How will EULA effect usage?

Quote
jffe wrote: Gimme a break, if FF has sold any copies at all, it's probably not to hobbiests, it's to people who use it to make money one way or another, get off yer high horse(s). <insert me rolling my eyes etc.>

jffe, you can roll your eyes around until they fall out and wring your hands in helpless despair - will not change anything. Well, you will not be able to see, obviously, but apart from that.

Outside of images that I donate for use to the Open Source movement, the last time I made any graphics for a 'hobby' was years ago. I work 100% commercially on them. But I tell you this, jffe, if the day ever comes when to make money out of graphics, I have to claim copyright on other people's work or to in any way take and sell what is not mine? That's the day I pack it in.

I reject the cynics concept of, "Oh, you're in it for money, therefore you're in the gutter along with the rest who want to make money." No, there are honourable ways of making a living and dishonourable ways. Everyone has to choose which path to follow and God help any of the latter who ever cross my path.

My high horse has a damn powerful kick.

Hi there,

Thank you CF and M I try to make sure to poke my head in here pretty regularly.

Ok on the subject of "resellers" lets clarify the terms we are using.
In an earlier post I pointed out that the way that these posts read it is making
all textures sellers Look Bad.

I do not consider myself a "reseller" as to my mind that would be taking someone else's property and reselling it without their permission.

I am a texture "Seller" of art that I strive to be original works. And except for
a few packs that I made in the very beginning that have a preset in them here and there I am in compliance with the New Eula. As it is a no brainer to predict that
all sorts of people would be selling the presets before long which is not only
unoriginal but borderline unethical. At least before all these threads started,
now to any casual reader as well as current owners of the program it would not only Look legally unethical but worthy of being called foul names on the forums of the
program they were so previously so excited about. Possibly these threads have
"raised awareness" of the program and it's forums not too sure if it has been a direct result of increased sales unless it is from people who want to get the program before the new eula or before FF goes out of business.

Clearly I dont think FF is going out of business anytime soon but again the casual
reader sees negativity and assumes that it portends to bad times ahead.
Also I have been around here for quite awhile and even I get confused as to exactly
who and what some of the term references are being tossed out here.

Is a "reseller" anyone that sells textures or is it just the ones that sell unaltered presets. As it is the latter that I had assumed.

And what about the terms "straight results" of a filter again I would assume that this means "unaltered results" of a filter preset. But I could see that this could easily be confused to be various results of a filter.

Ok I am actually asking are the people using the term "reseller" referring to any
texture seller or just to the ones selling unaltered preset results.
As long as we are defining things why not define exactly what Filter Forge is?
I am sure we would be surprised as to what various people's answer to this would
be as well.

In my view it is one of the most remarkable texture creation programs ever made.
As a texture creator and seller of course I love this tool.

Once again I completely understand the filter authors desire to be compensated.
Similarly that is the reason I just dont give away the textures that I create.
These days when I do use FF it is with filters that I have tweaked- or created entirely from scratch.

But the reason that it is bad to lump people into these generalized categories is the taint of unethical behavior. Pretty much all honest people want to avoid being
categorized in this manner and that is why threads like these are bad or at least
potentially bad for sales of the program.

Also I think that the issue of compensation for authors is completely separate
from the issue of those selling unaltered presets. It is like "Hey you know we work
really hard to make these filters and not only that but others are profiting off of
our hard work." Clearly the act of selling unaltered presets is less than respectable.
The people that do that have to live with that themselves, or when the changes go into effect you guys can go after them when it occurs. But for every victory that
that occurs in the prosecution of a preset seller will be this massively bad PR for
FF as the confusion on the use of the tool will persist. Even if no one ever does
get convicted for violating someone's stated use rights it is only the Honest people
(especially read as large customers") that will fear buying the program if not fear
of prosecution then fear of bad PR themselve in the possibility of even being inferred to have trampled on somone else's use rights.

