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 Official Answer From Daz!
To get this all in one post, here was my question to Daz.
--------------------the question
We have a discussion running on the Hexagon forum where this question came up. We wish to know if it is legal to do the following for public use.
1. Create a new mesh in Hexagon not using any of the Genesis geometry.
2. Save this to a obj.
3. Import the obj into Daz Studio.
4. Use one of the tools to fit your new mesh to Genesis, such as the transfer utility and smoothing modifier.
5. Export your mesh back out as an obj. or send to Hex.
6. Continue working on your personal mesh which now has been smoothed and fit via Daz Studio.
7. Use this mesh for public release.
When doing this, We do not see that any of the geometry from Genesis is being matched to the 'new mesh' geometry, but that the mesh is simply smoothed and perhaps moved in or out to better fit Genesis. The 'new mesh' is also not really shrinkwrapped to Genesis, as there is an offset in the smoothing.
------------------the answer
Kraig Hausmann, Sep 12 08:23 (MDT):
Hi John,
Yes, that's fine, based on what you've said. The geometry is not considered derivative. In fact, the work flow that you propose is probably similar in some regards to the work flow used by published artists. If what you proposed was illegal, then nobody but DAZ 3D and people contracted by DAZ 3D would be able to make add-ons for DAZ 3D figures. But anyone can and may sell them on sites other than DAZ 3D.
It's only a problem if the mesh is derived from a protected figure. Simply having the mesh fit to the geometry of such a figure is not a problem in and of itself. If you took the Genesis geometry and then modded it to make an outfit, that would be a violation of the terms of use.
Let me know if this issue has not been resolved or if you have other questions.
-----------------end the answer
I was figuring this would be the response during my last post. Otherwise, how could we legally use the fit functions in Daz to fit anything to a Daz figure and sell it?
So, same is true for intermediate fittings while building your mesh.
SWEET!!!!
Well tyvm Dumorian for getting this clarified. It will help a lot of people knowing what is/is not valid in their creation and fitting workflow :)
Good news indeed, thanks for getting it sorted through official channels.
I will happily except donations of 1 penny per hour saved by 3d artist due to knowing they can do this. NOT!
I'm just glad it came up in a thread as I was already thinking of doing this and just hadn't tried it yet. I never considered that it might be a problem. Software licenses have a LOT of fine print. Not really understanding where a line lies, there was always a possibility that it would have gone the other way. Nice to know I won't get into trouble for this.
All of that said and perhaps even just a bit back to the origin of this thread. The 'suit'. Yes, having a good home built suit is fantastic. I would suggest attempting to have edges that follow what would normally be places where you may want to cut your suit. If for instance we are talking about a sleeve where it attaches to the body, the sleeve will most likely by a manifold on each end, but the hole left in the body may not. So, also a good thing to try to create manifolds where you might cut off a sleeve or pant leg. For those wondering about manifolds... if you select a couple of faces and hit loop, if it is a manifold it will loop all the way around.
All of that said, I have found the above goals difficult. There are so many clothing shapes out there and this goal could drive you nuts. But, your suit is a good mesh to do basics. Long pants, shorts, some underwear styles... long and short sleeve shirts, blouses or coats/vests. I stopped worrying about the seam areas on my suit as I do use a follow mesh utility in Silo. So my suit allows me to start any new shape... for instance a set of suspenders which cross in the back... My suit has no crossing in the back... just a rectangular grid.
As some of the software out there can 'follow/wrap' a mesh. Safety says do this only over your own creation, but I'm not going to pretend I know how all of the modeling programs work. What could be a derivative work would be starting with a Genesis mesh and using something that does an auto shrink wrap or follow on your mesh, where you don't really know if it attached to any of the Genesis vertices or not. I assume vertices are the thing to worry over as copying a line or surface requires copying two or more vertices. This might be where the argument against shrink wrapping started? (Yes and now I'm rolling through the tutorials on Blender to see what different features it might have)
I continue to work on my 'suit' (yes, maybe the 10th one by now? ;) ) and have a new goal for an even better fit! Although my early test are showing that the fit utility is getting me in some cases a better mesh and in some areas maybe a bit too much offset (too loose). I'd rather work with the new (what appears to be) smoother mesh after the fitting, and use the Hex smooth tool to move it inward instead of moving individual vertices in and out by hand.
Wonderful! This will make many people very happy I should think. It's nice to be certain.
Thank you for posing the question and posting the reply.
dumorian:
Thank you for posting to DAZ officials the inquiry, so we could get an "official" response.
