Renderosity MarketPlace & FF library textures?

Mind I kinda have a back log of filters I haven't uploaded because they are texture based rather than manipulation filters. Thing with that is I value the input from other filter makers on how I can improve a filter I have created. Yet because they are texture filters it's like dare I upload and them, turn around and see them on sale in SL, Rendosity, Content Paradise under someone elses name and hardly any difference to the preset images.

I know major moan fest there Craig

Quote
Amethyst wrote: The proposed changes made me afraid of investing so much money in something that had lots of restrictions and not being certain where those restrictions would end in the future.

Hi Amethyst That's the big "misconception" of the proposed new EULA restrictions.....it is only going to affect people who want to use the program to render out straight texture results (without any creative input) and resell them.....and that's it.....it won't even come close to affecting how you want to use the program....

Without a restriction on reselling straight texture filter results, alot of authors have limitted or stopped submitting quality texture filters to the library.....because they don't want texture resellers taking advantage of their hard work like that. The knee-jerk reaction is to tell authors not to submit them.....but both FF and customers certainly don't want that.....

In regard to FF vs Genetica (I've learned both programs).....Genetica is great for general users who want to create textures without getting too deep into the "nuts & bolts" of filter construction.....while FF is better for more advanced users who want more creative control. All Genetica textures end up looking kinda "stylized" due to lighting limitations.....while FF is able to create much better photo-realism. FF is harder to learn.....but pays off by giving you much greater "unlimitted" creative ability.....

Quote
Carl wrote: +1

Cheekus???

Quote
James wrote: Wow the demo doesn't watermark the image or anything?

Nope.....FF can't really do that with people submitting filters under the trial period.....so the more reason to put the new EULA into place towards preventing it from happenning without people having to buy the program.....

Quote
James wrote: the only people that won't like the updated EULA would be texture re-sellers, anyone creative would be fine. Texture sellers would also be fine as long as they made there own stuff.

Exactly.....and even then, it's not going to stop or "shy away" texture sellers from purchasing this program and trying to take advantage of it.....because it will still be the best texture creator out there, IMHO.....

Quote
Amethyst wrote: From what I have seen this argument is over a few cents per texture

Bit more than a few cents per texture really, and that's really not the point.

The point is that those selling the textures have made little or no change to the preset images. Or think that changing the lighting on a preset texture makes it a whole new texture for them to sell.

Plus you also assume that none of us have put our hand's in our pockets to purchase filter forge? Which is also wrong.

Yes since purchasing FF I have received some HU's from filters I have sent in to the library but like I have said the main reason I shared these filters was more for feed back and for people to use, I was more in ignorance as to the fact that texture based ones with hardly any change from the preset images would turn up for sale in Second life and with in stores like Content Paradise, Renderosity etc.

Now they have its more a case of do I share filters now or not? Most of the filters I have shared was from when I started out with filter forge in my first few months of learning to make filters. In some ways I personally feel stifled because I want feed back on how to make filters that I create better but unsure if I really should upload them specially when they are texture based.

Like you said you are planing on using them to put on 3d objects etc you make (well I think you did somewhere back in this thread ), that's not an issue personally I want to learn how to do that myself . The issue is people selling straight textures only, without doing much to them. Like just changing the colour or the lighting or moving the slider a tiny bit so the image on very close inspection does look different.

But at the moment as the EULA stands with Filter Forge this is really a moot point until and if it gets changed.

Beliria, the thing I love about Filter Forge is the library. I too would want to improve and learn how to make fantastic filters. However, what I do not understand is, if you do not want people to use the textures you personally have created with your filter then why do you not just provide one sample? There is no requirement to provide more than this and then you are sharing your filter but not sharing any of the textures you have created with it? Or are you also against anyone using your filter at all except to provide you with feedback?

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Or are you also against anyone using your filter at all except to provide you with feedback?

I do not recall implying that.

But I take your point regarding just submitting with one texture sample.

And it is possible to make fabric filters with filter forge, I should know I have a lot of them.

