"All your filter are belong to someone else!"

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Dilla, did you do something??? .....because they yanked that pretty quick today.....

Who? Me? No!

But I'm always watching...

The swift removal of the webpage in question might lead to several interesting observations: The person is a (silent) frequenter of these forums and has read this thread. She probably was not fully aware of the legal ramifications of her actions and has now re-evaluated them - successfully, I might add - which leads me to conclude that her intent was not of a malign nature.

Still, I feel the EULA changes Vlad indicated are an urgent necessity. As word spreads about FF and the excessively generous free evaluation policy, illicit sales of direct FF output in the form of textures are going to increase. This directly harms Filter Forge, Inc. and all legitimate users of their product.

Okay, so I'm just really trying to be precise on what the deal exactly is with using library filters. I thought I was good...thought I was within the "acceptable use" range and remain in the heavenly "non parasitic" status. LOL But, because there is the remote possibility that other people involved with me could suffer some consequence of my actions (I'm being thorough, not paranoid) like users of my PS styles that do have FF filters as a part of them, I really, really want to make sure my hands are clean. Right now, these styles could violate someone's copyright as I did render seamless textures in their default form to use as bevel textures and stroke textures. Technically, someone could extract that texture out of the style and use it for something else. I do have a commercial license granted with these styles, so they can technically make something with them, turn around and resell them. A filter maker here sees their filter in an item for sale on their website but they have no idea they did anything wrong because they bought the style from me. Styles are not something so unique that they can't be taken apart or recreated. I do specifically state that the textures are not to be extracted but are to be used within the intent of the style.

I did my best to read through the license.rtf file, as it stands right now, that comes with the installation of FF. Unless I completely missed something, the only thing that I found that even touches base on this topic is the following:

Quote

You may not modify or create derivative works based upon the Product in whole or in part except that you may create derivative works based on any Filter you obtained from the Filter Library provided that (i) any derivative works are created using the Product, (ii) any derivative works are compatible with the Product, and (iii) you license any such derivative works to the Licensor and the users of Filter Library on the terms and conditions substantially similar to the conditions of use of the original Filter and pursuant to the terms of upload license published on Licensor’s website(s) or included with the Product and further provided that you may distribute such derivative works based on the Filters through means other than the Licensor’s Filter Library if the terms and conditions of such distribution and sublicensing to end users are subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

*deep breath* Not only is that the world's longest sentence, but it's very confusing. Especially after the letters (i) (ii) and, really especially after (iii). I'm not trying to be funny. Is this paragraph going to be left as is or will this be replaced with new text? If it's going to remain the same, what exactly does it mean?

Other than that, what I've read on the wiki and what's been discussed here in this thread, I've really not seen anything else covering specifically what you can or cannot do with the filters.

Sorry!

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: It looks like uploaded filters become property of Filter Forge (company).

No, we don't claim ownership in filters -- see the Upload License in the Submit Wizard. As for the fragment of the Terms of Use you quoted, note the phrase "Unless otherwise specifically provided herein or authorized by Filter Forge in writing" -- it provides a way to override the statement from elsewhere.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Sphinx, Nikki -- your opinions in this thread were especially helpful. I had doubts about bringing such a sensitive discussion into the open, but it seems that it has paid off.

NP - anytime

We've just had a very sad case of abuse with our graphics library (Graphics32), thats why I know this is important (one of our community members got dragged in court and all - not his fault in the end though.. someone stole his proprietary code and put it on the internet)

Well, it is a sticky situation. Being a complete end-user of this application, my opinions are looking in from the outside, as someone just coming across FF for the first time might, and like I did when I first found it. Not that I'm defending the people out there for personal gain based on others' hard work but when I first read the opening statement in this thread, I was a bit taken back because I was under the complete and total impression that anything rendered with any filter here in the library could be used for whatever we wanted. When I looked around before I first downloaded it, I never found anything really obvious telling me otherwise. I completely respect and admire every filter creator that has given their hard work and talent to this site. Without the library, there would be no reason for end-users like me to have FF in the first place. I would not just blatantly use the filters as is without any other imput or creativity from me not just because it would be quite obvious and disrespectful, but also because I want my work to be unique--something that someone couldn't easily replicate and that's why I love FF...the combinations and possibilities are endless.

