"All your filter are belong to someone else!"

Quote

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

Not so. Here's a product that includes 200 fills and 310 "sign blanks" mostly generated with Alien Skin named Vector Art Digital Mega Collection. It's priced at $299.00 for 1,154 images with a typical street price of $149.00. We happen to be resellers of the product, so I'm familiar with it. It hasn't proven to be as popular as Monster Wrap Fills or Print Craft Suite from Aurora Graphics, but it still does six figures in sales.

In addition, Alien Skin's box products are all being sold now by the sign supply distributors.

I guess I'm a little bias. Being an avid and frequent user of FF (okay, I'm a certifiable addict), I can identify use of it easily. If I had happened upon your website by chance while surfing, my jaw would have dropped. However, if I did not know of FF's existance, I wouldn't have an opinion one way or the other.

I'm in a very different section of the digital image industry, I guess. I frequently search for signs of FF in the work of others that are in the same business as I am and I do find it. However, like my work, theirs is unique and what we all create cannot simply be done with a simple save of a default render. The whole idea around what I do is to be different and unique, which is what my target customers are looking for.

Quote

Crapadilla wrote: As I've stated in one of my earlier posts, it is my impression that people who are selling off direct FF renders (off of filters which are not of their own creation), claiming ownership of copyrights and obscuring their true source in the process, are directly harming FF. They may have bought the tool, granted, but their actions serve to undermine its very success. Vladimir's consultations with the lawyers tells me that I can't be entirely wrong here. Let's paint a not-so-hypothetical picture: Whenever a filter author releases a somewhat generically useful filter, a horde of parasitic render-monkeys already stands ready to render their asses off for the profit, just claiming what's there and trying to sell the hell out of it. Instead of using FF in the creative process, they are abusing it, merely sucking it dry. Instead of crediting the filter authors and the tool, spreading the word about it, they obsure the source and whither its roots. Result: Hitting randomize buttons becomes a celebrated art form, a crowning achievement of creativity. FF, a tool that was originally meant for sharing creative recipes, is transformed into a global cloning franchise that regurgitates texture fast-food. The next step: Filter authors, enraged by the prospect of their contributions being immediately mangled through countless webshops or digested in the belly of some starving multi-million dollar corporation, stop submitting new filters and request the already existing ones to be pulled from the library, until there is but the most desperate of filter sediments left. End result: The filter library, this great knowledge base about FF, dies. FF dies. Nice picture? Wink

I don't think that publishers are the problem ... at least not the primary problem. The problem is more the business models being used and the evolutionary effects of the technology.

Example: Foster Coburn is a widely respected guru with Corel users. Here's a link to his recommendations to his clients. Anyone following his recommendations can render high resolution presets all day long using Genetica Viewer for free and legally.

Example: I operate one of the larger forums for sign industry professionals. I approached Filter Forge with inquiries as to either reselling Filter Forge or securing a group discount for my members. The response was an offer that was way below industry standards, so nothing transpired. I instead made a few posts to advise my members of the existence and potential benefits of Filter Forge. I know of only a few members that bought and one of them because he has already released two collections of tiles.

My point is that if you want recognition and/or if you want monetary compensation you have to incorporate the mechanism to achieve that into the rules. In addition, the Filter Forge developers may need to get a lot more aggressive to break through into wide distribution of the software.

What is happening at this point in the evolution of filter technology is products like mine, Aurora's Monster Wrap Fills, and the Vector Art Mega Digital Collection appearing as "crossover technology" as a convenience to our clients. The technology is useful and valuable in the sign industry.

Quote
You have to put it in black and white and in big, giant letters in small words easy enough for a 5 year old to understand. Only then you might see a change.

And I thought I had the not-so-hypothetical picture painted sufficiently black & white!



