Loading...
> >

A Thread for Items with the "Editorial License"

1…6791112…26

Comments

  • Charlie JudgeCharlie Judge Posts: 12,754

    BeeMKay said:

    Write Idea said:

    Charlie Judge said:

    Richard Haseltine said:

    The license type that was in effect when you purchased would be the license type that applied (confirmed by Daz).

    Then they need to correct it in my Product Library! 

    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.

    Only that in the Product library, it says Editorial License now, an d even with the purchase date, I have no proof that the product was ever anything but Editorial License. Short of Screenshotting and filing that screenshot when I buy something, tha t is... Which I didn't do.

    Yes, and the product  library also no longer shows the 3D Printing license. So, we also have no proof that we have that.

  • Charlie JudgeCharlie Judge Posts: 12,754

    UPDATE: The Standard and 3D Printing Licenses for Killmonger Hair and Beard for Genesis 3 and 8 have now been restored in my product library.  

  • butterflyfishbutterflyfish Posts: 1,247

    So what does this mean going forward? Do we have to police the store now to make sure they don't retroactively change any other products? Or was this some kind of mistake?

  • LynnInDenverLynnInDenver Posts: 147

    At this point, I'm going to be adamant... we need those filters six months ago, not only in the store, but now in the Product Library, so that we can see what's safe. That I'm a hobbyist now is immaterial, because I might decide to go commercial later, and, well, at this point I'd need to double check all my library here, even if I'm still supposed to have Standard License on all of it.

    This is not helping to get my spending increased. It's only going to reduce it further.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 101,102

    butterflyfish said:

    So what does this mean going forward? Do we have to police the store now to make sure they don't retroactively change any other products? Or was this some kind of mistake?

    Daz agreed that this was not well done, that the product should simply have been pulled and the existing license details left in place (which, as noted, is what they have now done) - that is how any future such situations will be handled.

  • AstraffelAstraffel Posts: 211
    edited July 2023

    Richard Haseltine said:

    The license type that was in effect when you purchased would be the license type that applied (confirmed by Daz).

    Richard Haseltine said:

    Daz agreed that this was not well done, that the product should simply have been pulled and the existing license details left in place (which, as noted, is what they have now done) - that is how any future such situations will be handled.

    Thanks for the clarifications! As I do hope to earn a living off of my work someday, it's naturally very important for me to know that the licenses of my prior purchases are not in a fluid state.

    Post edited by Astraffel on
  • algovincianalgovincian Posts: 2,619

    Astraffel said:

    Richard Haseltine said:

    The license type that was in effect when you purchased would be the license type that applied (confirmed by Daz).

    Richard Haseltine said:

    Daz agreed that this was not well done, that the product should simply have been pulled and the existing license details left in place (which, as noted, is what they have now done) - that is how any future such situations will be handled.

    Thanks for the clarifications! As I do hope to earn a living off of my work someday, it's naturally very important for me to know that the licenses of my prior purchases are not in a fluid state.

    It may be worth noting that, IMHO, a standard license for a given asset (as opposed to an editorial license) from anyone but the copyright or IP holder still would likely not protect you from an infringement challenge should the holder choose to bring one. Just a thought:

    Nemo dat quod not habet

    If you think about it, it makes sense. As always, consult an attorney for legal advice.

    - Greg

  • doubledeviantdoubledeviant Posts: 1,158
    edited July 2023
    algovincian said:

    It may be worth noting that, IMHO, a standard license for a given asset (as opposed to an editorial license) from anyone but the copyright or IP holder still would likely not protect you from an infringement challenge should the holder choose to bring one. Just a thought:

    Nemo dat quod not habet

    If you think about it, it makes sense. As always, consult an attorney for legal advice.

    - Greg

    Yes - it is ultimately the user's burden to be sure their work does not constitute infringement. A work either infringes or doesn't - and if it does, a license from anyone other than the rights holder or a party authorized by the rights holder does not change the situation (but might be relevant in determining intent, ignorance of the infringement, damages, etc).

    What we should expect from Daz, imo:

    1.) To have PAs submitting a product to certify that to the best of their knowledge, the product is distinct enough from any inspirations so as not to constitute infringement.

    2.) To employ some number of staff to evaluate submitted products for obvious cases of infringement. This is not expected to be a perfect process due to the breadth of copyrighted material - it is enough that product acceptance is not "blind" and that auditors are broadly familiar with the bulk of major intellectual properties within the spheres in which Daz publishes (sci-fi, fantasy, etc).

    3.) To promptly notify customers of potential infringement when a cease-and-desist request is received (or when infringement is otherwise discovered).

    4.) To avoid burdening products which seem to be distinct from their inspirations with an editorial license. This is subjective, of course, as infringement is ultimately decided only by the courts, but Daz should be cognizant that similarity or inspiration alone do not constitute infringement. Stifling creativity for the sake of illusory protection from litigation is not desirable.