Someone stated above that the only people opposing the eual changes were only arguing for thier own short term interests. Since I dont sell presets the new changes wont hurt me at all. In fact if I was to try to act in my own short term
interests I would definitely not be posting this here now. As I would perceive all this as leading to a decreased use of FF by honest sellers. And as a texture seller
it is the honest sellers that are my competition not the dishonest ones as they are usually fly by night. Or even if they persist they are not respected. People that know quality textures see the presets of other texture creation tools for sale all the time and the reaction is "yeah right". lol.

As for the filter authors that want to sell textures I am honestly mystified as to
why they think that FF should become a texture hosting site in order for them to do
so. If you really want to sell textures, just go sell textures. I dont really understand the royalty thing as I understand it royalties are a percentage of each and every use of the image anywhere.

I think that FF going into the texture selling business would be very confusing to
the business model at least from the outside world's point of view. At least at this
very young age of FF as a texture creation tool. Further confounding this is the
controversy over presets that are from filters that are not image based. As often
the presets if not in reality Appear to be the very best that, that particular filter has to offer, to place them off limits in any way is like saying.."yea this tool is awesome look at all the great stuff you can do and look at all these presets
you could make if you only had the talent to do so. So even tho a person who buys the program can actually make a very small change and technically be the creator
of an awesome texture in reality it may hardly be different at all from the original
preset. And since the preset is so cool in the first place naturally they would want to try to create something similar. It is human nature to associate a "thing" with the original image presented with it. Which is one reason I rarely even use non image based filters anymore unless I make major changes to the filter itself.
Which then makes the use of that filter moot anyhow. Another reason I have been studying the filter creation modules myself more actively these days.
Again due to the perception that using someone else's may piss someone off here if it in any way resembles one of the presets.

Now if I am having these thoughts and avoiding even the proper use of filters due to
a potential perception of one of the authors around here. I can only imagine the
potential for misperception of those who are simply considering buying the program from a cursory glance.

As a honest texture creator and seller even the slightest whiff of being cast in the wrong by people contributing to these threads is completely offensive. I have been watching the evolution of the thoughts concerning these threads so I understand the points being made thus I am not "completely" offended but I can easily see how every other honest texture seller would be. If even one person who unwittingly used a preset in the manner being described here was offended and just went away silently.
That is hugely bad customer communication. I was in the hospitality business for many years and if I had said anything resembling some of the statements or inferences being made in some of these posts I would have been fired on the spot.
Even if it was to or in front of the person who only came in for the free food.

Being even distantly or possibly mistakenly associated with those who are abusing presets was my motivation for this post and to reiterate I mean this communication
in a non offensive manner.

But just for the sake of fair play, consider the flip side of the overview.
Personally I had no confusion whatsoever of the rules of the original eula.
Are the people arguing that it is suddenly unfair, do they really mean what they imply. That they did not understand it or failed to read it. Or perhaps they did
understand it but thought they would make a major contribution and then try to argue for changing it? I mean forgetting everything else for a moment including the
stated "famine" of quality filters, do you really think that all this negativity on the forums is "Good" for FF as a business? And do you really think that demonizing
texture "resellers" even many of whom thought they were in compliance, in addition
to the honest "Sellers" of textures who may be confused by the terms being used is
good for FF as a business. I mean here we have one of the greatest texture creation
tools ever and you don't think that this is a tool that honest texture sellers should be interested in?
Some of you guys that are so awesome at creating filters people look at you like rock stars for your talents most people look at the modules and just glaze over.
Many people would have to pay top dollar to get this kind of personal exposure.

I would think you would first be more interested in extending the usage of the platform. personally I think it is much too early for this kind of rebellion.
Somehow FF attracted you guys with the current eula. If anything is preventing
talented people from learning/creating and submitting new quality filters I tend
to think it is because of all this talk of "holding back" on submitting new filters.

