Upcoming EULA changes, round two

Craig, while I agree with most of what you have posted, I think you need to review your use of the term "Upload EULA". What we are discussing is the End User EULA which is agreed to after downloading the Filter Forge application and installing it. Vladimir's opening statement referred to the upcoming EULA changes. It has nothing to do with the licensing agreement used when a filter author uploads a filter.

Quote

Sign Guy wrote: Craig, while I agree with most of what you have posted, I think you need to review your use of the term "Upload EULA". What we are discussing is the End User EULA which is agreed to after downloading the Filter Forge application and installing it. Vladimir's opening statement referred to the upcoming EULA changes. It has nothing to do with the licensing agreement used when a filter author uploads a filter.

lol. well, boy, is my face red then. well, not too much, since a lot of these questions originate with the upload eula and the precedence it sets. but, thanks for straightening that out for me, fred

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Right now, you can take a filter like 'Dilla's Lounge lizard, render it out as your own, claim copyright to it, and send cease and desist notices to everyone whom uses an image from the same preset.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Renderosity publically stated they contacted FF, and that the official word from FF was: What the texture seller is doing is not against EULA or copyrights. Among other things, texture reseller CAN claim copyright to the image, and CAN claim it's all their own work. It's not my interpretation of EULA. It's what actually happened.

This was explained before, if I´m not mistaken. Authors license their filters to FF. FF licenses users with unrestricted personal and commercial use of renders. Thus, a render is the work of the end user, not the author. The author´s work is then the filter, not the result one achieves with it.

From what I read in the previous thread, your main concern is that you intend to make products over there, using textures that are now being sold as texture stock. I really don´t see how you or anyone else can´t use the "same" textures, since you also were given permission to use them commercially, as well. If there are any doubts if you used another one´s product, you simply say that used FF. You can even protect yourself better, by stating so in the description or something like that.

To avoid confusion, let me restate three important points.

1. These are PROPOSED CHANGES, NOT THE ACTUAL EULA.

2. These changes are NOT FINAL. They are posted here for public discussion and are subject to change.

3. According to the current EULA, there are NO RESTRICTIONS regarding selling textures. In other words, selling textures is currently COMPLETELY LEGAL.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Vladimir Golovin wrote elsewhere: Literally a minute ago I finished the new additions to the Filter Forge EULA I was working on with our attorneys for some time. [My emphasis added! Note that the 'infamous' thread was less than 2 hours old by then.] My point is, the whole issue behind this debate already sat there cooking for some definite time, Vladimir knew about it

We've been aware of the texture selling business since this spring. This was one of the high-priority tasks on my list.

Genie -- regarding the 'derivative work', I already have some ideas. It looks like we'll have to narrow things down as much as possible, while defining them in-place, instead of referring to some 'applicable laws'.

As for the similarity problem you're concerned about, we currently have no workable ideas, but we haven't yet spent any time thinking about it.

Defining the different phrases being thrown around here would definatly be a good start, as well as providing some clarity as to what is and isnt covered in the authors copyright and about the different liscenses going on (the one where we liscense to FF to distribute the filters, and the one FF gives to the end user) and what is actually covered in them. Because it seems like alot of people don't really understand how these things work, and it is that which is causing alot of the confusion here.

Just my 2¢

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Genie -- regarding the 'derivative work', I already have some ideas. It looks like we'll have to narrow things down as much as possible, while defining them in-place, instead of referring to some 'applicable laws'.

That sounds like a good idea, Vladimir. People seem to have so many misconceptions, that being clear is without a doubt the way to go.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: As for the similarity problem you're concerned about, we currently have no workable ideas, but we haven't yet spent any time thinking about it.

Well, I´ll be hoping that you guys don´t forget then.

I think being able to sell your own works fine, i also think its fine to use a filter as part of something bigger like a full 3d building texture etc where it is used in a creative way. I think the way things are going no doubt it will be possible to sell others work (imo i don't agree), but i think if thats what happens the creator should be allowed to request to the selling site or the author the pack is removed, that imo is a must.

Edit - And i think if it comes down to 2 people selling if the original creator is trying to sell or put online for free they should automatically have the edge/control/say copyright wise

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: I mean it reads pretty simple to me.... 1)As filter authors we own copyright over "the filter", not any renders made from it or its presets. 2) We submit the filter to FF who, by the uploading liscense we agree to, can distribute the filter as they see fit to the public 3) The end user can use the renders they make in any way they wish according to their liscense.

