Violation of my rights

Quote
If this person is not a FF member, can FF explains me why this happens ? And who is Piotr S... ?

You can ask him yourself. If you follow the "Buy Piotr A Coffee" link, you'll see an email address associated with the PayPal account he's hoping people contribute to.

Also, I would definitely suggest you contact the administrators of the site and let them know that Piotr is passing off other's copyrighted work as his own.

Public Domain Pictures Contact Us Form

[Warning: long reading ahead]
We kinda had quite a tremendous amount of discussion about "direct-sales" of results fr om filters. You can read them... well all throughout FilterForge if you'd like to dig up stuff from 2008! But in simple terms: the images derived from a filter by a 3rd party is basically their image to use and modify whether that'd be commercial or non-commercial, while the filter remains under your right to own and modify.

I've read through some of your descriptions and they don't state CC explicitly meaning these filters are probably under normal copyright governed by what you agreed on when you uploaded filters to the library. I also don't think CC can be applied to the filters provided this is a special case wh ere the library has to be maintained with a single license otherwise it'd be very uncomfortable for those who host your filter. It can also be interpreted that even with CC rights on a filter, it's the filter that's being protected, but not the output of the filter. (This otherwise creates another conflict with rights of 3rd party users who are using it for "legitimate" reasons.) (Please do also note I may be saying very faulty things here! I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. I'm deducing mostly from my past experiences with CC and legal reading.)

Personal Opinions and Thoughts on This Matter:
I do understand your feelings as the same artist/author of filters and otherwise. However, it should be noted... in the general public eye who don't really care about rights and otherwise... everything's "up for grabs." This is assumed behavior, but nonetheless it has happened and it will happen anyway without us artists knowing about it and it easily becomes a cat and mouse game of hunting images down which is detrimental to the time and resources.

In my philosophy, I typically decide early on that "this filter" will be a public filter for everybody to use and enjoy. I basically just prepare the filter to be made for public usage, enjoyment, as well as for educational experiences. This goes for all 60 filters. I also release more image-based filters because of issues like you've had. Image based filters require user image input. That kinda adds a bit of flavor from somebody else which I want to see. I basically work with legal terms.

Summary:
I don't mean to leave you with aggravating feelings and I certainly hope I haven't left you feeling upset, I really don't intend on causing stirs.

I really don't like people who just blatantly upload renders. It sucks seeing them really, especially for profit. I'm pretty much on your side, but we can't dismiss what the library has to entail legally. As authors, we do have to remind ourselves how the public interprets "usage" and "rights" as well as discussions like these. I do hope blatant stock-image renders stop, but it is also the reality that it can't be stopped entirely provided the current conditions. In some ways, we might have to work with the way people behave.

I hope this clarifies something about intellectual property in general. It's very complicated and I myself have a lot to understand from it.

If there's anything wrong with any of the statements above factually, let the discussions correct or clarify that.

Well there is a post made by jffe in one of those "copyrights" threads about posting in a guerrilla fashion....Just render some of the results from your filter (the same filter) and post them on that site but with links back to your filter and FF..

He has some of my flower frames up there too, but I also understood when I submitted my filters here that I pretty much gave up any claim to them. It is nice if someone gives credit to the filter builder, but very few people do it. It is sad, but it is the way this whole thing works. I decided when I first started submitting filters that I had to let them go. Ones I didn't want to share I never submitted.

deleted

And is even worse, that they tell that this is THEIR OWN WORK and they have worked hard to make them or lie about how they made it

For example you can see here this product for sale that clearly is also a violation of rights to the Volcanic Ash by Elentor

And for me what is even more worse is that, not only they do not give any credit to the author or the source of the textures, they also LIE much in how they have done it !!

Quote
On the link given above you can read With several years in the commercial game texture industry, many of our texture collections are made from photographs from our own stock site and edited in Photoshop. Original photographs taken with a professional SLR digital camera and hand edited in Photoshop CS4. Lots of time and attention was spent on the seamless detailing

How they can lie in this way? So they really went to a real volcano during an eruption and risked their lives to be able to make photos with a professional SLR to get this images???? AND they spent lots of time making the seamless tiling ??? When all this is not true at all and all they have done really is sit in the computer with filter forge and use the Volcano Ash filter choose some preset or modify settings and click on the seamless tiling checkbox and that is all they have worked for it.