Quote

StevieJ wrote: In regard to FF vs Genetica (I've learned both programs).....Genetica is great for general users who want to create textures without getting too deep into the "nuts & bolts" of filter construction.....while FF is better for more advanced users who want more creative control. All Genetica textures end up looking kinda "stylized" due to lighting limitations.....while FF is able to create much better photo-realism. FF is harder to learn.....but pays off by giving you much greater "unlimitted" creative ability.....

I disagree on this although i agree with a lot you say, genetica can get very deep and realistic also, the new hdri stuff is probably better than FF imo due to the way it lets you build and edit your own quite well. It's alot slower to get new results from something you make though due to the way you have to edit everything rather than just have a main control panel like in FF, the results seem a bit different though and possibly a bit better in FF though as you say but genetica can get very deep and also have realistic results. Personally i use a range of texturing apps as they all seem to have there advantages.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Nope.....FF can't really do that with people submitting filters under the trial period.....so the more reason to put the new EULA into place towards preventing it from happenning without people having to buy the program.....

Ok, that seems like a bad move then imo and as you say the EULA should be made to fix this as soon as possible.

Quote

Amethyst wrote: From what I have seen this argument is over a few cents per texture and the main people who are complaining are those who have received FF for free as compensation for people using their fantastic filters. They have been given the program they wanted when they first started to make filters and now they want more. It was probably so long ago that they received their free copy that they have forgotten they have already been 'paid' for their talents.

Free copys really don't have anything to do with the matter in my opinion. I don't get what you mean by 'and now they want more', it's the re-sellers that want more honest users just want the EULA to be reasonable.

Quote

Amethyst wrote: By the way, this argument puts me off because today it is arguing about selling textures but next year it could be about using the textures for texturing. There is no knowing where this will stop. Plus this constant arguing makes this community seem very mean spirited compared to others when most people here use Filter Forge for its intended purpose and the people who do not are in a tiny minority. You will not stop those people. They will just find ways around it and this argument will go on forever. I do not want to be part of a community that is like this.

The good old mean community/people excuse to tilt the argument in a re-sellers favour. If anybody is being mean it's re-sellers that have no morals and are happy to take total advantage of what was a good community. Not saying you a re-seller but if you actually read a lot of what has been posted by people wanting a updated EULA you would find they are perfectly fine with creative use but they do not like direct re-selling. Seems like im constantly repeating what myself and others have said before. I don't think anyones being mean at all but rather expressing there opinions.

Quote

Amethyst wrote: Genetica makes very realistic textures. The way I see it is Filter Forge is more for photographers. Genetica is more for the texturer who wants to concentrate more on the actual design process and less on the technicalities. I am mainly interested in fabrics and fabrics are difficult to make in Filter Forge but very easy in Genetica. Genetica's EULA makes it possible to forget about restrictions and concentrate on the creative processes and this is what I want out of a program.

I agree Genetica can make great results but remember with genetica you cannot re-sell others/forum work though without permission so how does it differ to what people want in the updated FF EULA? Genetica does have a stock set to use however. Also both can make effects and both can make textures.

Quote
Beliria wrote: Now they have its more a case of do I share filters now or not? Most of the filters I have shared was from when I started out with filter forge in my first few months of learning to make filters. In some ways I personally feel stifled because I want feed back on how to make filters that I create better but unsure if I really should upload them specially when they are texture based.

Exactly this is what the re-sellers are doing, forcing decent honest users that want to get feedback and share with a partly nice community to question if they should or not due to the fact that if they do they will most likely get taken advantage of by people who are only interested in profits.

I think if things continue the way they are now it will mean privite off site forum, emails or chat clients sharing only with the people who a users trusts only. The main library will get some still and the bulk of them will be lower quality because maybe a few are ok with it or with something thats not there good work to be rendered out. The re-sellers are basically destroying the community spirit imo.

Quote

Amethyst wrote: Beliria, the thing I love about Filter Forge is the library. I too would want to improve and learn how to make fantastic filters. However, what I do not understand is, if you do not want people to use the textures you personally have created with your filter then why do you not just provide one sample? There is no requirement to provide more than this and then you are sharing your filter but not sharing any of the textures you have created with it? Or are you also against anyone using your filter at all except to provide you with feedback?

Beliria already said reasons why before your questions, please read things fully.