    Feel free to pick those points apart or - more constructively - refine them, as I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. Just someone who pays some measure of attention to copyright issues (and who wishes Daz had never implemented the editorial license).
    Post edited by doubledeviant on
  • richardandtracyrichardandtracy Posts: 5,704

    Charlie Judge said:

     

    In the Editorial Licensing Listing thread SofaCitizen said:

    Killmonger Hair and Beard for Genesis 3 and 8 from 2018 now seems to have the editorial licence applied.

    Wait what, do we now have to check the licensing in our items each time before we use them ??? I purchased that item back in 2018 long before there even was an editorial license and now my product library shows it as having an editorial license. I consider this unilateral change as highly unfair.

    Interesting, that page is now listed as 'Page Not Found'. Maybe some drastic action is being taken. To what effect I can't follow.

    Regards,

    Richard. 

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 9,943
    edited July 2023

    MegonNoel said:

    Charlie Judge said:

    Richard Haseltine said:

    The license type that was in effect when you purchased would be the license type that applied (confirmed by Daz).

    Then they need to correct it in my Product Library! 

    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. 

    Five of my ten Interactive licences reverted to Standard in my library during the store upgrade in 2020.  I did not get any email receipts for these either like I did for the rest of my licences purchased earlier, and the lack of receipts as well as the licenses reverting to Standard is most likely related (some database error).  A few products disappeared from my library too. 

    I only discovered this because I had written a library scanner for the old store which collected all data from my library.  After the store upgrade I updated it to work with the new store, and then I compared the data with those from the old store, which revealed the issues.  My receipts confirmed I owned the missing products, but I can't find any purchase documentation for the missing licenses, neither by email (I always get email receipts) or in my store receipts.  All I have is my scan results from before and after.

    I imagine I may not be the only one who have lost licences and/or products during that store upgrade, but if you don't keep any records it's hard to prove or even be aware of.

    That said, I don't think DAZ is obliged to give you "eternal" access to all your data and install files, these days many companies do this but it's more like a service they offer and not something they're legally obliged to AFAIK.  However, if they don't send you a receipt when purchasing an Interactive license and it isn't registered in their system either, you can potentially get in trouble if you use that licence commercially without being able to prove that you purchased it.

    Post edited by Taoz on
  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,247

    richardandtracy said:

    Charlie Judge said:

     

    In the Editorial Licensing Listing thread SofaCitizen said:

    Killmonger Hair and Beard for Genesis 3 and 8 from 2018 now seems to have the editorial licence applied.

    Wait what, do we now have to check the licensing in our items each time before we use them ??? I purchased that item back in 2018 long before there even was an editorial license and now my product library shows it as having an editorial license. I consider this unilateral change as highly unfair.

    Interesting, that page is now listed as 'Page Not Found'. Maybe some drastic action is being taken. To what effect I can't follow.

    Regards,

    Richard. 

    asking ChatGPT for alternative name suggestions? wink 

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 101,102

    doubledeviant said:

    algovincian said:

    It may be worth noting that, IMHO, a standard license for a given asset (as opposed to an editorial license) from anyone but the copyright or IP holder still would likely not protect you from an infringement challenge should the holder choose to bring one. Just a thought:

    Nemo dat quod not habet

    If you think about it, it makes sense. As always, consult an attorney for legal advice.

    - Greg

    Yes - it is ultimately the user's burden to be sure their work does not constitute infringement. A work either infringes or doesn't - and if it does, a license from anyone other than the rights holder or a party authorized by the rights holder does not change the situation (but might be relevant in determining intent, ignorance of the infringement, damages, etc).

    What we should expect from Daz, imo:

    1.) To have PAs submitting a product to certify that to the best of their knowledge, the product is distinct enough from any inspirations so as not to constitute infringement.

    They do require this, in  slightly different words

    2.) To employ some number of staff to evaluate submitted products for obvious cases of infringement. This is not expected to be a perfect process due to the breadth of copyrighted material - it is enough that product acceptance is not "blind" and that auditors are broadly familiar with the bulk of major intellectual properties within the spheres in which Daz publishes (sci-fi, fantasy, etc).

    They do watch for issues, but obviousdly there are a lot of potential things that could be too-close-inspiration.

    3.) To promptly notify customers of potential infringement when a cease-and-desist request is received (or when infringement is otherwise discovered).

    While that might be practical in cases of a complaint, at least if the original artist accepted it, in most cases it would be a potentially defamatory statement and not something Daz could make.

    4.) To avoid burdening products which seem to be distinct from their inspirations with an editorial license. This is subjective, of course, as infringement is ultimately decided only by the courts, but Daz should be cognizant that similarity or inspiration alone do not constitute infringement. Stifling creativity for the sake of illusory protection from litigation is not desirable.