It's good that this has been brought up and I hope that new verbage will help every user, the filter makers and the end users, while stopping blatant misuse. However, what is construed as misuse really needs to be spelled out not just in legalese within the EULA but in other easily found places, so that no one goes on assumption and blatant violators can be identified and stopped.

Even though I don't agree with what the person did in the examples shown, I can certainly believe he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, at least from a legal standpoint. I've personally never read the upload license in the upload wizard because I've never attempted to upload a filter. Those terms need to be easily found, as well, if they pertain to the end use of filters.

I don't want to one day end up being called out in public for something I didn't even know I was doing wrong, so that's why I'm so concerned with this topic. I'm not trying to use ignorance as an excuse, either. It's just that the terms for the filter usage are really not very easily found anywhere and it wasn't just an assumption on my part to think that commercial use meant just that.

KWIM?

Sphinx -- yes, I do, I even evaluated it for one of my earlier projects before FF

Maybe I'm not understanding this. If I create a filter for use in FilterForge, and I make the choice to upload it for others to use, why would I object to others using my filter to produce results. And what difference does it make if they sell those results. It's not as if FilterForge is freeware for noncommercial use only.

Having restrictions on when and where someone can use filter results would be more restrictive than any other graphic software out there. I thought the idea was to make FilterForge a thriving commercial product because its way of working is unique and powerful.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: No, we don't claim ownership in filters -- see the Upload License in the Submit Wizard. As for the fragment of the Terms of Use you quoted, note the phrase "Unless otherwise specifically provided herein or authorized by Filter Forge in writing" -- it provides a way to override the statement from elsewhere.

Ah! Gothcha! Thanks for explaining that
Darn legal stuff... enough to make your head hurt!


As far as rendering out and selling the filters, I'd like to offer another point of view.
Personally I wouldn't find it nearly upsetting if I thought that people making filters were paid employees of Filter Forge. However, it appears that most filter authors are people whom are making theese on their own personal time, and in hopes of winning the program, some self propmotion, and I'm pretty sure none would be diappointed if the exposure lead them to a commercial opportunity.

At the minimum, I think if someone wants to take the filter and render it out, and sell the rendered image, they should be required to give credit to Filter Forge, and more particularly the filter author. At least tyhat would not take away the filter creators opportunity to be promoted, when the majority of the work was done by them. The seller could take credit for rendering them out and packaging and distribution, so they're not denied time and effort for doing that.

Something like that may make it more fair.
I have no idea how to put it in legaleese.

Well, I guess I just don't understand. I thought the whole idea of filters is to make graphic operations easy. So why fault a FilterForge customer for buying and using FilterForge to make things easy. Especially when part of the promotion is the number of filters it comes with.

As far as giving credit on commercial products, I don't think this makes sense either. It would be like requiring me to give credit to the creators of the jpeg algorithm every time I post a picture to the web. Or give credit to the pioneers of electronic edge sharpening every time I use Unsharp Mask on a project.

Anyway, I imagine I'm not making myself very popular with this point of view. And it is not up to me. But I would not want to use FilterForge, knowing that I could inadvertently use the wrong filter and run into legal problems.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Many filter authors don't it like when someone else is profiting off their work, having spent almost no effort on that.

True.....but unfortunately the only way to ensure that is not to submit them.....

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: I personally think that it is the filter author who should be eligible for earning money this way.

Nice to know you feel that way about it....

Quote
jffe wrote: Besides FF is giving away stand-alone filters now, and between that and the full featured demo, anyone can get all the filter renders they want (or all that they can get in what 60-90 days), legally, and free

That got my attention.....what do you mean by "FF is giving away stand alone filters"???

connie, if you're selling art or even textures, it's rather obtrusive, at times, to put a list of credits on a piece of art and certainly with textures. a derivative work, if substantially derivative (and 'substantially' varies from country to country') is really the creation of the author. imagine if a furniture maker had to credit Stanley tools and Makita and Milwaukee (names of brand name tools) and so on down the line. it just doesnt work out very well. the tools are not the work. the tools dont get the credit. the author does.