I finally feel vindicated for all my bitching on this subject (on the side of tools used are not the illegal issue)...
Having said that, I have both a statement, and a question for you.
*Question: As it appears you are relatively new here, how long have you actually been modeling?
*Statement: From reading your posts, I don't believe you have a grasp on what "shrinkwrap" actually does.
Shrinkwrap modifiers (whether full-auto, semi-auto, or semi-assisted by hand; i.e. "snap-to", "coincident snap", etc.) do not "attach" to the underlying "dummy" mesh whatsoever. The dummy mesh is just used for coordinate approximations in 3D space.
Real world example; Sit your azz down on a chair. You have "put-on", or "snapped" your azz to the chair, but you are in no way "welded" to the mesh (chair). Now, put some "superglue" on your azz, and sit down again. O.k., you just "welded" your azz to the mesh (chair), and are now part of the chair. You, and the underlying mesh are now one. See the difference?
Now, if you can create an entirely new azz mesh from your underlying chair mesh... Well, then... Color me impressed!
Thanks again for you inquiry, and posting the response. I am saving this for future use (if ever needed).
Very cool thread, glad I got pointed this way. The legality issue, I'm very thankful for the offical response. I asked about the same process back in July, and the overall response was that the smoothing modifier shouldn't be used in that way ( http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/4174/ ) so I dropped it from there. This new info makes a world of difference.
Btw, I didn't see it mentioned, but the problem with the obj reverting when you send it out to OBJ or, I beleive, bridge, is that the clothing isn't 'frozen' in the smoothed shape. Once Genesis is removed, it jumps back to where it was.
To solve this, in the Parameters / General section of your clothing, change Interactive Update from Off to On after smoothing. Then you can delete Genesis and export the clothing as an obj file (or ship it over a bridge, I think) . Once you're done exporting, turn Interactive Update back off again, and you're all set. Having it on will freeze the clothing item in the 'smoothed' position, and the result obj will have the smoothed/ moved surfaces you were looking for.
When I exported the 'smoothed' clothing .obj from D/S4, I simply 'hid' Genesis. Clothing stayed shaped as desired.
Hi Daremok,
In this world of 3d modeling, I am new... just 6 months. I come from the dark side... LOL.... the CAD world where everything is very precise (highly automated custom cabinet software with CAD/CAM output - precise cut sheets and such, AutocadLT and TurboCAD). Want a surface, set the exact co-ordinates of the vertices. Aside from the cabinet software which doesn't really let you get down to even the vertice level, most of the CAD packages I have worked with don't really allow manipulation of edges nor surfaces but only vertices. Yes, you can offset or move a line which amounts to being an edge or a group of lines which could be a surface, but I can't select a surface per se. So, although this world is a lot the same, it was a whole new way of thinking. Getting away from using known dimensions... feet, inches, cm, mm was really hard on my brain. So, I guess one could argue that the CAD world could be a bit more precise (the tools are for certain more constrained). A snap in the CAD world is a snap to a precise location, or as precise as math can be given we are not working in base 10 at the processor level.
Is shrink wrapping a generic term for the process or is it the name of an actual tool in some of the other modeling programs?
With your chair example, darn you take me off to where I don't want to go.... Have one of the famous adult movie stars sit in that chair and mesh that to sell as a product and I bet you are seeing a lawyer really fast. My chair? Well, I don't think it would earn you any money... although I have been told... :) That, I just couldn't pass up! Hmmm... a new use for memory foam? Unsuspecting victim sits. Gets up. Fill with plaster really fast... throw it into the 3d scanner... instant derriere mesh! Yes, my sense of humor is warped.
In this modeling world, to me, it would come down to the software used and the precision of the "shrink wrap". A subjective topic without talking about specific software. I would think that if a shrink wrap tool snapped to too many vertices or created the same number of surfaces laid out about the same as the original mesh, trouble could follow. But, that's just my opinion. I didn't pose that question to Daz. Perhaps someone should? I certainly can see your point as well.
All of this said, I suspect a lot of folks will be a bit put out with this discovery of acceptable use. Folks that worked tons of hours fitting things by hand. And of course after all that hard work there would be some resentment of a faster way (cheating maybe?). I sort of suspect that is where some of the nay saying has come from on this whole subject.
Now... I get to start experimenting! Which settings in Studio give the best results? Which if any projection templates to use? And using that interactive update 'On' switch. Thanks for that Ebahr!
