DAZ Base Models for Modeling Purposes

Write Idea

Hey all!

So I wasn't sure what to look up for this question, so apologizes if this question is buried somewhere within the forum.

Question: What is DAZ Studio's policy on using base models (the ones you get for free with DAZ Studio: Genesis, 2, 3, 8) for modeling clothing?  I was able to find one topic on the forum that vaguely answered my question (https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/113401/can-i-use-your-models-as-inspiration-or-base-to-build-my-own-models), but it was still a little fuzzy and three years old.  Policies change, etc.

Hypothetical Scenario: I want to create a mask for Genesis 3 Male.  I load the base figure, then highlight the selected polygons I need to start.  I create a separate object of those selected polygons and export it into ZBrush.  I jazz it up.  Giving it fins, bat ears, a kitchen sink!  The whole shebang!  I import it back into DAZ Studio--a vague copy of the original one.  I conform it to Genesis 3 Male and do everything needed to get it sellable.  I post it on DAZ3D or Renderosity.  The only thing I used was Genesis 3 Male base figure to create my mask.  Is that violating some sort of copyright law or company policy?

In the other post I found it said you can use the base models as a mannequin.  Is the base figure just supposed to be something used to drape clothing on or can it be "salvaged for parts" so to speak?  And I'm just speaking of the base figure....nothing you purchase (I.E. the Michaels, Victorias, morphs, poses, etc).

Thank you for the help and feedback!

Leana

You’re not allowed to use part of the figure’s mesh in your item if you intend to distribute it, as the EULA forbids redistribution of the content as well as parts or derivatives of it.

Matt_Castle

Write Idea said:

And I'm just speaking of the base figure....nothing you purchase (I.E. the Michaels, Victorias, morphs, poses, etc).

Even though the various Genesis base figures are made available at no cost, monetarily free does not mean copyright free (in the same way as paying for the rights to use something does not automatically grant you carte blanche... even if a lot of people on the internet would like to think both). They are still bound by the same standard usage rights as anything else under the Daz EULA.

To phrase it as you did, you may drape clothing, but you may not salvage parts.

There are very minor exceptions, such as geografts being permitted to use a ring of vertices/edges as their grafting point (as them exactly copying the geometry of that edge is a necessity for the parts to actually weld together correctly), but if you want to create clothing, you must start from original geometry (even if that geometry is shaped to fit the figures in question).

Write Idea

Matt_Castle said:

Write Idea said:

And I'm just speaking of the base figure....nothing you purchase (I.E. the Michaels, Victorias, morphs, poses, etc).

Even though the various Genesis base figures are made available at no cost, monetarily free does not mean copyright free (in the same way as paying for the rights to use something does not automatically grant you carte blanche... even if a lot of people on the internet would like to think both). They are still bound by the same standard usage rights as anything else under the Daz EULA.

This does clear things up.  Thank you.

There are very minor exceptions, such as geografts being permitted to use a ring of vertices/edges as their grafting point (as them exactly copying the geometry of that edge is a necessity for the parts to actually weld together correctly), but if you want to create clothing, you must start from original geometry (even if that geometry is shaped to fit the figures in question).

 

Interesting.  So if it's beyond very small edges and vertices, it's violating the EULA?  I did notice two products sold on DAZ (that are DAZ Originals, but created by Published Artists) that had about 60-80% of the same geometry as their base figure.  When doing a side by side comparison, it had the exact same geometry.  If it is a DAZ Original would it be acceptable?  Because I can see the company being ok with it since they are receiving a portion of the profits as opposed to a third party company.

Matt_Castle

I think strictly Daz can object to geografts, but as long as something is using the absolute bare minimum of Daz's IP to establish compatibility*,  then they generally choose to treat it as acceptable. Ultimately, other sites producing add-ons for Daz's products does drive sales here at the Daz store.

*Strictly, even making clothing for a Genesis 8 figure is a derivative work, as it requires using the shape of the figure as a reference but, again, the fact that clothing has to be the right shape for its figure falls into the realm of that bare minimum use of Daz's IP.