on the other hand, if i took a hammer made by Stanley and put my name on it and sold it as 'mine', that's criminal. so, someone USING the texture on something isnt at fault. someone taking the texture and selling just the texture effect and claiming it as theirs, is criminal.

but, all this does raise one oddball in the group. 'patterns' are not really truly in the same class as textures, whether they are image patterns or stand-alone texture types (per FF's division of filter types). a pattern is often sold as-is, with no use ON anything else. and that applies to both texture patterns and effect patterns... well, sort of with effect patterns since you are using an image or image type with it. but the point is, one doesnt generally apply a pattern texture on something. at least i dont. i just like the pattern. i've printed patterns out just as they were. they're fun and often very interesting all by themselves. so, this seems to be, possibly, the one exception to the above case of blatantly selling textures as textures without the author's permission. if steve makes a cool pattern texture filter and i were to take that pattern and print it out or sell it as-is to someone, would i first need his permission? would i owe him royalties? and if so, what was the point of him uploading it to the library if the libary is supposed to be free to use? i'm not going to apply it to a 3d model. i'm not going to incorporate it into a derivative work. i just like it the way it is and i want to print it out and possibly sell it. so, what's my liability here on this one and particularly with the new clause being considered for addition?

that doesnt mean i agree with ripping off textures as pointed out at the start of this thread. quite the contrary. but patterns may be a special case here and i'd like to know on this one, myself.

then again, if someone used one of my patterns and sold it as-is...i dont know. i did submit it to the library for use, but i'm also guessing i'd feel a twinge of betrayal. so, maybe that answers my own question. would i feel betrayed and ripped off if i saw my pattern in Vogue magazine or some place like that (and no credit given) or would i feel elated that someone liked it? probably a bit of both. and if i saw it on someone's web site for sale... yeah, i think i'd be pissed. but if they were just using it as part of their web site (and not selling the pattern itself outright) and giving credit to me and FF, i doubt i'd mind and even a bit elated. after all, free advertising is free advertising.

i once heard that new hollywood folks would sometimes work not for pay, but just to get their names in the credits at the end of a movie. i dont know if that's true or not, but it strikes me as a distinct possibility.

but, i think i'd also find it quite annoying having to get 20 different filter author's names and permission if i wanted to use 20 different pattern filters in a 'book of patterns'. that seems odd to me too. so, i'm still not real sure on patterns. most likely, in such a work, i'd credit everyone in the credits of this theoretical book, so it's just the having to get permission part that seems a bit odd in this case.

and that raises a point also. how would one go about getting permissions from authors that might not be available through any reasonable means? i paid for the program. i paid for being able to use the filters. i paid for the sub-licensiing. i have the filters (and again, i'm talking pattern filters here). so, am i stuck in just not ever being able to use those patterns commercially if i cant locate and get the permission of an author? that doesnt seem very viable for me or FF.

or, is this hypothetical book the 'derivative work'? frankly, i really dont know the answers to those questions.

and here's another situation. what if i (or someone else) wanted to author a tutorial book on FF and i wanted to use various textures as examples of FF. would i need permissions here or would this fall under 'for educational purposes' per copyright laws and thus be exempt?

patterns arent really textures. they're put in the texture side of the library because they dont use an image type component. but they arent, technically, textures. they're patterns. they dont really work the same way as textures, usually, as far as i can tell. now, i dont know anyone out there selling patterns, so my whole question may be moot.

lol. dont mind me. i'm just rambling.

yep. and it isnt showing up for me in psp xi. it's in the plugin folder. it installed correctly, but isnt showing up in the GUI of psp 'effects'. odd, FF is there, but the freepack isnt.

Quote

Kraellin wrote: but, i think i'd also find it quite annoying having to get 20 different filter author's names and permission if i wanted to use 20 different pattern filters in a 'book of patterns'. that seems odd to me too. so, i'm still not real sure on patterns. most likely, in such a work, i'd credit everyone in the credits of this theoretical book, so it's just the having to get permission part that seems a bit odd in this case.

