Dream Submission Guidelines Question (original thread locked)

If you alter and upload another's author's image as a dream

you must show a link to the original image and also a link giving

you the permission to alter and re upload that image as a dream

in your description.

i.e. public domain , creative commons Lic.

If the image is all your own work then you must state that in your

dream description.

If you have that then you can show a link to the video of your animation

in your dream description

i.e. one of my dream descriptions Link: https://www.wincustomize.com/explore/dream/8192/

AzDude

Anyone correct me if I'm incorrect but if you're using someone else's original work to create your own work that giving credit is not sufficient. You would need that persons permission and that permission would be included with your submission. I'm not sure how that inclusion works but that is the way that I understand the issue.

If you are using work that you did not create you either need permission or a link showing that the image can be used.

Well thank you for the clarification.  I suppose that means that a lot of my work will be kept to myself.

 edit: it does leave me wondering about how stringent it can be.

I have a statue I purchased.  I can take a photograph of it.  I hold the rights to the photo I took.  I could also use 123catch3d to create a 3 model with 60-70 photo's that I take of it.  I would hold the rights to all the photo's since I took them and possibly the 3d model (have to research more on that).  The subject in the photo's is someone else's work.  How would this be  viewed?

Best thing to do is first look at the comments, if any, posted with an image. There is usually a Terms Of Use (TOS) associated with it. As for the statue, someone else more in the know, should comment.

Yeah I'm good on  2d images of others, but if I take 60 pictures of my car, and use a program to convert it into a 3d model, do I need permission from Ford for example to use that model in dreams?

For photography in general the copyright owner is usually the photographer.  If I take a photo of Kim K. its my photo I own that photo image. 

However, I cannot take an image from some publication and re-use it in "my artwork".  At least, not without permission.

I have another question.

I have a number of models from the Daz website.  I'm not sure how I can provide a link to my account page and purchased content without providing my user name and p/w for logging in (which obviously isn't going to happen)

I  could provide a screenshot  of my DAZ account/content section, is it possible for me to upload that upon submission?  Or is there another means that you would prefer proof of purchase so to speak?

It would seem that your questions have been appropriately answered. 

1) if it is your own work (photograph, DAZ image, psd image, etc.) say so.

2) someone else's work, but stated by the author to be used freely, provide the link.

3) some else's work that has given you permission to use, provide the permission or a link to the permission.

If the moderators reject it anyway hopefully they'll tell you why.

Oh, and remember that any work submitted can be rejected if it does not meet the quality standards of Wincustomize.

There's no need to be rude.

 Making a presumption about the potential quality of my work and feeling the need to remind me that substandard work could be rejected instead of presuming that my work would exceed the standards and not require you remind me of such a requirement only tells me that you have already put yourself on a high horse and look down on me and my work with out having seen any of it. If I could vote you for negative karma I would.

Yes I like to get all my ducks in a row.  I don't like spending hours (sometimes 100's) working on something only to hit a brick wall that was only revealed after the fact.

I presume that this section as found at: https://www.daz3d.com/eula is all I would need to include then?

Terms of Use. Two Dimensional Works. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, User may (i) access, use, copy and modify the Content in the creation and presentation of two-dimensional animations and renderings, (ii) incorporate two dimensional images (including two dimensional images that simulate motion of three dimensional objects) derived by User from the Content in User’s other works, and (iii) publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense User’s two-dimensional animations, renderings and other works; provided that User may not in any case publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any renderings, animations, software applications, data or any other product from which any Content, or any part thereof, or any substantially similar version of the Content can be separately exported, extracted or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or format.

Rude? you should refer to your post for rudeness and presumptuousness.

My attempt to be succinct and cover the bases seems to have pricked your thin skin.

No, I don't look down on you. I don't have dreams ergo the quality of your dreams would have to be evaluated by those that do. 

I was only attempting to help, it would appear that, unfortunately, you've decided to take it the wrong way.

By all means please elaborate

I find it hard to believe that since my initial post two days ago, which clearly advises that I read the original submissions thread, you truly believe that in that two days I have completely forgotten about the quality standards required as mentioned in that thread. Do you think I'm some sort of imbecile who can't remember something he has read just two days prior? What was it that made you think I did not know this only two days later and in the essence of being helpful needed reminding?