    I'm not sure what you mean here.

    Feel free to pick those points apart or - more constructively - refine them, as I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. Just someone who pays some measure of attention to copyright issues (and who wishes Daz had never implemented the editorial license).

  • AstraffelAstraffel Posts: 211
    edited July 2023

    WendyLuvsCatz said:

    asking ChatGPT for alternative name suggestions? wink 

    Since "monger" is synonymous with "dealer", I was immediately thinking they should have called it something like "Death Dealer Hair" and definitely not used a model evoking Michael B. Jordan's likeness (There were others that didn't, yet that one was the main promo)... perhaps that's also too on-the-nose though.
     

    Post edited by Astraffel on
  • doubledeviantdoubledeviant Posts: 1,158
    Richard Haseltine said:

    4.) To avoid burdening products which seem to be distinct from their inspirations with an editorial license. This is subjective, of course, as infringement is ultimately decided only by the courts, but Daz should be cognizant that similarity or inspiration alone do not constitute infringement. Stifling creativity for the sake of illusory protection from litigation is not desirable.

    I'm not sure what you mean here.

    "Don't put the editorial license on things that don't need it."

    is the gist of what I'm trying say there.

    For example, it would be ridiculous to restrict Goddess Minerva Outfit with an editorial license - it might take some inspiration from Wonder Woman, but its design is distinct enough to avoid infringement. Entire businesses are built from "similar, but different enough".

    Another way to put it: I don't want to see every third product saddled with an editorial license out of "an abundance of caution".

    Also, to be clear, I wasn't saying that Daz is or isn't doing any of things - rather that these are the things that strike me as reasonable to expect in regards to the issue.
  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 9,478

    New item with Editorial License:

    https://www.daz3d.com/nsx-r

     

  • maikdeckermaikdecker Posts: 2,752

    Artini said:

    New item with Editorial License:

    https://www.daz3d.com/nsx-r

    Looks fantastic... too bad that a) my need for such sportscars is limited to about 0 and b) it comes with the restriction of use... I'd love to see some ordinary cars with a visible motor and a bonnet to open... wouldn't even have to be done with too many details.. and a towing truck would probably sell nicely, as I haven't managed to find one (either because me being bad at searching or there being none)...

  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 14,073
    edited September 2023

    doubledeviant said:

    Richard Haseltine said:

    4.) To avoid burdening products which seem to be distinct from their inspirations with an editorial license. This is subjective, of course, as infringement is ultimately decided only by the courts, but Daz should be cognizant that similarity or inspiration alone do not constitute infringement. Stifling creativity for the sake of illusory protection from litigation is not desirable.

    I'm not sure what you mean here.

    "Don't put the editorial license on things that don't need it."


    is the gist of what I'm trying say there.

    For example, it would be ridiculous to restrict Goddess Minerva Outfit with an editorial license - it might take some inspiration from Wonder Woman, but its design is distinct enough to avoid infringement. Entire businesses are built from "similar, but different enough".

    Another way to put it: I don't want to see every third product saddled with an editorial license out of "an abundance of caution".

    Also, to be clear, I wasn't saying that Daz is or isn't doing any of things - rather that these are the things that strike me as reasonable to expect in regards to the issue.

    That's all fine and good when you're not the one who may be the one taken to court because of it being too close or not and therefore infringing on the original. The mere expense alone will be more than what you made off of the product. None of us have the expertise to determine what is or isn't "too close" so it is not for us to judge. That is to be determined in the eyes of the artist's views on the subject.

    Post edited by frank0314 on
  • Robert FreiseRobert Freise Posts: 4,454

    They still need to be in their own section/catagory with a big red warning sign on them and not in the Daz+

  • NathNath Posts: 2,819

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

  • doubledeviantdoubledeviant Posts: 1,158
    edited September 2023
    frank0314 said:

    That's all fine and good when you're not the one who may be the one taken to court because of it being too close or not and therefore infringing on the original. The mere expense alone will be more than what you made off of the product. None of us have the expertise to determine what is or isn't "too close" so it is not for us to judge. That is to be determined in the eyes of the artist's views on the subject.

    And the editorial license will not shield you from that expense. To quote myself:

    "A work either infringes or doesn't - and if it does, a license from anyone other than the rights holder or a party authorized by the rights holder does not change the situation"

    IP rights holders pursue action against non-commercial infringement regularly, and *selling* infringing material - even under an editorial license - is certainly a step beyond "harmless" non-commercial use.

    The best protection against infringement claims is to very deliberately differentiate your work from conscious inspirations - and having done so, to be able to clearly articulate points of difference in case you are taken to court (which is not something you can do much to defend against, unfortunately). That, and complying with takedown requests, if you think your work might be too similar to defend, or if the expense of defending it would be too great.