As far as "Daz Originals", those are a mixed bunch. Sometimes it's Daz buying up the rights to an artist's work (a trade-off between immediate and long-term return for the artist), other times it's specifically Daz having commissioned the artist for the work. Without knowing specifically what you're referring to, then it's a very wild guess, but I would suspect that there was likely some agreement involved. (Not that I'm likely to know for sure even if I did know the specific items).

joseft

Would it be acceptable to start the workflow as the OP has described, except once the figure geometry has been extracted to get the basic shape/outline of the intended new object/item, you do some form of retopologise to keep the intended shape, but completely change the structure of the geometry?

Write Idea

As far as "Daz Originals", those are a mixed bunch. Sometimes it's Daz buying up the rights to an artist's work (a trade-off between immediate and long-term return for the artist), other times it's specifically Daz having commissioned the artist for the work. Without knowing specifically what you're referring to, then it's a very wild guess, but I would suspect that there was likely some agreement involved. (Not that I'm likely to know for sure even if I did know the specific items).

I didn't mention the products/artists, cos I didn't want to imply, "Well their doing it", because it's childish and unprofessional of me. That and I don't know the extent of their agreement with the company.  My best guess would be to email the company, express my interest in becoming a PA, and explain to them what is used in the product and what isn't.  See if I can sell it on their website exclusively or not.

However, thank you @Matt_Castle and @Leana for all the feedback!  I appreciate it!

Happy Rendering!

Matt_Castle

joseft said:

Would it be acceptable to start the workflow as the OP has described, except once the figure geometry has been extracted to get the basic shape/outline of the intended new object/item, you do some form of retopologise to keep the intended shape, but completely change the structure of the geometry?

I'd err on the side of recommending against it. While it would be hard for anyone to prove that's what you'd done, hiding that you borrowed the mesh data in your project isn't the same as not having borrowed it at all.

Also, it's not necessarily going to give you the most optimal mesh. Things like dForce are very powerful tools, but can be really picky about the mesh geometry when looking for the best results; I would personally say it's better to create efficient geometry from scratch that is then adjusted as necessary to the shape, rather than starting with the shape and then trying to redo all its geometry.

FSMCDesigns

joseft said:

Would it be acceptable to start the workflow as the OP has described, except once the figure geometry has been extracted to get the basic shape/outline of the intended new object/item, you do some form of retopologise to keep the intended shape, but completely change the structure of the geometry?

Nope, retopology or shrinkwrapping, both big no nos from another earlier thread I saw

Write Idea

I've seen the term before, but what is shrink wrapping?

Richard Haseltine

Write Idea said:

I've seen the term before, but what is shrink wrapping?

Shrink-wrapping is taking a nwe mesh and in soem way projecting the original model's shape into it - like shrink-wrap packaging where a sheet of plastic is treated so it shrinks in and conforms to the product within.

Selek

So just so I understand: I can't import the Genesis 8 figure into ZBrush in order to sculpt clothes or hair that fit the Genesis 8 mesh?  

Matt_Castle

Selek said:

So just so I understand: I can't import the Genesis 8 figure into ZBrush in order to sculpt clothes or hair that fit the Genesis 8 mesh?  

As you've phrased that slightly ambiguously, I'll answer specifically.

You cannot sculpt the Genesis 8 figure in order to create clothing/hair for distribution. Sculpting the figure itself would only be acceptable for the purpose of creating a figure morph. (Which would then have to be distributed in Daz morph format, which cannot be reverse engineered to get the original geometry).

However, it would be acceptable to import the shape as a reference (obviously, to create clothing that fits G8, you have to know what shape it is), or to sculpt clothing/hair for personal use only, given that Daz's EULA specifically permits the modification of assets in the pursuit of creating your own artwork.

Phoenix1966

Selek said:

So just so I understand: I can't import the Genesis 8 figure into ZBrush in order to sculpt clothes or hair that fit the Genesis 8 mesh?  

You can, but only to use it like a tailor would a mannequin.

You can read more about the process of how to model an item that is designed to fit a triax figure (i.e. Genesis) in the Daz Documentation Center here.