Being a member since 2003 sorta of made me question this statement.  Looking at your profile, Alpha Black and Alpha Beta are dreams authored by yourself.  Rather than call you a liar, I'll accept you saving face and simply implying it was a long time ago and forgot about them.

I don't doubt this.  A person who views themselves as superior to others often feels the need for self gratification through helping those who they view are not an equal, thus by reinforcing to themselves that they are superior. As a side benefit, they sometimes even get praises from the person they try to help and even others simply witnessing the help which provides further gratification and reinforcement of their superiority.

And yes I take offense to that.

You very well may not have consciously intended it to come across that way, but that's what I got. Hopefully it won't come across that way in the future if we ever have more interaction.

With regard to these models it would depend on the license you were given with the purchase.  You should link or include a copy of that license.

Would you expand on this. I'm a little confused (as usual) but what is the difference between creating an image with DAZ and creating one with Photoshop. They would both be images that one created, regardless of the program. Thanks.

The Eula for Daz studio covers all purchased content. The portion I pasted pertains to  2D images, and basically means if I create a 2D image, animation, or a 2d image/animation that looks like it's 3d, it is mine to do so as please, share, copy, sell etc, so long as the orginal content that I bought and used to make the image/animation, can not be extracted or are not distrubuted from/with my image/animation.  This distinction of 2d vs 3d works of art in eula is present, as 3d printers have their own section. It should be all I need, unless you also want information pertaining to what models I used that came from daz, and post the same link to the same eula each time.  This is why I asked this question because it is much easier to track these things from point of creation than to try and go through after and find it all.

Daz specifically grants license as mentioned above.  Most sites that you can get 2d content such as textures or images of paintings/ditigal (if they are the original creator or the owner of property rights have some such section on their site that reads like:

5.4 It is also forbidden to modify, copy, reuse, exploit, reproduce, publicly communicate, make second or subsequent publications, upload files, mail, transmit, use, process or distribute in any way all or part of the contents contained in the Site Web for public or commercial purposes, unless with the express written LABERINTO GRIS or, if the holder of the corresponding rights.

At least this is how I understand the difference.

DAZ sells completed artwork.  So that is subject to a license gmc2.

The salient point.

Purchased product is typically for personal use.

Altering same and reuploading in another form is not 'personal use'' it is 'public communication' [redistribution] which is very often not covered by inherent copyright release on said purchase.

If you require specific clarification you can PM myself for a response.

Re earlier comments here by others...you asked a question and correct answers were given.

Nothing within them was 'rude', simply full explanation.

All that said, Wincustomize.com reserves the right to determine what will or will not be accepted here for display/distribution.

Copyright Law can and is open to interpretation, particularly with such dispensations as 'fair use',[that which covers the example of a photo of another's statue], however only Stardock's 'interpretation' is relevant on Stardock's sites...;)

You do realize that the example of 'publicly communicate' came from a site other than DAZ and was simply an example of an EULA/TOU that is very common on the internet about this subject?  If you read it carefully you could probably pick out the name in it and google search to see where I got it from if you doubt my honesty.

If a person perceives another persons words directed at themselves as eluding to their inferiority thus by communicating the other persons superiority, how would you characterize that?  In the spur of the  moment, rude seemed a fitting description. I suppose a slightly more accurate description might be condescending and belittling 

I'm sure you have been trained in sexual harassment and racial discrimination in the workplace.  It is as much the same concept.  It's not what you say, or what you meant, it is how the other person perceives what you said.  If you tell a slightly off color joke, you may not intend it to be racially discriminating, but if a person perceives it as such, your at fault.

Quoting Jafo, reply 17

All that said, Wincustomize.com reserves the right to determine what will or will not be accepted here for display/distribution.

Copyright Law can and is open to interpretation, particularly with such dispensations as 'fair use',[that which covers the example of a photo of another's statue], however only Stardock's 'interpretation' is relevant on Stardock's sites...