Quote

Amethyst wrote: Is that not contradictory then? If everyone is reselling your textures then they are not unique any more and so their value very small. Instead of limiting this sort of use then why not encourage it? Let the market become saturated with your textures and then people will stop trying to sell them because they will be worthless. This seems much better than trying to change the EULA which then has to be policed and will just continue this debate for many years.

I think you answer your own questions a decent texture becomes worthless because it's everywhere, has been seen and is no longer special so rather than being looked as 'wow thats a great texture, a lot of work must have gone into it' it becomes more of 'oh thats just that one that everyone is using on renderosity etc'.

Talking money you say they would not be unique and be worthless but what if the original creator decided to sell themselves? basically if they did they would probably get nothing compared to someone with a higher rank or more exposure yet they made it.

The reason to not 'encourage it' is because it was originally made by a user, one that probably doesn't want it plastered all over the web but rather they wanted to share with community members and were not expecting things to play out like that.

Morals is also a reason, people shouldn't be happy using others work and rather make there own things to satisfy there creativeness but i think we all know thats not the case and the reason is most likely money/quick cash and using someone elses work directly for gain is by no means creative in any way.

This is why people would be happy with there work being used creatively and for someone to actually put some effort into things so it's not the same as the original rather than just directly rendering it out and selling/claiming as there own work.

Quote

Amethyst wrote: The best way to be successful is to create a great supportive community and to get the word out there that there is this great filter to create with. Perhaps the best way to solve this is to show how commercial the results can be. Like this. This will also make people aware of the textures which are already out there and stop people from buying your textures from a different 'artist'.

Great supportive community yes, it already is/was for the honest users. Word out yes, it's been on lots of websites. Results = Comments on Filters area and User Gallery as well as being mentioned it was used on 'creative artworks' online and in the media so already done. Community members being taken advantage of for someone elses gain = bad. Peoples work being claimed as someone elses = bad. Hmmm i wonder where the problems lie....

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Genetica seems much more geared to actually creating textures. I am not interested in manipulating photos as I am not a photographer and I have plenty of filters for image manipulation. What I want is something which will help me create seamless textures. I have a few programs for this already but this was my reason for checking out Filter Forge

FF is just as 'geared to actually creating textures' as Genetica is though, i guess the reason the texture side is going down hill is all down to the fact someone will most likely render it out and sell it untill things change. FF is not as good with multiple images though and has a different system but both do exactly the same type of thing really.

In terms of creating textures the new EULA would be fine with this just not with directly rendering anothers work so i keep wondering did you read the proposed changes? as you seem to keep ignoring this and saying how you want to 'create' textures but thats what FF is all about anyway.

Proposed Changes

Quote

Amethyst wrote: Thank you for clarifying. As I said, I did not understand the problem you had. It seems much better just to provide the one texture example with your filter. Then the problem has vanished and you can rest at night knowing no-one will be doing anything you don't want them too as even a change in the EULA will not solve the problem totally whereas this solution will. Unless you have a problem with someone even using one of your textures

Guess what im going to quote someone else to answer your question

Quote
Beliria wrote: the main reason I shared these filters was more for feed back and for people to use, I was more in ignorance as to the fact that texture based ones with hardly any change from the preset images would turn up for sale in Second life and with in stores like Content Paradise, Renderosity etc.

A change in the EULA will solve Beliria's problem because Beliria wants to share and get feedback from the community but does not like re-selling and did not expect it would happen without hardly any changes, a new EULA should fix direct re-selling. Please read, and no im not being mean but rather you don't seem to read what has been said before many times or just don't like whats been said.

Hey James +1 that was some reading!! Going for a record for the longest post?

Quote
Amethyst wrote: By the way, Beliria had not answered my question.

Thought I did? Said it was a good point. I have no problem with people using the filters I submit but the term USING does cover a wide range of usages.

I do have problems with people claiming a texture is copyright to them when all they did was tweak the image minimally by changing the colour, lighting or a slider a tiny bit.

Another thing I have issues with is people selling textures from filters in the library and not creating filters to share with the library themselves. Seen as we are listing issues we have .

But like I said this really is a moot point because the way the EULA stands all this is irrelevant. But it still makes me laugh when I see something like this

http://www.contentparadise.com/us/use...duct_43773

and yet they have their own mini eula with them textures saying that people are not allowed to colour change them etc and resell the said textures.