Just to clarify shrinkwrap - the process, at least in Blender, is just that - it molds one surface to an underlying surface without changing the topology - only the shape to conform.
Exactly the same as the fitting to skintight process in Studio.
Here's a pic of Genesis calf with a shrinkwrapped cylinder next to it - see that the two topologies do not match
Looking at your output, it sure looks legit! Now I am really looking forward to learning more about Blender! Re-reading the response from Daz leads 'me personally' to believe that this is not an issue. It is not a derivative of the Daz figure, just something fit to it. But again, that is 'my opinion'. Maybe a question out to Daz Publishing could positively clarify doing this as well? My question to them was very specific in the use of Studio's fit process. As a noob, and most likely I'll never know the full answer as there are just too many softwares for doing this. I suppose some might attach/snap to the original figure's geometry? What you show sure doesn't look like it does.
It's confusing. If you notice, in my thread before on the smoothing mod, it seemed as if the smoothing mod method was a nono. Retopology, offset, and extraction methods make sense to be a no, since they are using the actual Genesis mesh. Shrink wrap, meshmatchers, and the such.. those keep coming up and typically lead to confusion all the way along.
Here's a recent thread about it from the Commons forum, illustrating this point:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/7363/
*Edit: I should note, in most cases Daz is very helpful in trying to make creators jobs a little easier. Just look at the Transfer Utility, and the way it can help take away the pains of trying to rig a standard object. The confusion and vagueness on what tools and process are acceptable is understandable if you think of it from the businesses point of view. Say someone wants to user a tool like QRemesher from ZBrush to make a piece of clothing, or the shrink wrap method from Blender. If Daz out and out says no, a lot of people can not distribute their items. That sucks. But what if they said yes and allowed it, legally and overall?
Most people would simply use it as a quicker way to make clothing. The concern would be that person that takes Genesis, makes a near identical clone of it in one or two clicks, brings it into Studio and uses the Transfer Utility to rig it, then puts it up for sale on another site.
Effectively, they just stole Genesis then, and can sit there and yell all night that they had permission because Daz allows whatever method they use.
So it's confusing, and sadly may stay confusing for a long time. I celebrate the response you got back, up above in this.
In your other thread, I see that Richard is an Administrator and I've seen lots of great post by him. However, there is a conflict in what is being said. I don't know Richard's position... Daz employee or not, nor what department if a Daz employee. But, my answer was directly from the Daz Publishing department which I would think is where the rights are understood and enforced.
Again, I expected this answer as a finished piece of clothing includes the use of the fitting in Studio. So, how can it not be alright? The second paragraph of Kraig's response to me, seems to indicate that not only is using the smoothing/fitting acceptable, but it sounds like if you don't simply mod the Daz figure to make clothes, you are good to go. This leads me to believe what Roygee shows above is acceptable use as well.
I'll see if I can figure out how to invite Richard to view this thread so perhaps we can get down to a single answer in the forum.
We kinda X-posted here..See my edit in the post above, too :) I believe he is (Head?) of the Daz forum team here (- I may be wrong though), and normally a really good go to person for information. I typically see him, chloe, fixmypc and rbwiz giving really good and accurate answers. (some of those names may be off..LOL. )
Richard is a fantastic resource in the forum. He has helped me a number of times. I did send him a PM 'politely' asking him to look at this thread. ;)
From the business perspective, IMO, Daz gains from more stuff for especially Genesis as well as their other characters. If we create products to be sold in the Daz store, they directly profit from that. The faster we can create it, the more they have in their store. The more items that are out there, again particularly for Genesis at this point, the more desirable it is to have Daz Studio. Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer. What happened to Netscape? I'm not saying I agree with those tactics, but if saturation makes you the leader, it is good for your business' bottom line, if you can keep a positive public perception. So, allowing modelers to be as efficient as possible follows as good for business.
Either way you cut it, this whole area to me is a gray area and there are many shades of gray. Daz may have a different opinion on how some software wraps their form. I don't know as I didn't ask that question. It sounds like someone should.
I'm not sure, reading the question, that it would have been taken as referring to shrink-wrapping. It certainly can be, and I assume that was the intent, but I'm not entirely sure that someone reading it cold would read it quite that way. Still, this obviously needs clarification as I've certainly read very clear statements that shrink-wrapping is not permitted (which is why I've been confident to reply to the question as I have in the past) and this reply can be read as saying otherwise.