It probably makes people feel like they would be crossing some kind of strike line to submit high quality filters. Or they are waiting to see what the verdict will be.
Take the examples of Blender and Gimp for example I seriously doubt that the contributors to those open source programs were expecting to be paid by the Blender organization. What they probably did is leverage that participation to get high paying jobs or just took personal satisfaction for their accomplishments. I realize
that FF is not an open source program, but in regards to the participation of the filter donors that model is pretty close.

Again I am not arguing this position from personal short term selfishness as I have no problems remaining in compliance with the current or the new eula.
But I do tend to take issue with the fact that I didnt see anyone clearly making
a distinction between honest and dishonest use regarding those that sell textures.
I just kept seeing the word "resellers" and "texture" in the same paragraph being
used in a derisive manner. Which just seems completely unfair to alot of people.
What I think is very important is to decide what role that filter creators are really playing here. I mean are you primarily filter creators? Or are you texture creators? Or are you trying to be in business selling these things.
There is absolutely no reason at all to insist that FF spend a bunch of money on adding storefronts or hosting textures sales. As that will only cost them additional expense and admin costs. I suggest that I can point anyone that wants to, to half a dozen sites off the top of my head that would welcome your texture submissions for sale. And you would'nt have to pay a dime in set up or admin. Which you would if you set up your own site. I tend to think that renderosity would welcome the original authors of these fantastic filters. I guess that would be a way of going "pro" in a way. I am not clear on this, did we ever get a clear answer on whether we have the right to sell the filters we create? In my opinion selling textures in any manner whatsoever on this site would cloud the business model of FF therefore doing them a diservice. Additionally even the whiff of the construed gossip that FF has "changed"
its model so that the users had to read fine print before they were able to use the
filters would be damaging as well. With all of these "other" options to capitalize on the talents present here, why try to change a good thing? When there are so many pre existing alternatives available?
But lets be clear on what the goals here really are. Is it compensation or is it
the freedom to criticize and chase down the offenders under the blessing of FF?


Please do not confuse my directness with any kind of inflamatory language as that is not the intent.

And I do admit that I do enjoy a bit of debate, so sorry for the long post.

Thanks, Infin

Quote
infiniview wrote: Is a "reseller" anyone that sells textures or is it just the ones that sell unaltered presets. As it is the latter that I had assumed.

----I've poked around and seen a few people online (on Renderosity being the main one I've seen, with a couple of people doing it there) selling renders of just presets from all the obviously popular FF filters (it should be noted I have seen a few of them showing up ALL over online, not just at Renderosity, that's just where I've seen people who sell nothing but unaltered FF filter presets). Those are the bad apples really, the one's making texture sellers look like "leeches" in general. They haven't broken any laws (well, except the ones that then try to claim some "copyright" on those images ha-ha) but they have cast a dark cloud over some filter maker's generosity it seems. The whole thing's really been blown out of proportion, and Stevie is the one to ask what's up with trying to get FF to sell textures or filters or whatever. If FF updated their Eula, made it more restrictive then sent out a press release about THAT, instant death to what already probably isn't exactly the golden goose they wanted it to be. Again though, none of which matters at all if ya just don't submit your 'valuable' filters to the library. *shrug*

jffe

Quote
jffe wrote: ----Oh really, I didn't look back that far, the 2 latest ones do not have the same names as people from FF here. Enlighten us, just for fun, who are those people, what are their FF user names ?

Sorry jffe, but I won´t give names. Although there are 2 clues to find that out in what you said above. It´s pretty easy.

Personally, I don´t really much care for going after people for using filters in this or that way. Nevertheless, I found that information to be interesting.

I dunno, only names I saw there from FF were MysticRaven, Dream Warrior, and Rawn, and they were all selling their own filter renders, which is about as far away from any arguement on here as we can get eh. Ultimately, that's what any decent texture maker should do, sell their own material or license it out, and get on with the funner creation side of things, at least that's all I wanna do.

jffe

Look closer, you´ll find what I mean.