I have sent an email twice to the company and have not had any answer yet

------------------------------

And this is not the only one, I also found in another place someone that was selling also some renders of this same volcanish ash filter and he was saying that he was very proud of what he had made, and then I commented that he DID NOT make them and it was not his original work, and then he got angry with me and said that I was lying and I wanted to go against him and more bad things, when I knew for sure that this textures have been done with FF as one of the them was the first preset of the filter.

Now I have seen that this is not available anymore, so I can´t show it.

Quote
I have sent an email twice to the company and have not had any answer yet

SpaceRay, I don't mean to pick on you but what did you send?

Quote
I think is very bad that FF Inc. allows to sell the results of filters and that people may have profits fr om the work of others without doing nothing else than render the result, and the author that have spent works on learning FF and making the filter does not get nothing.

What's FilterForge got to do with this? It's not their fault at all. FilterForge makes the software and in legal views rendering and selling is a perfectly valid usage of the software. It's not under the company's jurisdiction to govern what comes out of the program. The "program" is what is being "used" here not the "work of art" by user. You paid for the rights to use the software, not the rights to use somebody else's filter. So is the company going to write "no selling of direct renders on stock websites" or something along the lines? No way that's happening. There are too many vague terms. And I've never seen a software company do that ever. That's just wrong.

This issue is an ethical and moral issue and while it can be solved by law, there's little law can do for you since there are so many gray zones. At the point we're posting any form of creative idea online, as authors we're very susceptible to people just taking our work regardless of how we protect our intellectual property. Even watermarks are ignored in some cases.

Once again, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm saying this out of my experiences and I don't provide legal advice. All I say is what I understand.

Addendum: Oh oh and also as a extra note... SpaceRay, you have a lot of idealism going on!

Quote
As I explain below I think is bad that ANY output from ANY filter will be owned by the person that will render the result and the author will not have any right over it and is only up to the person to give credit for it.

On legal grounds, it can be very itchy. I can tell you as an author to credit me in every single picture as a "contributor". I can even go as far to say "I don't like the way you credited me, remove all the pictures, I'm also making you pay for the damages you've caused on my reputation." Yes yes... extreme extreme but it seems troubling to me that somebody should own the output of what's available publicly to be used. It's like Adobe asking you to slap down "Powered by Adobe" on every image you make out of Photoshop. Sure, the stakes are different... Adobe is paid and we aren't, but I think you can see the absurdity of what can happen with it.

Closing notes:
So you know... there are a ton of ways of dealing with the situation. It's a very gray zone discussion... and sometimes the legal documentation actually doesn't help us. What approach you want to take to solve the issue is your choice.

In the end people should think about putting stuff for the public to enjoy. You can't expect everybody to be a good citizen and there are consequences for putting your work in public. You have to think things through especially with things like filters wh ere you're giving "attribute" to change and to be outputted as a "result". I've personally removed chunks of features from filters so I can have something for myself that's different from what other people may make! But again, there are lots of ways of thinking things through.

Sorry folks... it's a lot of writing I've done. I hate long forum posts myself and I've done it yet again. I've had experiences like this and I thought I'd just share my understanding of the situation. Thanks. Hope this doesn't bother anybody.

Spaceray here is a link to one of the images from this guy. I see he did add that it is rendered in a paid FF 3 program, but he didn't add it to his other renders. Click on his name and you can see all his images.

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/v...-spirogram

And this one

I forget this one

Ghislaine, before we jump to conclusions I want to point out that these image resolutions he's posting are higher than that of what's presented on the FilterForge filter page. The filter pages have previews at 600x600. However the posts are 2000x2000px or 3000x3000px and higher. Suggests the man in question here is rendering the output himself. (Madar said it already)

Quote
And why do not watermark our FF default and our others 7 variations on the filter's library to protect our work?

Remember: FilterForge is a piece of software. The creators of the program don't govern your creations and output. They govern the software. As much as I understand your feelings, they don't have the power to enforce restrictive measures on what you submit on your behalf. And even if they should, it'll only encourage people to download and render presets at a higher resolution.

I hope I'm understanding you correctly here.

