Selling a rendered Image

Quote
In-fact some amateur and rookie photographers believe that having their images stolen is a badge of honor, a validation of just how good his or her photo skills are.

I represent, I mean, resent that!

Quote
Or short version of marketing point. Images so good, people steal em.

Nice, right, or the conventional, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?
( see related: http://www.counterfeitchic.com/2007/0...boutin.php )

[Flame On]

Legally and financially the only way to prosper in this bankrupt system is with time, loads of fraud paper (money), and/or the blessings of the Phoenician Hittites.
( see related: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-dolla...ive-easing )

Quote
US$ dollars have been flooding the financial markets ever since Bernanke launched quantitative easing allegedly to turnaround the US economy. These huge amounts of US$ toilet paper are mainly in financial markets (and in central banks) outside of the United States.

[Flame Off]

SpacedOut, as Velho said, you paid for the FF licence. You did not pay any of the authors for their filters. Coming here and boasting how you are making money from our work and calling us emotional artist, will not get you friends here.

And it´s the reason why me and many other authors stopped submitting filters. sad how a few foul apples can spoil it for everyone.

And neither you nor Fred ever contributed filters to the community, how about you two create some filters and start giving back?

Edit@GMM: why isn´t the post displaying my display name?! - Sharandra

@ Ghostcat

Quote

SpacedOut, as Velho said, you paid for the FF licence. You did not pay any of the authors for their filters. This is where YOU are going WRONG! We paid for the license to use the Filter Forge software AND the Filter Forge library without any credit requirements! Many users have also paid for a copy of the entire filter library! Coming here and boasting how you are making money from our work and calling us emotional artist, will not get you friends here. You are taking this all wrong! I don't think anybody posted on this thread to boast or to make friends...the OP asked an important question and he deserved a correct answer without a bunch of muddle. FF output does not require a credit and that's the fact jack! People pay hundreds of dollars to use the software and the filter library and those users deserve to know the truth...they do not deserve to be attacked by a few filter creators wanting extra credit! And it´s the reason why me and many other authors stopped submitting filters. sad how a few foul apples can spoil it for everyone. Spoil it? LoL..obviously you are a bit too sensitive for this business and you want a little more credit for your filter submissions than what is required. It's best you don't submit filters at all if you are not comfortable with the way the Filter Forge output can be used legally. All you are doing now is harassing paying FF customers that have the right to use the created output without credit. And neither you nor Fred ever contributed filters to the community, how about you two create some filters and start giving back? I have "given back" to the photography and digital art community for the past 12 years...I don't need to create filters to "give back", and for you to imply as much is offensive. I PAID hundreds of dollars to use the Filter Forge software and the FF library, and in return I get to use the output as I wish without a credit requirement! Please stop blaming FF users for the FF business model! We paid the $$ and we get to use the output in the manner we so choose.

Please do stop harassing paying FF customers for more credit than is required...we paid the money to use the FF software and filter library without a credit requirement. We did not pay FF and join the forum to be harassed or berated by a few filter authors that do not understand how the filter library works, or that believe they are entitled to more credit than is required.

I will close this post with a quote from Jane/Djekki - Filter Forge Inc.

Quote
All the renders you make in Filter Forge is your intellectual property. Filter authors hold the copyright to the filter files proper (.ffxml files). Jane/Djekki

Quote
Sharandra Wrote: And neither you nor Fred ever contributed filters to the community, how about you two create some filters and start giving back?

I was not going to post anymore on this thread but I would have to disagree with you on this post..

SpacedOut I do not know who this person is so I cannot comment on that point....Fred I do know and has contributed but just not in building filters...
But one does not need to build filters to help the community and further along progress of filter building and creation.....

To SpacedOut

How have I harassed you or any other user of Filter Forge? It's you who is telling people to shut up, I'm just trying to have a civilized discussion.

Nobody forced you to participate on this forum. I really don't see what is your problem. You have a legal right to use the filters as you wish, so what exactly are you upset about?

You have paid for Filter Forge, yet you advise people not to publish filters. How does that make any sense? That is your solution? Really? Not very constructive advice.