Quote
jffe wrote: and get on with the funner creation side of things

Amen to that!! It´s so rewarding when you make your own stuff and start realizing how FF works. I also noticed that some vendors that were mentioned before are now doing their own thing, so that´s cool.

I get what you´re saying, Jffe.

Quote
jffe wrote: The leeches just tend to draw too much attention away from what it's all about. And people need to point them out as bad examples, so that people know that 1) they are rip offs, and that 2) the rest of us

If you point them out on Rendo, you get in troube with admins, since it's not against EULA. If you point them out here, mods remove the manes - since what they're doing is not against the EULA.

This is a BIG reason I would like to see EULA changed. So that those of us whom don't relish this kind of behavior don't end up being the 'bad guys' for badmouthing them, and the real bad guys are being protected.

It's what I've been saying all along, it's not about suing anyone. It's about being able to say something and defend what you know is the right thing, and having legaleese backing you up - so you don't get squelched like you're the bad guy.

Quote

jffe wrote: I admire the renderosity sellers here who make and sell their stuff, they don't get much money, but they have taken some initiative and they have put in some time, regardless of their financial return or if they make the filters that the rest steal from. If someone wants to make money off of work they've done then by all means, it's only when they seek to subvert others and ride on their labor after the fact, I mean lord, we get that everywhere in the real world, we have to stand up against it online or what will the next generation have to look forward to. Why would any young person be motivated to do music or art these days, look at how those industries are being ripped off and are not keeping up with the times, they are dying and almost committing suicide by their own actions and lack there-of. I'd just hate to see a world where the independent artist is completely squeezed out of the loop financially, and these texture leeches we all talk about are contributing to that ugly future. I believe there will always be those who create, we all just have to police the leeches of the world (not just on FF here ha-ha) and make sure that the up and coming artists and craftsman/craftswomen can have some place to look forward to rising to, and maybe even an old skool chance to make their rent doing so.

BINGO!
Without the EULA change, we can't police or do anything about the leeches, and we can't protect the more honest merchants whom put effort into their work.

Quote
Frank2 wrote: Except that, as it stands, no one can. jffe, no one can even mention the leeches names in these forums without those names being removed by a Mod. What sort of policing is that?

----Wait, does Dick Cheney work for FF now a days ? Calling someone a "leech" because they sell packs of 100% straight renders isn't anywhere near defamation, it's more like definition ha-ha. Especially when they sell them so cheaply, you'd think FF would take issue with what they are doing. Leeching isn't a crime, it's just bad behavior, and talking about it is the only way to make some people aware of it.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: If you point them out on Rendo, you get in troube with admins, since it's not against EULA. If you point them out here, mods remove the manes - since what they're doing is not against the EULA.

----Hmm, if I was really wanting to name names I'd go sign up and renderosity and make a joke out of it, say stuff like "wow 'Darkman22' can save us all several hours of hitting *render* with Filter Forge if we buy his packs." Or "cool, I'm so glad 'GawthFaerie43' rendered all those awesome Filter Forge textures for us, now we won't even have to bother with installing the demo, thanks GF43 !" Kind of go the super pseudo polite way, just to not saying anything that could get removed, but to still get the point across.


----All my mentioning of lawyers and the pointlessness of the Eula still stands really. In the end, a lot of people (*ahem* the majority) have no ideas of the rules of the games they are playing and usually losing. Ie = a LOT of the people buying those all FF render packs have no idea that FF exists, or that they can buy it for $99 and have it all. I guess I just think the best/quickest/cheapest way to make a dent in the problem areas is to speak up about it, let people know what all is going on, and what all it's going to cost them to try and take action after the fact, when the damage is already done. I'd rather offend/upset someone now, and save them hassle and pain later on, regardless of how un-P.C. that might be in the culture at the time eh. I don't know if words on a screen on the computernet will ever change anything, but I think they can be used to open people's eyes, literally, to new ideas, and to show them things via links and interesting moral/ethical arguements, things any of us can do for free at any time.

jffe

Quote
Kraellin wrote: if you submitted your filters to the library, you gave your blessing. so, what's with all the sour grapes now?