I understand you're going through a lot of disagreeable stuff here, but we must stay with the facts and evidence. There are proper ways of solving the situation and it doesn't come easy.

Ghislaine... I'm so sorry... I just don't mean to be the guy here who keeps giving the bad news... I really don't like to be the person who disappoints you (and anybody else) but even with dedicated software, enlarging a 600x600 image won't result in something as high resolution as this: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/v...am&large=1

In my professional carrier as an technical artist, I don't think this was enlarged at all.

Also, this man also writes in his description: "Beautiful simple wire spirogram created using paid Filter Forge 3" I don't think he's lying....

Gigi I know you are upset about this whole thing, but as Skybase said you can not enlarge a small jpg image and make it look like the one on his site. He has a FF program and just was to lazy or unimaginative to know how to make it his own. He also is giving his images away so he isn't making any money from them. I hope you continue to share your filters because you make some very unique and beautiful things, but if this issue really bothers you so much, then maybe you need to keep your filter private. I hope you continue to stay as I will miss you on here very much.

<CEO hat on>

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so my text below can't be considered qualified legal advice.

Quote
I'm asking to Filterforge if he knows a person called Piotr Siedlecki?

No, he is not affiliated with Filter Forge, Inc. in any way.

Quote
Few of my creations are on this website without my permission. My work is Under CreativeCummonsCanada and the licence for all my images do not give the right to others to put my stuff under public domain. This guy mentioned above that my images are by him. It is a violation of my rights.

According to our Terms of Use, "You retain all of your ownership rights, including but not limited to Copyright, in your User Submissions." "You" means Ghislaine. Further in the TOS, you give us (but not Piotr) some additional rights that are necessary for us for displaying user submissions on the site etc. Also, the Upload License Agreement (shown in Submit Wizard) explicitly mentions that you retain the copyright to your filters.

IMO, the best course of action would be to contact http://publicdomainpictures.net and ask to remove these pictures.

<CEO hat off>

Thanks Vlad ! This is now clear for me and also for everyone here.

I will contact this person today for what you said. Plus, I will give to him this page link, so he will see by himself what is going on.

Mardar, you can do the same for the pictures that Piort took to you without permission.

Now I can see the light in this tunnel LOL

I think that I'm feeling much better since you came here to write this Vlad. Thanks again. We has needed your kind intervention.

I wrote to the administrator of publicdomainpictures.net. I invited him to come here to read this thread, my filters link page and also my website link.

Before, I saw all pictures of Piotr S... and I have recognized a lot of your work overthere guys ! He has put 16 images from my work. Now I know how he proceed : he changes color or our images, the size, etc...

I do not know if this administrator will reply or will delete my images. I will let you know anyway.

The subject is closed. The admin of publicdomain..., a kind gentleman, has removed all my images.

Gigi glad you got this settled.

SpaceRay said

Quote
I think is very bad that FF Inc. allows to sell the results of filters and that people may have profits fr om the work of others without doing nothing else than render the result, and the author that have spent works on learning FF and making the filter does not get nothing.

DUH!!! That is the whole point. I download a filter, I render a new image, it is mine to do with as I please. How hard is that to understand? Gigi was upset because her PRESETS were being offered. We all can make a profit off any of the renders we make in any of the filters in the library, as long as we don't just use the presets which are part of the original filter and belong to the filter author. Understand? Sheesh I'm in a grumpy mood today.

I'm sorry to see Ghislaine stop posting filters... they are a great asset to the Filter Forge Library and all quite beautiful.

Before I write anything else, I want to point out what I am musing about is not directly about Ghislaine's situation and only in regards to my personal experience/feelings...
Like Skybase I have mixed feelings about the creativity game... For many years I've been making things both as physical prototypes and as virtual 3D models (3D stuff being more recent) and I have seen amazing feats of audacity in regards to individuals having their ideals and work stolen and those who take credit for the work of others... I hate thieves and those talentless trolls who plagiarize the work of others... In a couple of cases where I've noticed others plagiarizing someone's work I've gone out of my way to alert the actual artist/creator of the theft and see that the stolen items removed fr om the sites.
It just plain bothers me.