I understand you don't want to see things our way. Fine, but you must accept we have every right to think differently.

Quote

How have I harassed you or any other user of Filter Forge? That's an easy one! Melow are some examples.. The point I'm trying to make is this: you are portraying ignorance about the efforts of the filter author Calling me ignorant, eh? Everybody here paid for their license, so you are not more privileged than us. More privileged? Making things up to use in your nonsensical attacks? We don't like people exploiting our efforts and give nothing back. Calling us exploitative in a demeaning manner and also berating us for "giving nothing back", eh? But if you render a texture fr om someone else's filter, take credit for it and sell it as your own, it's f*d up Calling users F*d up, eh? And (IMO) it's dishonest to sell something people can get free (as in free trial). Calling users dishonest, eh? You really should listen to us, because there will not be any new filters for you to use in the future if we are unhappy about the situation. Threatening users that don't credit the authors to shut up and give credit or no filters will be available, eh? It's you who is telling people to shut up, I'm just trying to have a civilized discussion. You call users F*d up, dishonest, ignorant etc. etc and you call that civilized? Nobody forced you to participate on this forum. Finally you have written something that makes sense! I really don't see what is your problem. I don't have a problem...evidently it is the authors that do not receive extra credit that have the problem! You have a legal right to use the filters as you wish, so what exactly are you upset about? Yes we do have the right to use the ouptut as we wish. What I am addressing here is users are being given incorrect advice when they ask how output can be used...and on top of that users are being belittled, berated and called names when they do not give extra credit to filter authors. You have paid for Filter Forge, yet you advise people not to publish filters. Wrong! I never said such a thing so stop making things up! I advised FF authors that want rendered output credits to not submit filters to the library if the FF terms are so upsetting, or they are too uncomfortable with not getting extra credit. How does that make any sense? It makes perfect sense as FF output does not require credit! That is your solution? It's the Filter Forge solution ---> It's the FF business model! If you don't like the terms then stop submitting filters to the filter library or negotiate a better deal with FF! Really? Not very constructive advice. What? It's great advise! Don't submit filters to the library if you are not happy about not getting render credits. I have also suggested giving filters away in a manner other than through the FF library so you can better control the terms (if allowed). I have also mentioned a paid "gold club" where authors could submit filters for additional compensation (as long as its legal). I understand you don't want to see things our way. Fine, but you must accept we have every right to think differently. It's not that I don't see things your way...I have been creating my own art for the past 12 or more years! I have a library of hundreds of thousands of fine art images, photo art and digital art! It's not that hard to think like you...but what you are forgetting is that you give up the rights to the output and any credits on the user's rendered output when you submitted your filter(s) to the library.

Cheers

Quote
GhostCat Edit: chuck and Fred, yes you are right, and I normally wouldn´t have said that, as I have friends who use FF without being able to create their own Filters, but they don´t go and sell renders on stock image sites.

FWIW ...

I haven't downloaded an FF filter and used it in more than two years. Simply very little there of commercial value. In fact, I have never even downloaded, much less used, one of your 25 filters. Buyers purchase photo based tiles ten to one over procedural ones. As a result, we use a competitive product which handles such tile generation in a superior fashion.

We stopped selling and recommending Filter Forge to our forum members when they tried it and told me it was entirely too slow for their needs. We paid to upgrade to version 3 in hopes of an eventual speeding up of FF which, of course, has not happened. Statements such as you are making hastened my abandonment of the product as well. It took us more than five years to actually receive all of our sales commissions (about $150.00).

No one is claiming a copyright on any output of a filter. Copyright is claimed on the renderings made using one's own settings, in keeping with the Filter Forge EULA, and are required by every microstock site as part of the contractual arrangements in uploading any image.

To the best of my knowledge, I was the first FF licensee to warn of the copyright issue back in August of 2007. After 6 1/2 years, I would think the license would have been adjusted by now or at least a professional library established. I offered a free copy of site software that I spent over 5K to have put together to anyone who wanted to adapt it to selling filters. There were no takers. I also gave lots of feedback to any other members in this forum about the potential for decent sales of both seamless tiles and filters.