I've been reminded that this is covered in the Knowledge Base:
https://helpdaz.zendesk.com/entries/123984
Let's take a practical look at this - what can you really achieve by way of using shrinkwrap etc.? Full-body skintight suits, such as Superman? Already done to death and much simpler to paint the body and sell the material. Socks and gloves? That's about it.
As for making a full-body shrinkwrap, rigging it and selling it? Firstly, there's a lot more to making a viable human model than just the shape you would get from a shrinkwrap or retopo.
There is musculature which has to conform to human musculature and correctly made mesh to get deformations to be believable. The rigging is not done simply by sticking in some bones - there is a lot of expertise involved that needs specialist training. Anyone who is skilled enough to copy a Daz figure and make it sale-able, has no need of copying anything - they would be capable enough in their own right to sell their own creations.
https://helpdaz.zendesk.com/entries/123984
To me, that is putting forward a copyright to the original mesh and prohibits it re-distribution, be it in its original form or converted or shrink wrapped.
I do not see anywhere in that where a secondary mesh cannot be shrink wrapped to the original.
DAZ would of got copyright on the original mesh, but they will not have copyright on the human form.
To stop and make illegal shrink wrapping a 2nd mesh onto a DAZ mesh for distribution[of that 2nd mesh) would need to be more specific.
IMHO of course.
I would certainly like to see that in a court-room.
One main sentence catches me, which I think is really a big point in it all- Shrink wrapping, reto, offset, all of that really just doesn't seem to be the problem itself except that they are tool that can be used to violate the first line of that Zendesk topic:
" DAZ 3D's models may not be used to create derivative 3D models which can then be distributed in competition with the original DAZ product. "
From everything I've read in various posts on this topic, with any type of process mentioned, it all seems to boil down to- It doesn't matter so much how you make a pair of pants and a tee shirt, what tools you use, or how you distribute it. What matters is if it's used in a way that can - abstractly or directly - take away from Daz's business model and circumnavigate Daz in the process (IE, creating a humanoid from Daz mesh, making a copy of Genesis to sell on TurboSquid for use in 3dsMax and Maya, using Genesis's leg polygons directly and calling them pants) . That actually seems perfectly right and responsible to me. I think it was DaremoK3 that mentioned in the Commons thread that the majority of it really comes down to ethics, and the ethical use of tools to achieve an end.
I'd call this little more than sabre rattling.
Drawing nurbs contours around an existing model to produce a new mesh destined to be fitted to the model is a perfectly reasonable starting point in my mind, and I'd be surprised if a significant percentage of clothing and accessories sold by daz vendors didn't start out that way.
I may as well be sued by a wire or plumbing manufacturer or a carpenter for making an escutcheon or molding using a contour gauge.
Bottom line is that I think most of us can tell what's "cheating" and what's not.
I'm most interested in this line and the use of 'may'.
"These types of tools/methods may include: NURBS/poly conversions, subdivision/smoothing or triangulation operations, de-resing, shrink-wrapping/fitting and randomization operations.) "
It does not say "do include", but "may include". That sort of goes back to my original thought on it could depend on the software/method used. Obviously editing a original mesh itself is out of the question. And, I can see where this is always answered as a "you can't do that" as that is the only 'safe' answer in the forums.
I'm not sure Daz will be able to provide an end all clarity to the issue... too many variables.
#111111, #222222, #333333, #444444, etc... gray gray gray.
I think you need to expand that slash - NURBS conversions/poly conversions. It's meaning tools that make a new mesh around an existing mesh, not NURBS used freehand (or just by eye around the DAZ mesh).
Of course DAZ can't copyright the human form, but they can copyright the Genesis/Victoria 4/Michael 4 form. Remember that they are already allowing things, modelling by hand around the figure to create clothes or add-ons, that they don't have to allow in law; the question is one of where they draw the line on permissions, not of their inching the line out to annex virgin territory beyond the usual scope of copyright.
The last paragraph of Richards quote is very illuminating to me - I don't know what the context was, but it seems to be pretty much information for potential PA's. Please contact DAZ before beginning work... you will not be compensated, etc. Everything sold by Daz quite rightly goes through quality control and they are warning potential sellers that there are certain things they will not accept for sale on behalf of PA's.
Getting back to selling a rip-off of Daz figures - where would the market be for such figures? Daz and Poser make the best available and they are free with the software. Makehuman is getting close, but not yet in that league and that is free. Very versatile and you can make any character you want with it and distribute it, as long as it's free. Another excellent set of figures is Project Human - also free. With all this available for free, why would anyone want to buy a rip-off?