Not so odd. Go to a hardware store or to a fabric store, and look at the wallpapers or textiles. You'll see copyright holder names on the back or some other spot of walpaper pattern books. On textiles, you'll see the same along one edge of the fabric.
Same with scrapbooking paper, the copyright holder is mentioned. Christmas wrapping paper too. If someone purchases a roll of wrapping paper, scans the images off of it and reprints the paper, calling it their own, they may end up being in copyright trouble.

Anyways, I'm rambling LOL...

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Too bad I can't leave comments telling people where they might get some of these for free!

----Render 10-20 of your clockwork or cushion presets, sell them for $0.01, and put links to FF in the decription, and let people know that you made them, they are free with FF, and to not pay some hack for stealing them. I used to do stuff like that on ebay, til they shut me down, I guess they weren't making enough profit on my 1 cent sales. <insert eye rolling here>

jffe

Quote

Nikki wrote: But other than removing their logo and slapping yours on and reselling it, you can do what you want with those wallpapers, textiles, fabrics, scrapbook paper, whatever....you can even take them as is, in their original packaging, from one store shelf to your store shelf and sell it. You can make what you want and do what you want with what you make with those items. I can go to a craft store and buy papers and make something and resell what I make, period. I own the item, I can eat it if I want. I can take a piece of Disney fabric, make a pillow and blanket and then go resell those items and Disney is plastered all over them. It's called "Fair Use." But you can't make something that looks like Mickey Mouse, call it Mickey Mouse and then proclaim that the name of your mouse doll making company is going to be Disney.

I don't think anyone is trying to prevent you from doing any of what you listed, except the part that you described as "other than removing their logo and slapping yours on and reselling it," The only thing that I think people are interested in preventing is something tantamount to 'calling them your own'. At least that's the way I see it.

You can't take Scrapbooking paper, clip off the edge with copyright info, and resell it under the pretense of "I created it from scratch".

Or taking scrapbooking paper, running it through a color copier and reselling the sheets as your own, through another craft store.

Even at that, let's talk about the example of a scrapbooking paper, you still had to purchase it, and the creators have been compensated for their work. Exchanged value for value. Even with that, you're not allowed to resell it's color copies, and put your own brand on them. You can't purchase a book, and have it re-typeset and reprinted. Even if you leave the authors and original publisher's name on it. However, you can purchase several copies of the book, and sell them to someone else.

With freely obtained filters and a demo software version, where is the value exchange between the consumer and the creator? With a visible credit to someone whom holds the copyright, there would be exchange of value for value. In cases of merely rendering out the filters and selling the images.

I don't think the credits would be needed in cases of more complex derivative works, like the examples you offered, or in cases software or a filter pack was purchased. (Where value exchange already took place)

Anyway, what I'm getting to is that rights of use are usually a 'bundle of rights' collected together. It is usually entirely possible to define what is acceptable use, and what isn't, without limiting the acceptable types of use like the ones Nikki is talking about.

Let me begin by saying that, to some of you here, I am a "parasite". I resent it but that is how some of you will no doubt feel anyway. I am also a license holder for Filter Forge Professional Edition and read over this website and the license before purchasing my license. In addition, I also brought up the obvious attraction and inequity of filter designers not being compensated for incomes created from their work starting with post #16 of a thread linked here back in August of this year in this forum. I also attempted to work with three of you in the area of private filter development for specific commercial opportunities.

I have just reread the license to which I agreed and I am as convinced now as I was when I purchased my license, that I have every right to use Filter Forge to create rendered seamless texture tiles and sell them commercially. Simply put, the legalese defines your filters as Product but does not address the processed renderings the filters create.

In short, I licensed Filter Forge based on what it could do, the license rights being granted, and all other available information. I saw the obvious inequity and pointed it out in your forum. I am a developer and publisher of digital art and made that quite clear. I would also point out now if I didn't in August, that as a publisher, I prefer to license rights from others. Unfortunately, due to the contributing of filters for anyone's use, there was no one to seek a license from. All that was ever mentioned was the courtesy of an acknowledgment to a filter author if you created a derived filter from an existing filter and added it to the library. I do not consider it appropriate or fair to totally disregard the legal terms and the actual selling environment of the Filter Forge application and now say that I am somehow unethical and a criminal. I purchased my license in good faith and with due diligence as to the rules of the game. I have put in considerable time and resources to learn the application and to use it. I also am not a lawyer, but as far as I understand things, the terms of the license I agreed to cannot be changed at this point in time. Only new licensees and new filters can come under revised terms.