So, please, leave me out of your ethics and morality tirades.

@ EAdmas

Quote
What does "intellectual property" in this context mean exactly? Can a user who runs a texture business and sells a rendered texture claim sole ownership of the texture as his "intellectual property" and forbid other Filter Forge users (including the filter author) from also rendering and using the same texture without buying it from him? smile:?:

One user's render does not somehow forbid other users from rendering the same type of image. So no...while the user can claim "ownership" of his own image creations...he probably can not easily force other users to not create the same images he has created.

As long as you render the FF image yourself then it is your "intellectual property" to use as you see fit as per FF.

Now if you actually submitted the image(s) to the US copyright office for registered copyright protection then you could possibly run into an issue of someone else previously applying for, and receiving, a registered copyright on an image that was rendered exactly the same as yours. In that case the first person that submitted the image may be the only person with a "registered" copyright on that image.

Due to the nature of the Filter Forge beast...the registered © issue can get rather muddled if one texture seller starting filing DMCA's and suing other texture sellers that are creating the same textures with FF.

I think in this situation whoever has the most money, more internet clout, better IP attorneys, and more patience and determination would probably take the case.

Reality and the spirit of the software seems to imply that FF created the software so that people can build filters and use the rendered output as they see fit. I don't think they want to get into copyright litigation though...but as you can see, this subject could turn grey.

Could FF have a more clear set of terms like --> all output is licensed to the users on an "extended royalty free" basis but the end user does not own the copyright on the output. That would allow the users to do what they want with the output, including selling it...but they could not legally register or claim a copyright on it. That may not be the the best "solution" though since many of the filters in the library are effects or they are used as texture layers in the user's own work --> and in these cases the end user most certainly may want to exercise his ability to use the US copyright office for punitive protections not afforded to images that have not been registered.

While most recent digital images are copyrighted when affixed to a tangible medium --> if you go ahead and register the image the with the copyright office then the damages awarded for infringement can be substantially higher.

Regards

Guys and gals, this thread started with selling rendered images but quickly switched to discussing particular people. It is not welcome on the forum.

Quote
are you hallucinating?

Quote
you are the emotional whiny one

I'm not removing or editing your posts yet — but some of you are walking on a thin line between civility and rudeness. Please refrain from personal remarks.

(on a side note: English is not my native language and my perception of personal remarks may be different from yours)

Quote
Sheeew...don't know if I could have lived with that!

A bit of sarcasm is ok but don't be surprised when other people get irritated about that.

Quote
GMM said: Instead, you, filter authors, could spend some time and effort to sell your filters independently from Filter Forge, Inc. [...] What prevents you from offering your best filters at your own terns and licenses, not restricted by the Filter Forge Upload Agreement?

That's the only sensible advice given in this thread. Could you please make a sticky thread listing the main points of the FF license, the upload agreement and the above advice, so we can avoid bringing this topic up again in the future. Thank you.

Quote
I don´t want to sell my filters, I´d rather share them for free with the community, to help other artists.

Anyone can set up his or her own FF library site and share filters with any kind of license. Obviously that would require some effort and money. If anybody is interested in sharing ideas about this, please start a new thread.

Quote
a simple solution would be to let authors choose a CC license or similar upon submitting filters.

I don't think it's a good idea to mix different licensing schemes in the FF inc. library. It would be confusing to the users and raise unnecessary questions. You probably wouldn't even remember which license is in effect when you render an image. It would be a mess.

I honestly think it would be better to look for alternative ways for sharing filters than trying to change the current situation regarding the FF inc. library and upload agreement.

Thanks Fred! Nice

Quote
the first person that submitted the image may be the only person with a "registered" copyright on that image. ... I think in this situation whoever has the most money, more internet clout, better IP attorneys, and more patience and determination would probably take the case.

Litigation and fees

Did someone say extrajudicial?

To further expand upon Fred's fine resource suggestions...it is very easy to set up your own filter store on your own domain with open source resources.