Quote
Hey James +1 that was some reading!! Big grin Going for a record for the longest post? Wink

Hehe yeah, sorry for all the reading

Quote
But like I said this really is a moot point because the way the EULA stands all this is irrelevant. But it still makes me laugh when I see something like this http://www.contentparadise.com/us/use...duct_43773 and yet they have their own mini eula with them textures saying that people are not allowed to colour change them etc and resell the said textures.

Wow this is the perfect example of what i have been trying to tell people, they actually put usage limitations on someone elses work . Theres plenty of things like this going on now sadly with people being taken advantage of which is exactly why im taking a stand for the new EULA wanting it to happen as soon as possible and im happy others are also.

Edit -

By the way Beliria you answered the questions fine the first time around imo.

Hey by the way Amethyst that link to Daz3d you have

Quote

Amethyst wrote: The best way to be successful is to create a great supportive community and to get the word out there that there is this great filter to create with. Perhaps the best way to solve this is to show how commercial the results can be. Like this. This will also make people aware of the textures which are already out there and stop people from buying your textures from a different 'artist'.

in that section from above is in the sign up to see part of the forums.

For those of you that don't have an account. Daz3d have a hall of fame that people post links, showing the different items they have come across that use Daz studio products like Victoria or Dragons etc on book covers, you tube films, fliers etc.
People that post what they find get a chance to win $25. That is where that link that Amethyst posted takes you to.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: James' posts are fair too jumbled for me and the quote in the forum does not work correctly in my browser so I will just have to ignore his posts. Life is far too short!

It's funny becuause other people seem to understand just fine, just not you really it seems as you constantly repeat things and seem to ignore whats said. So to be honest im kind of confused with a lot of your posts myself. But i guess at the end of the day i maybe hit some truths which you didn't like as your oviously against the new EULA.

For all i know you are a high selling renderosity merchant, selling the library textures and i do wonder that because you say you want to use creativly however even though your told thats fine you always try to twist it back in favor of against the EULA changes by saying people are mean, how you won't buy FF, jumbled and how much better you think Genetica is and seem totally against the EULA change.

And now you plan to ignore me maybe becuase im not afraid to express my view and also have a reasonable understanding of things and can point out where your mistaken. I think i should be ignoring your posts but maybe thats your goal, but sorry i plan to keep going so feel free to ignore me even though im sure you will read this and probably know exactly what im talking about as with previous posts. Also it's funny how my quotes don't work for you but others do hmmm....

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Secondly they need to make FF more a texturing filter and less as a photographers/photoshop filter.

Guess the reason why theres less quality texture filters and more effects in FF now... (re-sellers, wow thats suprising). Have you ever opened the editor there is one in there and it can make textures just as well as effects suprisingly... And also surprisingly Genetica is a different app so has different features

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Thirdly, they need to stop this nonsense in the forums. This sort of topic was the first thing I saw when I originally came to the forums and I had to write to the owners of FF to ask what it was all about. Many angry people ranting on in incomprehensible posts is not a good impression to give to potential customers and is what put me off buying the program.

Yes indeed the reason comumminity members are angry is because of the re-sellers (although probably not angry at all yet people try and tilt the arguement by saying mean, bad and angry all the time).

So honest people who understand the concept of morals or just want rights to there 'own' work want the EULA modified to fix the loopholes. Some people (cough) who claim they are creative are suprisingly against it though (hmm), so they constantly argue against any proposed changes. Bottom line fix the EULA as soon as possible that would fix the problem with the arguements/discussions.

Oh and by the way thats most likely not the thing putting most people off buying the program but rather the fact they think there work might end up all over the web. Anyone who is creative with there projects is fine using there work or selling though so no reason to not buy and it would be even better for them if the EULA happened as they have some sort of security on there 'own' work and how it can be used, must be about the 100th or so time i have said that now...

If a new EULA change puts anyone off it's a re-seller because it might not be 'the perfect get rich quick idea from a online ebook' for them anymore. Unless they totally miss the point like some people seem to...