Duh, except that I haven't ever submitted any, have I? You sound like a cracked record.

Kraellin, you are the guy who attacked me after I had made just 3 posts here, remember? I'm the guy, you said, who didn't know what he was talking about and shudn't (sic) waste your time, remember? You are the guy that has misinformed and used diversion tactics on this subject time and time again, remember? You are the guy that has just used the oldest forum tactics in the book by using - troll, squawk, sour grapes, bitch in a post, remember?

Kraellin, you want to call 'troll' then look at yourself first. Your role as Fred's lap dog has just expired. That's what it looks like from here. and mind you, I'm not trying to shut you up, even, be my guest. I'm just telling you what it looks like.

Quote
CFandM wrote: Quote infiniview wrote: I think that when we see others selling presets at least currently they may deserve either education or possibly an artistic look down our noses but to name people and vendors as in the perceived light of being in violation somehow is very premature. And once again terrible PR for FF. +100

Again I post!

Quote
Frank2 wrote: Your role as Fred's lap dog has just expired.

Could do without the shots..It is way off topic..

Quote
Kraellin wrote: somebody bought the program or even if just the demo and rendered out umpteen gazillion 'free shoes' that they could sell. there was nothing illegal about it and it was done 'with our blessing and the blessing of the gods'.

Yep...

Quote
Genie wrote: It´s déjà vu all over again!!!!! Confused

Hey I think I posted here before...

Frank's malicious commentary aside, I would like to poll the participants here after these many posts in many related threads, because I'm confused.

At what point do texture sellers become scumbag leeches in your view and understanding of this debate?

1. If they render and sell unaltered presets?
2. If they render and sell altered images using controls for modification but do not modify the filter?
3. If they render and sell altered images using controls for modification and also modify the filter?
4. If they render and sell images using only filters of their own creation?
5. If they in any way use Filter Forge at all to render and sell ready to use textures?
6. If they sell ready to use textures at all regardless of the program or techniques they use to generate them?

Multiple answers are allowed.

My company has published more than 1200 seamless textures so far. I have been very open about the fact that this is a market we are pursuing. Out of that 1200 there are perhaps 10 or 12 that would meet definition #1. Another 400 or so would meet definition #2. 50 to 100 would meet definition #3. Less than 50 would meet definition #4. Around 200 were rendered using effect filters or multiple filters so as to meet definition #5. And the balance of 400 to 500 renderings did not use Filter Forge at all thus meeting definition #6.

So I'm confused as to what is frowned on and what is not and won't know until the new EULA actually appears. But I also think others reading these threads are just as confused and to some extent I'm on the receiving end of of some undeserved contempt.

Unlike StevieJ's terminology, I am a seller of seamless texture tiles ... not a reseller. I have no secret agenda or any desire to "rip anyone off". I do think there is a continuing lack of clarity in this discussion and a continuing desire on the part of some participants to demonize anyone involved in the texture selling end of this technology.

My company continues to be willing to license filters or to enter into licensing for royalty arrangements for artists who want to submit rendered images.

Quote
jffe wrote: sell in a market that hardly anyone here seemed to even know existed,

Don't know about that one..Its existed for a long time..Just maybe not looking for it...

Quote

Sign Guy wrote: At what point do texture sellers become scumbag leeches in your view and understanding of this debate? 1. If they render and sell unaltered presets? 2. If they render and sell altered images using controls for modification but do not modify the filter? 3. If they render and sell altered images using controls for modification and also modify the filter? 4. If they render and sell images using only filters of their own creation? 5. If they in any way use Filter Forge at all to render and sell ready to use textures? 6. If they sell ready to use textures at all regardless of the program or techniques they use to generate them?