It should also be noted that the same lack of restriction on the renderings applies to the application named Genetica as well as the various filters sold commercially by Alien Skin. And this is as it should be. The only difference here is that the developers of those applications also developed their own filters. Filter Forge has instead put forth an offer of incentives to get users to create the effect filters for them. So there is an extra party in the equation who is now finally making note of the same inequity I pointed out in August. Filter Forge and the filters that it uses are tools with which we licensees build things. The developers have every right to their code but have no rights to the work created by licensees with their code unless this is clearly covered in the EULA. And it is not.

All that aside, the fact is that seamless tile collections made with Filter Forge are appearing. I am aware of one multi-million dollar corporation that is planning a collection as this is written. I am aware of another who has already released two collections. And, like they say, you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube once its been squeezed out. You can view publishers as unethical or criminal ... or you can view them as a revenue source willing to buy licenses for the filters they want to use. All you need is a workable mechanism to handle the deal.

The answer, IMHO, lies in what the Filter Forge developers choose to do. My recommendation in August was for the Filter Forge developers to create a way for filters to be designated as either part of the free library or to be made available for sale with unlock codes. In that way filter developers have a way of being properly compensated for commercially viable work and those that want to try for a free copy of Filter Forge can take that path as well. That's a win/win for all concerned.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: In short, I licensed Filter Forge based on what it could do, the license rights being granted, and all other available information. I saw the obvious inequity and pointed it out in your forum.

So, you saw the inequity, but went ahead and used the filters in their default, or near default form for resale images anyways? Are you serious?

That's not exactly what one would call positive PR for your company.
Knowing that, do you think the filter makers will want to work with you? Or do you think that they may be thinking, uh-oh, I better watch it, If I happen to neglect a detail or two, this guy will take advantage of me.

[I better go to sleep before I get really aggrivated here....]

Fred is pretty much right really, if FF was sold as something, they can't change that, they can only "technically" change it, refund anyone's money (anyone who no longer agreed to the new terms and wanted to continue using FF), and those people can't keep using FF as they were doing (but any renders made using anyone else's filters up til then can continue to be sold actually). Laws of this type only matter if someone's being sued anyways, and then it's up to them (the sue-er), to prove losses, something FF is more or less 100% immune from really, it's just a moot point since they sell a program not graphics. It would take a Crapa or Uber or someone to "sue" anyone using their exact textures, and if they aren't selling them themselves, then there is no loss, no case, and no real point to this whole thread anyways. Once something exists digitally (a format which any media can be converted to) then it's free to all until it makes enough $ to be worth sue-ing over. My advice ? Don't sweat it til you make $250K+, then make sure you read the fine print, and your lawyer agrees with your interpretation of it ha-ha.

jffe

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I am aware of one multi-million dollar corporation that is planning a collection as this is written. I am aware of another who has already released two collections.

Would you care to fill us in?

Not a nice picture. Reality? Yes. Legal? Yep. Because there's nothing anywhere stating they can't. Don't ever assume behavior. You have to put it in black and white and in big, giant letters in small words easy enough for a 5 year old to understand. Only then you might see a change.

I don't quite agree with you, though. I think as more and more people do this, the people that don't know about FF will start looking for it. If 1,000 people have the exact same images for sale, either all 1,000 of them have stolen it OR they're using something to create it.

If you saw 1000 people selling tiger fur textures, you would know immediately they used Alien Skin to create them. But this is why you don't see 1,000 people selling tiger fur textures. Alien Skin is well known and there's no point in trying to sell default renders from that because no one would buy them. it's only a matter of time before this happens with FF. Then people will start getting creative, I think. But you're right, it's new, not all that well known and people are using it as an edge.

*choke*

Sign guy, really? $300? Now, I do have to say, legal or not, that's pretty darn balsey. I've never put a price tag of more than $10 on anything that I've sold and anything that I put a price of even that much on usually has quite a lot to go with it. And what I sell is so unique that you'd have to play in FF for 100 years before you could maybe figure out the combinations I used.