Anyways. I have yet to come across a merchant that actually credits Filter Forge and the authors of the filters used to create the textures they sell. But no, that would run against the short-term profiteering. People might visit the FF website, download the tool and discover for themselves. No no no, they wouldn't want that! They'd lose the edge! Plus, it could lead to FF actually growing and getting better, and they don't want that either. It would cut profits! Competition is sin! They don't care that they're shooting themselves in their own feet in the process. They don't care if FF goes down the drain. No, no, no, they will suck it dry while it lasts.

If anything, the whole issue forces me to very seriously re-examine the contents of todays breakfast and - more importantly - my attitude towards filter authoring and the filter library.

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

jffe,

that is an interesting guerilla technique worth contemplating.

Set up your own "shop" area at the "offending" marketplace community, render out the same (or rather similar) sets of textures and dump them on the market for ridiculously low prices, while excessively advertising where the merchandise originated. Very Good!

I bow before greatness!

hi sign guy, good to see you back. i do recall the original thread in which you posted, and warned authors about the licensing. i've tried to tell a few here the same thing. i even posted a screenshot of the upload license. and, like you, i read this to mean once you submit your filter to the library, you have NO protection of your work(s) as far as someone else using it, commercially or otherwise. and, because of this new thread, i've been re-reading it again. and, i'll post the most pertinent parts again here.

and, like you, i've already stated once in thir thread that i believe the current library is grandfathered under the original license agreement and that ONLY filters submitted after a new clause is entered into the EULA would be subject to the EULA. like it or not, that seems to be how the courts view it and, like it or not, that's the contract you entered into with FF.

and, like it or not, every time i submit a filter to the library, i know that i am basically saying, 'here, have fun, commercially or otherwise. do what you wish with it.'. i'd still like recognition, but i also know i cant expect it as part of the contract.

and, as someone else mentioned, ignorance is not an excuse. we tend to 'sign' EULA's somewhat blindly. 'oh, i hate all that legal crap. i'll just skip over it and hit 'accept' and pray for the best.'. sad, but true. one company i heard of put a hidden bonus in their EULA, something like $1000.00 bonus if folks would simply go to the such and such a website (hidden) and claim the prize. out of some million copies sold, only three claimed the prize. now, i've probably got some of the details wrong in that little anecdote, but that was the jist of it. nobody reads the EULA's (or almost nobody). and again, the courts dont care. ignorance is not an excuse to the lawyers, judges and so on.

i shld also point out that i had one part of a statement i made earlier wrong. i said the licensor could cancel the contract and have his/her filter pulled. per the upload license, it's the licensee (FF) that can cancel the contract, not the licensor (the author). so, i'm not even sure if, legally, we could require FF to pull our filters. and even if we could, all those folks that already have that filter are still protected under the EULA and cannot be forced to erase that filter.

so, bottom line, if you've uploaded your filter to the library, you have NO claim on someone commercially using your filter, your presets, your textures in any way they see fit, period! sorry folks, but that does seem to be the way the EULA reads. you DO own the copyrights, but you've licensed it to FF to sub-license it so that others can use it any way they see fit... if you've uploaded it to the library.

i'll post the part of the EULA again that pertains to this:

so, the way i read that license is, you, the author, grant to FF, the right to do wahtever they please with your filter, including all those things mentioned like altering, modifying, transforming and creating derivative works and that you also grant to FF the right for them to sub-license to the end users of Ff, the right to do the same things WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION TO THE AUTHOR OR TO FF.

that seem about right, sign guy? that how you read it?

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I don't think that publishers are the problem ... at least not the primary problem.

True. They are not the problem, but a symptom of a problem many times bigger than our discussion. But since this enfolding train of thought would lead us way off into 'off-topic' territory, we should not pursue those tracks any further here. Let it suffice that what I'm referring to here are not 'business models' or 'evolutionary effects of the technology'...

I think Conniekat8 put it quite succinctly:

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Don't need Laws or unlock codes to know what's ethical, or how to try and extend people professional courtesy. I also don't need laws to know when I'm in a position to possibly take advantage of someone unsuspecting, or whom didn't protect themselves enough.