I would have to say number 1..However if only their site contains nothing but presets unaltered from the FF library.
There are some around that contain nothing but presets a lot of presets...These seem to be the ones that would lean towards this...The people who are selling the textures on Renderosity are nothing compared to these other sites..
They also contain no other content other then presets...

Taking this exact image http://www.filterforge.com/filters/1384.html and then posting it as there own is what
is in question..Nothing more and nothing less is what I perceive to be what MIGHT BE changing in the EULA.

As far as I have understood the effect filters ARE NOT affected by the changes..ONLY the TEXTURE filters.....

lol. i think you just made my case for me, frank. nothing but attack, invalidation, name calling... i rest my case.

and jffe, i understand the desire to warn folks of something unscrupulous and/or illegal. but the thing here is, there's nothing illegal to warn about. i understand authors wanting to change the eula. i really do. i havent seen any of my stuff on these re-seller sites, but if i did, i think i'd feel the same way as those authors doing the complaining. but, on the other hand, if i were one of those guys, those resellers and i'd heard about this fabulous program for making textures and that there was this library that went with the program and those textures were all free to use and/or sell, guess what, bubba, i'd do it too. and so would you, if that was your bag. when i bought photoshop i didnt even bother looking at any eula's. i mean, that would just be ludicrous if one couldnt render out works free of royalties in photoshop, including their filters. no one would buy it. that the authors who made the filters didnt demand more of an exchange for themselves isnt the fault of the resellers. that's just no good. and there's still authors here submitting filters to the library even with all this discussion going on. so, go figure.

and to everyone, what are the authors going to do once a new eula is presented? there are over 4000 filters out there now that are free and that cant be legally forced to re-constract under a new eula. they are grandfathered under the old. anyone with the program has the right to use all those filters for free under the current eula. so, what happens when a new eula comes out? it's going to be a bit nuts, i'm afraid. who's going to keep track of the resellers then, if that's what you're trying to do? they can still re-sell those textures under the current eula and that isnt likely to change. even if FF instills some update procedures to the program, like disallowing access to the library unless one agrees to the new eula, it wont really work. there's always going to be someone with the older version who can claim grandfather rights. so, what are authors going to actually do? i'm sure not going to go policing re-seller sites. who's going to arbitrate which textures are under the old and which under the new? that's why i liked fred's idea of two libraries. it would have made a very clear-cut division to everyone between the current eula and the proposed new one.

so, i say we simply ignore the water under the bridge and move on. those filters are essentially fair game and not much to be done there, so why hassle those that were smart enough to take advantage of 'free shoes'? it's sort of a pointless exercise.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: You bought the straight textures from FF and you are selling them again.....which pretty much makes you a "reseller" no matter how you look at it.....

No ... I licensed a program and used it to render textures at a certain size and following certain guidelines to sell to my target market. The renderings which I sell are not provided to me by anyone else, so in my case the correct term is sell not resell.

You might want to help me though with my confusion as to just what is okay by you and what isn't instead of rehashing where each of us stand. And I mean that in a courteous and respectful way. I have no idea at this point whether most of this discussion has been about using presets or just using Filter Forge period. So much has been said and some choices of words such as seller vs reseller have only added to my confusion and i suspect a number of others.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: No ... I licensed a program and used it to render textures at a certain size and following certain guidelines to sell to my target market. The renderings which I sell are not provided to me by anyone else, so in my case the correct term is sell not resell.

LOL..... Okay, then it's just my personal "label" for it.....and no offense is intended to all those who are doing it......

Quote
jffe wrote: one with a skull and crossbones maybe that growls at you if you render more than 3 stock presets in a row ha-ha.

LOL.....

HI there,
I'm a content creator for second life myself and I came across this site over a SL forum. Now copyright violation is a big thing in SL and specially textures are on the daily rip and sell list. Maybe the original creator of this texture might find this forum post interesting.

http://www.slexchange.com/modules.php...ic&t=44215

I just downloaded FF and looking forward to them 30 days trial and what this nice application can do for me and my builds I create in SL.