But as you say 'life is far too short!' so no doubt your browser won't even display this and you won't reply saying the same things again as you like to do or how mean i am because i don't like peoples work being taken advantage of. But im sure Beliria and others will get a reply with you trying to persuade that it's ok to render someones textures and sell because they make a mere $1 and how reasons like this make it ok for someone to get taken advantage of and there texture status degraded as it becomes old news.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: James, are you the forum troll because you sure do act like it?

No, i amd replying to a lot of stuff your postings that make little sense and could be called jumbled as you like to say. You also seem to keep replying a lot so im just giving you feedback, are you a troll too? A new word for your list of things to call me and others who want the EULA, gold star

If anything a troll would be someone who lurks around the forum saying they don't care about FF and how they prefer and have moved onto another app (see your previous posts), say how they don't understand people and will ignore them but then suddenly appear back when something they didn't like was said with lot's of quotes and comments that won't make much sense.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: If I ever repeat things it is because YOU do not understand what I post and it drives me crazy to be honest. I have re-read my posts in this thread and there is no way I have repeated anything. I may have taken things a bit further but I have NOT REPEATED anything.

Only i DO understand a lot of what you say only it never usually makes sense and you like to play chase the tail and go around in circles with your arguements. Ok maybe not word for word but you know what a general topic/point is right? If you do i think you will find you have done it a lot of times now.

I also repeat myself mainly because people like you don't seem to read and actually take in the things you are being told over and over. Maybe it might sink in the 100th time around though.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: I think it may be YOU who is ultra sensitive to some issues discussed in this thread as it is YOU who seems to be getting very upset.

It's not being upset on my part rather something i feel strongly about, i won't change my opinion on what i feel is the right thing.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Ah, here we go again... everyone is a texture reseller if they don't agree with you, aren't they James?

I did not say that hence the 'For all i know you are' part, what i mean one would assume you are re-selling due to the fact you constantly think the new EULA is a bad thing. And yes here we go again with the 'think everyone' arguement you like to do a lot.

I still don't understand your reasons against it to be honest sorry, you say you want to be creative with FF/Genetica yet im fine with that. And to sell/use a creation yet im fine with that. I am not for people directly rendering a library texture and selling it online, perfectly reasonable choice i think. You say how you think thats wrong though but argue in favor of it. So yeah

Quote
Amethyst wrote: And being the ever helpful person you are, you decided I was telling lies about the quote button not working for me. Not to worry, I worked out how to use it myself. I don't fully understand the rest of this paragraph or what it is referring to.

Well if the website went down or something then i apologise but the way you put it across it basically sounds like you don't like what you have been told. The rest was basically meaning that maybe you have a plan thinking by telling me you are ignoring me that i will stop posting here and that it wouldn't work so well. But funny how you are not ignoring me now though, thanks

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Well. actually..... YES I have opened the editor. That is why I have 10 filters in the library and 2 in pending. You really must get off your high horse and be more observant and more trusting of people.

Well that quote i made is what one calls sarcasm as you have done too. Why do you not think FF cannot make textures well? but you have used it yourself and seen it can do as well as even submitted some was the message there as was the answer to your question re-sellers are the reason there is less textures now for FF. I also noticed you had filters long ago btw.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Yep, James, anyone who has a different opinion to you is a reseller and they lie when they say they aren't. Aren't you clever to suss that out? *sarcasm*

I think i probably have sussed things out from the start though and thats why i get the big reaction back. I didn't say anyone with a different opinion is a re-seller but rather just assume they fall into that catagory for some reason or another due to the way they oviously don't want any EULA changes and keep making it clear. And if not and they want to just be creative thats fine and the new EULA is fine with that so i don't get the big issue they have.

Quote
James wrote: Oh and by the way thats most likely not the thing putting most people off buying the program but rather the fact they think there work might end up all over the web.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: This must be the silliest thing you have ever said. As far as I am aware there is no obligation to add any filters to the library and if they are not in the library how can anyone ever use the textures?

Sigh... Why do you think areas like this exist -

http://www.filterforge.com/forum/list.php?FID=11

You know that section where 'you' are getting feedback, last time i checked it's not designed to be a re-seller pick and choose what to sell showcase, but rather the reason for it is for users to share and take part in the community. Thats the point and thats the draw for even having a library to start with. Just because someone 'wants' to take part in the community it does not mean they should get taken advantage of. The point is they no longer want to take part or even get the app due to the way re-sellers use user content and exploit the community which would put them off.