Even doing a shrinkwrap or retopo, you need to be pretty good at modelling to make anything half-decent - with both of those methods you have to build the mesh - it doesn't just happen.
As for looking at making a quick buck out of selling mass-produced clothing using these methods - it ain't gonna happen. With so many good freebie clothes out there, you have to be really good at modelling, be creative, original and know the demand to get into any sort of market.
Sorry, but there is no quick way - you have to put in the hours and learn the craft.
How did you get that to mean making a new mesh around an existing mesh?
It states, NURBS conversions/poly conversions. The part "Conversions" means "converting the original mesh into NURBS. Such as, for example, loading the original mesh into Rhino/Tsplines and converting the mesh into a Nurbs patch surface model.
I still stand behind my views on the use of tools.
To me, it would be like City Hall telling me I couldn't use a nail-gun while building an addition onto my house, because I am using an automated process instead of nailing in all the nails by hand. Absolutely ludicrous.
Roygee said it best. Even with auto, or semi-auto processes you still have a lot of manual work to create anything good, and only a talented modeler will be able to create something great regardless of the tools used.
I also stand behind DAZ's original models, and agree with them in not allowing anyone to recreate their models for use in direct competition with them by any means (my words). I just disagree with their policy regarding legalities of tool use to create add-on products (i.e. clothes) that are not in competition with them.
Now, I do have the skills to reproduce an exact replica mesh of one of DAZ's models by hand (no perceived illegal tools used). However, I do not have the skills necessary to recreate a living digital humanoid model to be sold to the masses in all that it entails.
DAZ has nothing to worry from me in this regard.
Hell, I wouldn't even try to create a distributable human model using free/open source licensed meshes even as a freebie. Why would I waste my time reinventing the wheel? DAZ already got it right. I love DAZ human models.
All that being said, I would like to further illustrate the points I stand behind. The following pics show one can create a mesh by hand at coincident coordinates if one was so inclined, and having automated "scripted" processes that can do this does not negate it all can still be done "by eye and hand": (Please pay close attention to details highlighted)
Pic #1: Moved vertex from my Shin cloth mesh to vertex on Genesis very close by eye.
Pic #2: Moved vertex to coincident 0.0 in Z axis by hand.
Pic #3: Moved vertex to coincident 0.0 in Y axis by hand.
Pic #4: Moved vertex to coincident 0.0 in X axis by hand.
Pic #5: Genesis' shin vertex exact location in world space.
Continued in next post...
Continued...
Pic #6: My shin cloth vertex exact location in world space after moving vertex by hand/eye. (Notice how the Z axis is only off by a fraction in space; Which I will correct, also by hand)
Pic #7: Hand editing the raw .obj shin cloth file to correct Z axis fraction.
Pic #8: End result after importing corrected .obj mesh.
Pic #9, 10, 11, and 12 (11 and 12 in next post): Example using this method (by hand/eye), and "legal" tools to turn my shin cloth mesh into replica Genesis shin mesh (for illustrative purpose only!) with coincident vertices. ONLY tools used; Move X/Y/Z, Move Normal, Slide, weld, connect, and delete. No re-topo, only topo-ing...
Finished in next post...
Continued...
If one was so inclined, and wanted to waste the inordinate amount of time it would take to achieve this, one could, and I believe "proof" of work-flow would exonerate one in a court of law if need be.
Once again, it all boils down to ethics. Don't use anothers mesh (or part of) to create your work. Also, don't try to recreate anothers work in this way to be in competition of them.
But, DAZ should also lighten their stranglehold on modelers use of tools that help to create models that can work with their products, and general promotion of their great human mesh models.
Pics 11 and 12:
Hmmm.... we must have asked a difficult question. Still no answer from Daz on this. Must have gone up the ladder several rungs?
I do like the hammer vs. nail gun example. Yes, you can do just about anything with a hammer that you can do with a nail gun, but there are some things you can do with a hammer you can't do with a nail gun. Either way, a human with enough patience could get the same results in their modeling program, maybe a bit better vs. a shrink wrapper. It just takes a whole lot longer. Does it require more talent? Perhaps. But mostly it requires more time. I use my hammer for removing nails that I misfire with the nail gun. Is what I build better with a hammer vs. a nail gun? Well, years of custom cabinet building says there is no real difference, except the end product ultimately cost the client less money.
I'm still hoping to get at least a more definitive answer here.