Now this sounds readable and understandable for the average person.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Would it be correct then to conclude that there are no plans to make changes which would include a sanctioned way for tile publishers to function?

The basic question underlying the whole discussion appears to be whether the FF-based texture selling business is ultimately compatible with the business model of Filter Forge, Inc. or not. As Vladimir acknowledged above, he was aware of the situation for a long time. His going public with EULA revisions now indicates to me that he has reached the conclusion that said texture selling business is fundamentally incompatible with what he has envisioned for FF (an assessment that I'd be inclined to concur with).

Now, we haven't heard Vladimir's reasons for choosing to go down this particular road, but there is a definitive 'vision' for the product becoming apparent. I'm deducing from these current proceedings that he would like to see Filter Forge positioned as an important creative tool in an artist's arsenal rather than a mere 'frontend' for the free-for-all commercial exploitation of the filter library. This is a courageous vision I whole-heartedly applaud.

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote: I'm not sure I understand the question, especially the last part. Please clarify what is a tile, what is a tile publisher, and what is the function of a tile publisher. As for our plans, they are very specific, as I said countless times in the previous thread and elsewhere. Namely, we would like to block the practice of rendering and selling unmodified textures as stock images by anyone other than the filter author -- that's it.

A tile is my shorthand for a seamless texture tile. A tile publisher is someone who renders seamless texture tiles and licenses them to customers who use them as design elements in their work. The function of a tile publisher is as stated in the previous sentence. "Including a sanctioned way for tile publishers to function" can be restated as "including an accepted, legal way for tile publishers to publish seamless texture tiles".

If you feel that limiting rendering and publication of unmodified presets is a proper solution, then all you have to do is say so. The proposed EULA changes do not say that. Those proposed changes get into degrees of change which is where a lot of the problems begin. Unmodified presets is a precise definition.

Quote

a Result which is based on an unmodified or insubstantially modified image generated using an unmodified or insubstantially modified Filter obtained from the Licensor’s Filter Library or included with the Product, where said insubstantial modifications are defined as modifications that are insufficient to qualify the modified Filter and/or image as derivative works as defined by the applicable law.

is not a precise definition and only serves to cloud whether or not what anyone does is legal and acceptable.

The bottom line is that my company and others have purchased licenses for Filter Forge and that license has granted us rights to use Filter Forge in any legal way, which includes tile publishing. I personally feel that it is appropriate for you to regulate licensees in any number of reasonable ways. I do not feel it is appropriate for you to single out tile publishers and target them as a group.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: The bottom line is that my company and others have purchased licenses for Filter Forge and that license has granted us rights to use Filter Forge in any legal way, which includes tile publishing.

Fred, again, here's what I posted earlier:

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: 3. According to the current EULA, there are NO RESTRICTIONS regarding selling textures. In other words, selling textures is currently COMPLETELY LEGAL.

Quote

Genie wrote: From what I read in the previous thread, your main concern is that you intend to make products over there, using textures that are now being sold as texture stock. I really don´t see how you or anyone else can´t use the "same" textures, since you also were given permission to use them commercially, as well. If there are any doubts if you used another one´s product, you simply say that used FF. You can even protect yourself better, by stating so in the description or something like that.

Thanks for your interpretation and suggestions.
My point was, I don't want to be put in a position to have to defend myself, because someone decided to claim copyright on work that is not theirs, or that can be easily duplicated by anyone downloading a filter (I'm talking about rendering out prests here)

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Now, we haven't heard Vladimir's reasons for choosing to go down this particular road

My reasons were simple.

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, such as yourself).

Which, in turn, means less bang per buck for the users.

Which, in turn, means less sales for FF.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: is not a precise definition and only serves to cloud whether or not what anyone does is legal and acceptable.

Fred, what exactly are your legal qualifications?

I'm sure FF doesn't want to 'single out Texture sellers' as the bad guys, hopwever, the fact remains that the controversy exists mainly because texture resellers wish to use filters with no restrictions. Even when that means unrestricted use of item that are 90% or more someone else's work, with no royalties paid or credit given.

Also, just because the proposed system setup isn't the one you're suggesting, doesn't mean it's going to be unfair or non-workable.

You seem to be overstepping the bounds of your expertise, AND getting a bit too heated to carry on a reasonable discussion. Your ego seems to be getting in the way here.