    (Note that I don't *like* the situation that I've described - modern copyright law is a bad joke. To put it lightly.)
    Post edited by doubledeviant on
  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 9,478

    Nath said:

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    I wonder, if it is possible to use such items in fan art, but probably not.

     

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 101,102

    Artini said:

    Nath said:

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    I wonder, if it is possible to use such items in fan art, but probably not.

    Fan art would generally be covered by the terms of the editorial license - what are you seeing as a possible stumbling block?

  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,698

    Richard Haseltine said:

    Artini said:

    Nath said:

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    I wonder, if it is possible to use such items in fan art, but probably not.

    Fan art would generally be covered by the terms of the editorial license - what are you seeing as a possible stumbling block?

    Fan Art can be gray area. https://lawsoup.org/legal-guides/copyright-protecting-creative-artistic-business-work/fan-art/#:~:text=If%20the%20owner%20does%20not,the%20art%20is%20based%20on.

  • benniewoodellbenniewoodell Posts: 1,969

    Nath said:

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Glad I saw this before buying the character. Thanks for the heads up. 

  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,698

    Here is a link that pertains to Sean Connery specifically, (deceased). https://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/california

  • QuasarQuasar Posts: 638
    edited September 2023

    Astraffel said:

    // Editorial License List //

    https://www.daz3d.com/retro-apartment-props-2

    https://www.daz3d.com/cyber-racer

    https://www.daz3d.com/r35-cyberpunk

    https://www.daz3d.com/mars-spider

    https://www.daz3d.com/easy-snap-alien-base

     

    ArtAngel said:

    https://www.daz3d.com/cyberpunk-coupe-car

    doubledeviant said:

    X-Fashion Olympian Warrior Outfit for Genesis 9

    Artini said:

    https://www.daz3d.com/nsx-r

     

    Nath said:

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Just a list update. I hope I didn't miss any in the thread so far. 

    Post edited by Quasar on
  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 9,478
    edited September 2023

    Richard Haseltine said:

    Artini said:

    Nath said:

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    I wonder, if it is possible to use such items in fan art, but probably not.

    Fan art would generally be covered by the terms of the editorial license - what are you seeing as a possible stumbling block?

    I mean posting images on Daz forums.

    I guess, it it is safer, to render image in Daz Studio and then describe it in words.

    Something like image to text utility would be useful to have.

    Somebody said, that picture is worth 1000 words

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_words

    so it could lead to quite long posts in the Forum....

     

    Post edited by Artini on
  • plasma_ringplasma_ring Posts: 1,025

    doubledeviant said:

    And the editorial license will not shield you from that expense. To quote myself:

    "A work either infringes or doesn't - and if it does, a license from anyone other than the rights holder or a party authorized by the rights holder does not change the situation"

    IP rights holders pursue action against non-commercial infringement regularly, and *selling* infringing material - even under an editorial license - is certainly a step beyond "harmless" non-commercial use.

    The best protection against infringement claims is to very deliberately differentiate your work from conscious inspirations - and having done so, to be able to clearly articulate points of difference in case you are taken to court (which is not something you can do much to defend against, unfortunately). That, and complying with takedown requests, if you think your work might be too similar to defend, or if the expense of defending it would be too great.

    (Note that I don't *like* the situation that I've described - modern copyright law is a bad joke. To put it lightly.)

    Yeah, this is why I was surprised to see a company as big/visible as Daz doing this, especially since unlike Artstation or CGTrader or other broad asset marketplaces they actually review and promote the stuff they sell here as approved products. The only thing slapping "editorial license" on this stuff does is basically signal that you know what you're doing is infringement, but you don't intend to claim it as your own and compete, which makes you not worth going after legally in most cases. If they do decide to go after you legally, the first thing you will hear from their lawyer is, "Hey, it's pretty obvious that you know this is our IP. Please stop trying to profit off of it."

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 101,102

    Artini said:

    Richard Haseltine said:

    Artini said:

    Nath said:

    Editorial license on

    Unforgettable HD for Genesis 9 | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Fiber Content for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    Unforgettable Expressions for Unforgettable HD | Daz 3D

    I wonder, if it is possible to use such items in fan art, but probably not.

    Fan art would generally be covered by the terms of the editorial license - what are you seeing as a possible stumbling block?

    I mean posting images on Daz forums.

    I guess, it it is safer, to render image in Daz Studio and then describe it in words.

    Something like image to text utility would be useful to have.

    Somebody said, that picture is worth 1000 words

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_words

    so it could lead to quite long posts in the Forum....

    I'm still not following the concern - free fan art would seem to be one of the things Editorial license products would be aimed at.

  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 9,478

    So, you mean, I can post images with Editorial license here in Daz forums?

     

Sign In or Register to comment.