Quote

It isn't fair to cast this dark evil cloud over the people rendering textures in filter forge and selling them for this simple reason: At the very minimum they are STILL selling a service. As you all may have noticed, rendering things with Filter Forge takes time, in some cases, a LOT of time. I've seen a couple sites selling 4000x4000 size Angelboii renders-- that's certainty fair to charge for that service because I sure as heck wouldn't want to wait for those.

I disagree, i think making restrictions is good, i am one of the people who have stopped sharing textures because of the whole thing and i may be wrong but it seems that filter submissions has slowed down alot since people have found out there and other work is being rendered out and sold, im sure 99% of users that submitted filters did this to share there work as a learning resource so others could see what they have done and learn things.

And sorry but i don't agree with the quote above either thats kind of like saying its cool for people to sell cd's of freeware apps on ebay for a price, they spent the time downloading so its fine is the same sort of idea, imo its not ok to do that and i think the same applys from using others hard work to make quick cash.

If the EULA changes stop people from doing that its a good thing imo and they can go back to there other get rich quick schemes. If its the creator of the texture wanting to sell however i think thats fine as it is there work after all.

I guess a change in the EULA really would be driven by who the target audience for the program would be.

In addition, if the change is made so that a person would have to go in and tweak the filter itself, then there would also have to be very specific descriptions of what sort of tweaking would be required to gain access to distribution rights.

OK, let us assume that the EULA is tightened down. My initial reaction would be to pass right by FF and move onto Genetica Pro (without the animation), just so that I wouldn't have to worry about any legalese going forward. People purchase the program to be able to use the textures that are created. End result = fewer people purchasing the program (ie, fewer people requiring the filters)

On the other hand, let's assume that the EULA is not tightened down. Some filter creators will hold their material back, and so there will be fewer filters becoming available. Over time, new creators will take their place. (Take a look at the Dundjinni forums for an idea of how generous artists can be).

And there is nothing to prevent those who become masters of creating filters to license their work separately from this website, perhaps under a more stringent EULA. This is perhaps the best alternative, as it provides an outlet for the "meister" creators as well as encourages new users with a library of useful filters.

I don't think thats the case at all though, first off it all depends on what is said, i think that 90% of people who want changes made basically don't want people rendering there work out, claiming it's theres and profiting from it, i think alot of people are fine with others using the work in creative ways in a 3d game or whatever or in a artwork applyed to a layer to texture it etc.

Quote
People purchase the program to be able to use the textures that are created. End result = fewer people purchasing the program (ie, fewer people requiring the filters)

FF is a great artist resource yeah but i have a feeling your talking about the people that will just render out the textures and in that case good, we don't need that type of market for the program imo.

Quote
On the other hand, let's assume that the EULA is not tightened down. Some filter creators will hold their material back, and so there will be fewer filters becoming available. Over time, new creators will take their place. (Take a look at the Dundjinni forums for an idea of how generous artists can be).

Yeah sure thats what would happen with alot of new users untill they find out that others are taking there work and selling it/claiming its theres on merchant sites, There will be gaps filled sure but they will get bigger as time passes because don't think that people don't talk on the web all that will happen is a negative press will develop for the program and people will steer clear of sharing all together, and on the flip side it will get press for being the best get rich quick scheme going. But yeah theres alot of people that are nice and will always share but that doesnt exactly mean quality. I think if theres someone with lots of skill it would make there filter more of a target for this to happen as soon as they find out unless there cool with it they probably then won't share again.

I guess at the end of the day its to be expected that theres going to be people argueing with the few of us that want the changes after all if its generating money for people of course people won't want that taken away. I have no bad feelings towards anyone doing it though of course i just don't agree with it myself and feel it will have a negative effect as time passes.