Also, Fred, if you look around, you may notice that Texture resellers are most likely a minority market for Filter Forge. You keep bringing up 8800 people in your sign makers association. That's a small number compared to, let's see, half a milion hobby 3D users, and about 12 bilion industry that 3D GC are getting to be. That's not even considering other aspects of graphics and illustration.

Fred, the price of FF isn't so steep that most people are going to depend on texture resellers in order to get their hands on textures. Looking at packages worth several hundred dollars that you are putting together vs. purchasing FF for 300 and having access to 4000+ filters, the decision is close to a no brainer.
Rrendering out a texture from a preset isn't any harder then finding it on a content CD.

Plus, proposed EULA changes aren't going to prevent you from selling textures, they're just going to make you do it the right way (yes, you'll have to do a tad more work then render out or randomize presets.)

Quote
Genie wrote: Well, it has been explained over, and over, and over again. Why people haven´t understood it yet is beyond me...

Perhaps because some people don't consider you or the sign guy etc to be the experts, or to be able to speak on behalf of Filter Forge, or qualified to interpret legal statements?

I could think of a number of other reasons why I wouldn't take your word to be facts.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: If I render an image using one author's grass filter and place another author's image rendered from his or her ground filter, and then place a nice picket fence in from of it rendered from yet another filter, then who do I pay a royalty to and in what amount? Tracking sales and royalties would become a nightmare.

Wouldn't this be an example of a very substantial modification that qualifies as 'derivative work' and not as a 'Secondary Result' under the proposed EULA change? If this is indeed so, then you would not be bound by the "4.2. Distribution Restrictions" and could distribute said work in whatever form you felt appropriate without having to pay any royalties whatsoever.

Quote

Conniekat8 wrote: Fred, what exactly are your legal qualifications? I'm sure FF doesn't want to 'single out Texture sellers' as the bad guys, hopwever, the fact remains that the controversy exists mainly because texture resellers wish to use filters with no restrictions. Even when that means unrestricted use of item that are 90% or more someone else's work, with no royalties paid or credit given. Also, just because the proposed system setup isn't the one you're suggesting, doesn't mean it's going to be unfair or non-workable. You seem to be overstepping the bounds of your expertise, AND getting a bit too heated to carry on a reasonable discussion. Your ego seems to be getting in the way here. Also, Fred, if you look around, you may notice that Texture resellers are most likely a minority market for Filter Forge. You keep bringing up 8800 people in your sign makers association. That's a small number compared to, let's see, half a milion hobby 3D users, and about 12 bilion industry that 3D GC are getting to be. That's not even considering other aspects of graphics and illustration. Fred, the price of FF isn't so steep that most people are going to depend on texture resellers in order to get their hands on textures. Looking at packages worth several hundred dollars that you are putting together vs. purchasing FF for 300 and having access to 4000+ filters, the decision is close to a no brainer. Rrendering out a texture from a preset isn't any harder then finding it on a content CD. Plus, proposed EULA changes aren't going to prevent you from selling textures, they're just going to make you do it the right way (yes, you'll have to do a tad more work then render out or randomize presets.)

You seem to want to paint me as an unconcerned exploiter, using presets as fast as i can hit the Save Image As button. Yet the truth is much different ...

Only a tiny percentage of the rendered images I have published were made from unmodified presets. Since the issue was raised, I have adopted procedures which insure that whatever images I render are from my own independently created presets. My concerns rest with the cloud that exists over my renderings which may end up being too close to a preset I deleted before I even began using a filter. In addition, more than 1/3 of the textures I've published were rendered using other techniques and other software while a significant percentage used Filter Forge as a partial tool in the process.

If I get heated in some posts it stems from being targeted and from being attacked personally. It is not my nature.

My qualifications to comment on legalities do not rest in a law degree. I suspect that you and I have a few similarities and experiences in common. These would include a lot of years of dealing with the legal aspects of licensing, copyrights, trademarks, patents and the general approaches to managing and protecting intellectual property. I am also both blessed and cursed with a high intelligence, an analytical aptitude, and a nature of looking several steps ahead at the implications and ramifications of any given decision.

It is understood that texture sellers are in the minority. That is a given. That doesn't mean that we should have a reduced standing in the matters under discussion. As a texture seller, I bring a different perspective and understanding of portions of the market that you and others may not understand as well. I believe, in my mind to a certainty, that the majority of end users that I deal with will prefer to license renderings rather than acquiring Filter Forge and learning to use it. Those end users are not limited to the 8,800 sign people on my forum. They include more than 100,000 sign companies, 100's of 1,000's of commercial printers, advertising agencies, independent graphic designers, wide format digital printers, and screen printers.