End of Jafo's quote

All that said, it would be very disappointing to spend hundreds of hours working on a project. Have all the correct rights/licenses of use, redistribution, and sale, meet all guidlines as outlined in the previous thread as well as this one, only to have it rejected because in Stardock's 'interpretation' of those licenses/rights, don't meet Stardock's 'interpretation' of what license/rights are.

The word 'interpretation' can mean anything.  you could turn around and give the reason for rejection as 'those licenses must specifically state your name, address, and duration of license in seconds.  It sounds rediculous but that could be your 'interpretation'.

I'm asking you to provide your 'interpretation' upfront, so that I can meet it's requirements at time of submission, not chase after it each time a little more is clarified with each rejection as to exactly what your 'interpretation' of a license/rights are.

"..however only Stardock's 'interpretation' is relevant on Stardock's sites."  This could also mean, only those submissions from people who are good friends with someone doing the judging are deemed to meet your interpretation."  I don't like chasing after the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Anyone who tries to tell me 'in our interpretation' there  is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow go try and get it" makes me questions the validity and reality of actually achieving what it is they say I can achieve, so long as it meets 'their interpretation of reality'

You are turning this simple issue into a drama of semantics.

Firstly, a level of promotion is required [Master] on Wincustomize to entitle you to sell uploaded content, so in your case that issue is moot.

Members submit works for Stardock to host on their servers freely, not for recompense.

Pretty well every response here has outlined submission requirements for Wincustomize, as the respondents themselves do so similarly - submit content.

Again, nothing in the original reply to your query - to which you took offence was anything more than clear and precise explanation.

If a submission, even yours IS NOT to an acceptable standard [as determined by the site moderators] then it WILL be rejected, and a response email sent outlining where/why  it has failed.

THAT IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES can be inferred to as 'your work is rubbish' and thus an insult.

If you feel your submission/s MAY not be successfully accepted due to questionable copyright/consent then simply do not upload it.

If you feel you may waste 100's of hours doing something only to be rejected .... same answer.

If the content is not yours - demonstrate the TOU of the source material - conditions of copyright.

If an acceptable link to such is not provided the submission will be rejected.

Stardock's CEO has formally limited YouTube -type 'extracts' of video for Dreams to 15 seconds - no more, as 'fair use'.

If the movie content is your own it can be as long as it likes...provided the file size is manageable.

Which is what I am trying to  confirm before hand.

Is this:

..an acceptable TOU/EULA for proof of rights to modify, use, distribute etc?

This exact question was 9 replies ago.  No one has answered that it is, or that it is not acceptable.  They just beat around the bush and say it has to be acceptable, but don't communicate whether the above EULA/TOS is indeed acceptable 'in Stardock's opinion'.

2nd edit:  Based on the information I received prior to post 10, I was able to eliminate content I am not able to use based on the EULA TOU I found for it. Hence the example of a TOS/EULA I provided that clearly stated no, not allowed.  I have a terrabyte of content at least.  I have 7.2 terrabytes of storage in total (though not all used, and not all content).  It  is much easier to eliminate what I can't use, and design my own from the start, rather than completing a project and finding out I can't use any of DAZ content because in 'Stardocks' opinion it is not acceptable, even though it is acceptable in DAZ's, after the fact.

You are so annoying in so many perspectives. Simply attached/linked/stated the ones that weren't your creations is that hard to understand?? 

Quoting Gaspershooters, reply 21

You are so annoying in so many perspectives. Simply attached/linked/stated the ones that weren't your creations is that hard to understand?? 

End of Gaspershooters's quote

Again, a response that fails to answer the question asked.  Is that EULA/TOU an acceptable EULA/TOU in Stardocks opinion?

The EULA and its linking/inclusion is what is REQUIRED to be included WITH the submission.

THAT is the TOU that you are required to abide by on THIS SITE.

THEIR EULA grants the permission...our TOU allows us to accept that permission.

Most times the issue with 'interpretation' of an EULA is that some people do not understand the legalese and only ASSUME permission is given for their specific usage, which is often NOT the case.

This I knew from reading the previous thread.

This I also knew from reading the previous thread.

This is what I required clarification of.  Thank you.

I can agree with that. I'm not one of those people.

Again, thank you.

At last.....my work is done....:)

Glad we're all sorted...;)