Quote
James wrote: Anyone who is creative with there projects is fine using there work or selling though so no reason to not buy and it would be even better for them if the EULA happened as they have some sort of security on there 'own' work and how it can be used, must be about the 100th or so time i have said that now...

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Then please stop saying it because I am not asking what is permissible or not and your repetition is tedious.

Yes throw the ball back... Ok then why the big dicussion on your part then, i don't get it. The reason it gets repeated is due to this fact has been there all along and also because you don't take things in.

Actually to try and cut the discussion down please tell me your exact reasons why you are against the EULA changes? Then i will hopefully get a understanding of why you are seemingly so against the EULA and know your reasoning, so far you seem to be skipping around the point.

So far i gather you want to be creative, you have made filters, you agree that the morals behind what some of the re-sellers are doing is wrong. So if this is true why is the arguement going on, seems like we are sort of on the same side judging on some of the things you have posted so i don't get why you are against the new EULA changes.

Quote
James wrote: If a new EULA change puts anyone off it's a re-seller because it might not be 'the perfect get rich quick idea from a online ebook' for them anymore. Unless they totally miss the point like some people seem to...

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Yep, everyone is a reseller if they don't agree with you. *sarcasm* (Sorry for the REPETITION but it was you who repeated it first.)

I guess the point was missed again, also others (not just me) have said this before. The only people that are likely to care 'are' re-sellers because the changes 'are' aimed at fixing there direct re-selling. Did you not read the proposed EULA changes... you know that thread you were posting in before this one. And yes that was repeated as a lot of things don't seem to get taken in when read do they (and yes i do read in case your thinking that will be a good reply to suggest thats me to try and make me look bad). I suggest you read this again -

http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...&PAGEN_1=1

Quote
Amethyst wrote: I wonder why I bothered. Question I find it very sad how. according to you, everyone is a liar or a thief. You must lead a very worthwhile life to have such a low opinion of everyone.

You bothered because you know what i mean but it doesn't help your arguement when i reply with something you know is right or a fact so even though claiming you don't care you reply and im sure you will to this one also. And no i don't think or remeber saying 'everyone is a liar or a thief' however i do think some re-sellers possibly fall in to this catagory judging by what they do but thats a smaller percentage of users in the community i hope.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: You must lead a very worthwhile life to have such a low opinion of everyone.

Yes taking a stand for whats right is bad and makes me a bad person right, and as i said i only have a low opinion on a slight few that probably have reason for it too. And my life is going just great thanks.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Do I win the prize for the longest post with the most drivel in it? I think James was going for that prize but this one may just have outdone him, especially with the quotes! Big grin Big grin Big grin Seriously, I apologise to everyone for this post but I did not want James to think I was ignoring him. He gets very upset when that happens. Wink

Nah i win the prize, but for longest post drivel/pointless arguments award you win though congrats. And i apologise to the community for bothering to reply to things that don't make much sense/of an arguement most of the time again and repeating myself over because maybe 1% of it is taken in each huge thread that happens

That's the thing, until the/and if a New EULA is released all this is basically a wish list/suggestion list.

Quote
James wrote: Nah i win the prize, but for longest post

Think Carl went for that one, one time and that page on the thread at his corner is now dead to us all.. Mind wasn't text and kinda messed up the page on that thread

Hey James is the proposed new EULA posted somewhere?

James, I am pleased we are ending on a happier note. Not sure about the forums you frequent but on the ones I go to most people generally respect differing views. We should just agree to differ. Although I have said that I do not think it is morally correct and that I would feel conned if I had bought a texture pack like the one posted earlier.

By the way, as you seem to know much about what is happening around here, my demo is running out very soon and I am in the UK. The exchange rate quoted by FF is almost 1 pound to the dollar and it looks like I would have to pay 19% VAT on top of that whereas in the UK VAT is only 15% at the moment. This makes the top two versions very expensive.

In 4 out of 6 versions of FF one cannot make filters.

Where does the user stand if they buy one of the cheaper versions and what about the future?

