the "Retro Apartment Props 2" thread, Jack Tomalin said the following.
July 11th, 2023:
To be continued...
so your not worried it may happen to your products? I mean they maybe 100% your creations/ideas but there is always a chance something out there in other media could resemble your creations in the smallest way and be enough or even in the future
well I live in Tasmania and we are finally getting our own football team to play in the AFL there were plans to call them something like the Tasmanian Devils but were rejected because America/Warner Brothers wouldn't allow it because they own all rights to our iconic animal including name and image it was all over the news here which brings up another product here will the Tasmanian Devil get an updated restrictive license here as well
Does anyone know how to determine if they had a 3D Printing license for the hair that might have been zapped, too? I save the PDFs from the orders but I can't just search them from the command line and I'm not going to open hundreds of individual PDFs to search them.
I bought it in 2019, so I would've had the free 3D printing license that they gave us for stuff we already owned. Everything else in that order had it. All it says is Editorial for this hair now.
Ah, good point. I hadn't noticed that it's a DO. Thanks!
They're coming for the Space Navigator next.
It looks like Killmonger Hair and Beard for Genesis 3 and 8 has now been removed from the store. However, it is still showing an editorial license in my Product Library
The license type that was in effect when you purchased would be the license type that applied (confirmed by Daz).
How can I prove that it was a Standard License in purchase? We have no way of evidencing what the license type used to be.
Then they need to correct it in my Product Library!
Exactly.
Also in your product library, it says when you bought it right under the product name and above the editorial license. I always keep the email receipt, so I can confirm the date on mine.
Edit: Meant this reply for @BeeMKay question. My mistake.
Agreed. Our product library is the only proof DAZ gives us to confirm what type of license we have. We need to be able to trust that it can't be retroactively changed. If they're saying that they'll be honoring our licenses, then the product library needs to reflect that. The only place showing a record of the license we bought it under should never be altered.
Honestly, we need an easier and more reliable way of proving (and documenting for our records) the terms we purchased things under. In the future it could be as simple as having the license type on our receipts, but for past purchases the product library is all we have that lists the license type (as far as I know) and it's not a very good source for making copies for our own records.