That having been said, I often find it quite confusing in situations like these as to what the usage rights are for... lacking at the moment a better term then "software that that generates an image or model, based on different adjustable settings and dials"...
When I first came across Filter Forge my assumption was the filters were donated to the library
1- by the FF staff/creators
2- by the community to share.
3- by people hoping to earn points...
sort of a win-win situation...
1- new filters by the staff/FF creators, helps sell the software...
2- Community shared filters is people sharing what they have learned and made, thus promoting a "give back" or "pass it on" environment...
3- uploading filters in hopes of rewards is fine too... you do so for a reward...
FF seemed just like Photoshop... a tool you buy and use to make stuff... but within the first week of owning Filter Forge I came across a thread wh ere someone was mad that their filter had been used without their permission or crediting them... some responding to the thread agreed and some did not really...
But to me it was quite confusing and worrisome... I still have yet to use Filter Forge to produce anything that I have earned any money from- it is used to create textures for my free models at ShareCG... But... What was a filter doing there if its not meant to be used?
This created an issue for me, one that I'm still not clear on and thus I don't use any Filter Forge Filter unless I've 1- used the dials to change it from the presets and 2- Altered it by at least 30-70% in Photoshop as postwork (not by the FF-PS bridge) or
3 Know for sure the creator says USE IT AS YOU LIKE (and even then I never use the preset and still add postwork 90% of the time).
Being that is the case, there are bunch of filters I won't use because I'm not sure of the creators intentions...
Now I understand that for some, all they want is for you to alter it from the preset... But HOW? To what degree or by what percent? With some filters, the preset is the only really usable variant... so I avoid those.

A few months ago I uploaded some filters... ones which I made for something I was working on... I made the filters because I could not find something like it in the library... close, but not the same... I based them on parts of other filters... and hopefully I gave sufficient credit to those whose parts I used... But once again, not long after I uploaded them I came across another discussion about filter creation using parts of other filters... which made me wonder if what I did was okay... Am I being lazy because I did not study the mechanics behind Filter Forge and just busted out a amateur filter and passed it on or am I doing a good thing and passing on something I needed and which someone else might be able to use and by some small degree adding an asset to Filter Forge?
I felt there was nothing like it for those end results, so if someone else needed what I did, this might help... Is that good or selfish?
I have around 20 filters I've made which might be useful but probably will never upload because, even though I've independently come to more or less the same end result... some people might think its their filter... even though I came across their filter long after I made my own AND it is intended to produce a different result...

I've created a bunch of 3D models that I posted to ShareCG, free for commercial use... they are not based on anything other than my own imagination, I made them entirely by myself quite a few have textures that are either entirely hand made or based on my own photo textures and they all usually have many hours invested in them... what would I do if found one of my models somewhere else and someone claiming it was theirs?
Be pissed off as all hell and go after them as best I could.
Would I remove my models from ShareCG?
No.
Why?
Because somewhere some kid who is just discovering CGI, some older retired guy or girl who never had the time to pursue art and only now has the time (but not the money) to discover CGI... they might be able to use my stuff and if there is even a small chance I can help someone else out... then so what if some jerk is in not playing fair, its not the first time and not the last... why make someone else pay for the sins of a thief?
Not to mention, it seems a waste of effort to lock up the work because of that... I spent that time, I'm not getting it back, who am I really punishing?

None of this is meant to question anyone's motives, feelings or judge anyone... its just a pointless musing based on the OP...

It can be confusing, depressing and quite frustrating to pursue creativity.

TigerAspect, if I'm interpreting this right, I think Vlad responded to the user's claim that her preview images for the filter were manipulated and used online. Not as a direct render of a filter. So Vlad's response was explaining that the previews are subject to copyright and authorship still.

This is the part:

Quote
"Further in the TOS, you give us (but not Piotr) some additional rights that are necessary for us for displaying user submissions on the site etc."

He's talking about "displaying user submissions" which I interpret as previews, not about the output rendered imagery. I'm sure your rendered images are fine.

This case really shakes me up because the user was able to take down 2000x2000 rendered images from a website. I strongly hold evidence that they weren't blown up - manipulated 600x600 previews, that they were proper renders from FilterForge. It seems like there was a mixup in understanding. Oh well...

So I'd honestly like to hear from Vlad as well. I think there was a giant mixup in this thread.