How will the new EULA effect the 4 cheaper versions?

I would like something so I can use the filters I have made but that is going to get boring very soon and $69 + 19% VAT is still going to make the Basic Version very expensive if all I can do is use my first month's filters.

Obviously the EULA as it currently stands allows me to use the other filters (so please do not repeat this ) but I do not want to do this when there is so much bad feeling around them and, as you yourself have said, even using the straight renders in creative ways is not fully acceptable.

Quote
James wrote: 3) People who don't modify - They want to just put a render on a object as it is to either sell or in a project (i am sort of against this but it is more acceptable than what a re-seller does and more so if it's non commercial based)

I am more interested in how things will stand with these versions in the new EULA as I have not seen anything to address this issue and whether I will be able to use them with a clear conscience. If I was to buy any version I would want to know that my intended use is well within any future EULA.

Also, does anyone have any ideas of when the new versions of FF will be released?

Thanks.

Heya Steve!.. James is a troll? I never knew that.. people are pretty nice here though and a good laugh but we all have a serious side too. Specially when people ask serious questions.

some what Steve to both , I'll re-read the proposed EULA thread when am more awake though, should really head to bed now. Have a great evening everyone

Thanks for your answer, James. I am not sure if I can live without being able to create filters in FF but the present economic situation and the increased price for UK residents makes me waiver between the Basic version and the Standard version but then I think about not having bump maps so I think about the Pro version!

The sales page says one cannot modify or create filters in the four cheaper versions so all one can do is straight renders of other people's textures. Hmmmm... I really would not be happy with that especially after what you said. I think this is what is so confusing about the whole thing.

I think I may go with the Standard version and upgrade to Pro in the future. The trial is very clever. It is just enough time to get to know how to create some filters and become addicted before it times out. I never thought I would enjoy creating filters so much! Now I just need to learn how to get better at it!

By the way, I read your review of Genetica in one of the other threads and you were pretty spot on. It is cool not always having to start from absolute scratch when building a texture. I love the Canvas Lab with all its shapes and it breaks away from the kaleidoscope idea of patterns. That is one feature I wish FF had. Then again, it is very easy to get lots of variations in FF and is one feature I wish Genetica had better developed. However, they are both worthwhile additions to the toolbox

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.

... Folks, it'd be nice if you guys can summarize this information into a general statement so it applies to a lot of other things.

It'd help artists and legal issues.

Boring. Vlad just won't commit yet, it's (still) a free for all *push* *push* ha-ha.

jffe

Quote
Amethyst wrote: any changes may make four sixths of his products useless for textures.

How so??? The proposed new EULA restrictions will only prohibit straight texture results from being resold.....and that's it.....all "creative" texture applications will remain unaffected by it.....and 99.9% of customers purchase this program for creative use.....so it's certainly not going to make any textures "useless" at all.....

Quote
Amethyst wrote: He will also have all the hassle of chasing up breeches in the EULA.

I would make an educated guess that FF is not going to waste any of their time chasing down any breeches of the proposed new EULA.....they're going to make it the responsibility of the author to protect their own work.....

LOL.... No.....just applicable to the texture filters submitted under the new EULA.....if an author so chooses to restrict them (I think FF is going to allow authors the option to restrict them). I would imagine that FF will have to keep all texture filters "unrestricted" that were submitted under the current EULA.....can't change that.....

Quote
Skybase wrote: Well... I just suddenly had to think about Creative Commons lol. Or... whatever, I really shouldn't say much.

----I like that (creative commons) idea on paper, but it's never been court tested and probably won't be (as the people who can afford a lawyer or work with a company that can, never go that route). Like if ya can't even get yer name advertised for the work done, then it's still thievery, and that's teh way o' the computernet it seems.

jffe

Quote

Conniekat8 wrote: Quote Crapadilla wrote: In my opinion, the whole problem is rooted in an oversight on the part of Filter Forge Inc., which was there from the very start: People could download the free trial version, render out textures for a whole month and put them up for online sale without even having paid for an FF license. This practice should have been restricted by the EULA from day one! Yep, I was saying this about, what, a year or so ag

I don't understand FF's reticence to watermarking the trial version, that would solve that problem without waiting for the Eula and would also increase sales