And just as it is true that a portion of the folks mentioned will prefer to license ready to use images, it is also true that a significant portion will prefer to acquire the in-house capability to render their own images as needed. Many, in fact, will end up doing both.

The real question here is whether or not Filter Forge and the filter authors also want to profit from the stock, ready to use side of the business.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: This argument was answered for you some posts ago. In the example you've offered, you're not simply rendering out presets, thereforem you're making a derivative work. In that case, the restriction is not likely to apply to you.

You are answering out of context. My argument was in the context of Vladimir's suggestion that I enter into royalty agreements with each filter author.

I raised this issue previously because the images used could be presets simply layered on top of one another. This would then reduce the creative leap involved to recognizing that two images could be used to make a third. As such, they might well not be considered a true modification.

ok, thank you for that, vladimir. i think that makes your intentions perfectly clear. and, i applaud those intentions. let's see, that mean fred owes me about $20,000 at this point (i AM kidding, fred ).

so, this comes down to authors getting credit, verbally or substantially, versus fred's 'tile sellers' getting free reign. FF wins and loses both, since tile sellers wont be as inclined to want to have to pay for something they've been getting free (with fred as perhaps a notable exception). so, FF loses, perhaps, a few sales to that type of re-seller. but, they'll gain more and better authors and filters. so, we've got a trade-off here. lose some re-sellers perhaps, gain some authors (and filters).

oh, and ahimsa, watermarks will also keep the authors from distributing their rendered works (since most are also users) without a watermark, unless the watermark were only put on filters that went to the library and the author could then use his 'development filter' he used to make the filter and which doesnt reside in the FF library. i think it's a bad idea.

and, since vlad said he wants to maintain one library, if possible:

Quote
I wouldn't say unacceptable, but I'd like to keep the library uniform.

. there is still the problem of the original Eula and the proposed revised Eula and the filters currently covered under the one and the filters that will be covered under the proposed. how are users supposed to keep track of that? i'm no lawyer, but i'm pretty sure you cant make the revised Eula retroactive to the existing filters covered under the original Eula. so, those filters are going to be mixed in with each other in the same library? that would be more confusing, i think, than the current Eula's are.

and, if you really want to maintain one library only, vlad, how about selling the product itself under separate licenses rather than the filters individually? perhaps a re-seller could pay a higher price? this is a fairly common practice. FF would still have the difficulty of paying individual authors, though. so, that may not be very workable. on the other hand, if you do work it out so that re-sellers must obtain rights from authors and therefore bypass FF as the intermediary distributor and agent in such matters, and authors can therefore grant (or not) the rights of their own filters to be used, with or without compensation, that's going to still leave concurrent, coincidental filter creation as a bug in the whole works and opens up authors to squabbling about who created what and who owns the rights to similar looking textures and so on. and, will tend to foment more duplicate type filters in the library, since authors might now be getting a substantial recompense for their work(s). in other words, greedy authors may go out of their way to rip off other authors by creating slightly different filters and getting them submitted to the FF library. and i'm not sure i want to get involved in that kind of creative in-fighting. it totally detracts from the creative process.

thus, i'm still inclined to think that fred's dual library is still the best idea, though i know that means more repsonsibility and work for FF. so, raise the price of FF another $100 to pay for it i've always said you're underpriced anyways

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Only a tiny percentage of the rendered images I have published were made from unmodified presets. Since the issue was raised, I have adopted procedures which insure that whatever images I render are from my own independently created presets.

If that's the case, then I really don't understand why you claim such hardship over a rather small modification of the EULA.
If one out of twenty or one out of hundred textures I plan to sell are maybe going to be close to presets, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned. I'd look at it and go, ah, well, I don't use presets, so this doesn't apply to me, and move on.

One minute you are worried about how selling rendered out presets will be handled, then you turn around to say you don't do that as it is.
It looks like noone is trying to limit your type of use. You claim it's going to be limited, but when you describe it, it doesn't appear to fall into that category.

Are you not understanding, or purposely exaggerating things so you can keep arguing?

About the library, I like a single system, personally, since 99% of my work will be derivative work.
If I evere decide to sell textures, I'm most likely to deal with filter makers personally.