Claiming "created by"

lol.. yeah I was well aware. I just gave people credit for being good. To be honest. I'm buddhist so in the end I really don't care what he does.. it'll all come back or not.

I've taken the liberty to copy his tags (I'm usually too lazy to think up many) and use them on my textures posted on flickr. So now I should show up when people search for [Edited by moderator] and...

[edited by moderator]

I particularly like the tags [edited by moderator].. I wouldn't have thought of those. Thank you for giving me those ideas for my filter Vintage Twisted Thorns, I would never have thought of those.

I've also joined a bunch of new groups I would never have known about thanks to him and posted my texture work to them so the world can see it all.. its great, I'd have never known about all these new marketing venues had he not led the way

Thanks [edited by moderator], I hope you see this.

Sorry Carl....that sucks!!!

FF won't change the EULA to give authors tangible copyrights to protect them.....everything submitted to FF is totally restriction-free....so the only solution to prevent it is not to submit anything to FF.....sorry to say, but true....

Quote
jffe wrote: 1st time poster William is here to straighten it all out, guess I can get back to coding filters to sell to FF, or wtf ever he seems to think

Jffe, a personal request to you to stop offensive commenting.

Quote
William Turner: Anyway, do the creators of Photoshop ask for credit when its been used to create something ?

Nope, but it someone stated that they did this amazing photo job manually, by editing the raw data file byte by byte by hand and not using Photoshop, where the use of Photoshop is pretty obvious, I think many would react and say that this person takes credit for work done using Phtoshop by saying he did it himself, hex editing the image file.

Quote
What you've done is only part of the creation of a piece of artwork. Do paint, brush, paper manufacturers ask for royalties because their (note the spelling BTW) products have a significant effect on the end result ? Of course not.

Yup, he's done a part of the creation, like 99% of it, all that he has done is click the render button really, clicking the Render button and saving can hardly be called "the creation of a piece of artwork", I wouldn't even call it a derivative. In this case, it's not just a significant effect on the end result, it is the end result, he pretty much is claiming that he made the tool.

Sphinx, I do agree with you but there really isn't an answer except for thoes who make the filters to stop.


Its absolutely impossible to police the use of stuff like this and it happens in all forms of media not just art and photography.

The 'copy and paste' culture is one that is here to stay and while the technology exists to do it readily, then there will be no stopping people from doing it other than deprive them of the raw materials.

Having looked at the guy's site I do agree Carl and Sphinx that in this case he's gone too far.

Its one thing using a filter as part of an artwork but quite different when you claim the filter is your own.

Surely this is covered in the agreement you have when you make a filter for FF ?

If it isn't then it should be added by FF.

Quote
Surely this is covered in the agreement you have when you make a filter for FF ?

No, Filter Forge keep a sharp distinction btwn filters and results in the license. The filter xml you make using Filter Forge is as such protected, but the direct result (the images your filter can produce) is not.

I have several times pointed out that this distinction makes little sense from the creators point of view, in particular when the filter generates the texture 100% (i.e. no external input) - such "filters" don't really filter anything, they are tweakable artworks.

Quote
he pretty much is claiming that he made the tool.

Remarks like this may be called an ad hominem attack.

This thread has gone too far and is closed now.
Any posts commenting on the person will be removed.