-> Purchase a 99 cent domain from GoDaddy.

-> Purchase low cost (but decent) hosting to get started with from a reputable web host. This will cost you less that $5 a month to get started. Point the domain at the webhost.

-> Download one of any number of great open source scripts that will provide image display and a shopping cart. The open source script will cost you nothing...they are provided by the open source community for free. Upload the script to the website and follow the directions.

-> Get a proper paypal account to collect funds.

For most folks you can have your store up and running with just a couple hours of work and $6.

Believe it or not it's not rocket science!

Regards

Quote
xirja wrote - Did someone say extrajudicial? smile:D

Great word! It appears as if we have some of that going on in here!

Take care.

Quote
GhostCat wrote: You got that a bit wrong. since you´re so fond of quoting, here´s one for you from the old Eula changes round three thread:

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote: Let me repeat what I posted previously. Suppose you're a filter author. You spent time learning Filter Forge and making good filters. And you shared them with everyone. And then you find out that someone sells your filter's output, unmodified, without giving any credit, or even claiming authorship. Chances are that you will not be pleased, and that you'll feel cheated. As a result, you'll be less inclined to share your work in the future. Which means less good filters in the Library (bad filters don't get re-sold as textures, so this will mostly deter good authors). Which, in turn, means less bang per buck for the users. Which, in turn, means less sales for FF.

All very true but the fact is that Filter Forge Version 4, and all previous versions, still use the 2006 EULA. This is from the current download of version 4:

Copyright © 2006 Filter Forge, Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. The Licensor’s trademarks and the Product, including the Software and any accompanying Documentation, are protected by copyright and trademark laws and international copyright and trademark treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties.

The simple fact is that the Filter Forge EULA has always covered those items to which Filter Forge claims a copyright. That being the program and the filter library (by virtue of the agreement filter authors accept when they upload their creations). There is absolutely no mention or restriction on the output of the program. This has never changed and likely never will because it would be a huge detriment to sales of the Filter Forge program.

This business model was created by Filter Forge and accepted by all licensees including filter authors. As a Filter Forge licensee, I submit that it is both legal, moral and ethical to abide by the rules set forth and agreed to by all parties. Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. Your beef is with Filter Forge ... not licensees abiding by the rules.

The Eula thread wasn´t the point, yes it never went live. The point was what Vladimir wrote. It´s just common to include the source when quoting...

Where in this thread did I write, that I wanted huge and massive credit for my filters? You should read more carefully before making such statements.

Quote
SpacedOut said: The only sensible advice given on this thread? That's a monster sized joke as I gave basically the same advice on the front page of this thread!

So you CAN be jealous because someone else is getting credit, such irony

SpacedOut - and you're still returning to this thread! lol ... you got your answer already.

So go and get creative rather than spending meaningless time bashing people on a forum. lololol.

lol dude, chillax. I'm pretty sure you got better things in life than writing novel-length posts on some software forum haha. Sometimes, you just have to let things go with the passing wind.

I was just here reading up on stuff. Man... that's just a ton of writing. Oh well.

I've been reading through this thread and didn't want to say anything for fear it would be taken the wrong way. The original poster came here with a question got the answers they were looking for and a long heated argument that did absolutely go off topic which nobody needs to see. It wasn't helping anyone or solving anything. All it did was fuel your own frustrations and make me feel glad that you all weren't in the same room together haha. So respectfully carrying on like that is unnecessary and will confuse the heck out of someone who opens the thread for the first time and reads what has been said when all they want is to know what people think about the topic.

For the record, as a designer I would never feel comfortable selling unaltered textures simply because that's not me. Creativity is important to me so a render might be part of something I'm working on but not the whole.

I understand the terms of the EULA and that's fine. Any filters I make that I don't feel comfortable sharing, I will keep for my own use. Creating filters does take a lot of skill and work, so for anyone who doesn't create their own I encourage you to at least open a few filters with the filter editor and see for yourselves what goes into them. Some of them are extremely complex and filter creation isn't as easy as it looks.

Again, this is said with all due respect.