Quote

Crapadilla wrote: Sign Guy wrote: I don't think that publishers are the problem ... at least not the primary problem. True. They are not the problem, but a symptom of a problem many times bigger than our discussion. But since this enfolding train of thought would lead us way off into 'off-topic' territory, we should not pursue those tracks any further here. Let it suffice that what I'm referring to here are not 'business models' or 'evolutionary effects of the technology'... I think Conniekat8 put it quite succinctly: Quote Conniekat8 wrote: Don't need Laws or unlock codes to know what's ethical, or how to try and extend people professional courtesy. I also don't need laws to know when I'm in a position to possibly take advantage of someone unsuspecting, or whom didn't protect themselves enough.

Many of us remember a world that was more respectful, community oriented and neighborly. It would be wonderful if this was still the way things are. But they aren't for the most part and it's all about crossing the t's and dotting the i's legally these days. So I can't agree with Conniekat8 that I am somehow worthy of contempt for determining what my rights are in an agreement, entering into it in good faith, paying my fees, and then putting my rights into effect.

ya know, the question of morality versus ethics (legal vs. what's right and wrong) isnt a question here. you signed a contract that basically says take my filter and use it any way you want. you basically said, here, these are freebies and you have my blessing... MY BLESSING to use them in any way, commercially or otherwise, as you see fit. so, there is no ethical problem here. YOU TOLD THEM IT WAS OK. that's the part that is now seemingly being forgotten here by the authors, and now you're upset that you told them it was ok. sorry, but that doesnt fly. and it certainly wont fly in a court of law.

had it been from a filter you DIDN'T upload to the library, you'd be absolutely correct, legally and ethically and could sue their britches off and have them damned by the church to hell.

what vladimir is now trying to do, is to make the commercially legal part not legal without your permission, at least as it applies to the raw, non-derivative works textures, so that someone cant take your texture, as it is or could be rendered directly from your filter(s) and claim it as their own. and that's admirable, but still will NOT prevent someone from using your filter, if it's in the FF library,...FREELY and without compensation to you, in a derivative work. and that means ANY COMPENSATION including even a tiny credit or acknowledgement of you as the author.

i really hate pointing all this out. i think it's going to hurt FF and i dont want to hurt FF. i love this program, but folks need to understand that when they upload a filter to the library, they've given up control of that filter in how it is used. the group here on the forum is an incredible group. we do tend to give credit when we use something of someone else's design and creation. in fact we're almost compulsively fawning about it at times. but the bottom line is still, you consented to give that up when you uploaded your filter to the library. so, giving a courtesy nod to someone else's work is cool here in the forums, but it's not necessarily going to happen outside of the forums and if you expect that when you upload your filter, you're going to be disappointed.

now, there is a loophole here, maybe. you could actually upload your filter to the forum and it would NOT be covered by the upload EULA. you would retain all rights and someone could not use your filter AT ALL without your permission. however, there may be a loophole to the loophole. i really havent read, very thoroughly, the rules, laws and legalese governing 'Content' on the website. so, read that before you take what i just said as gospel.

and, taking that same concept further, you could also publish your filter on your own and post it on your own website. YOU ARE THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IN ALL CASES here, so you would be able to control the use of your filter, if you wished. AND, as i read the upload EULA, no one would be able to alter and distribute or upload your filter or a reasonable facsimile thereof to the FF library. and boy, does that raise some ugly possibilities when twisted around.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: So I can't agree with Conniekat8 that I am somehow worthy of contempt for determining what my rights are in an agreement, entering into it in good faith, paying my fees, and then putting my rights into effect.

That is not exactly what I think is implied in the quote by Conniekat8, which I gave above, and certainly not what I meant to imply.



The current EULA is a fact that is out there, that fact is not in dispute, and you are indisputably acting within the legal confines of this EULA. There is also no legal dictate within the EULA to give credit to FF or filter authors, as far as I know.

As you have stated in your informed post above, the current situation has evolved because the current EULA has allowed it to evolve this way. The situation has now reached an extent which makes it obvious that something is amiss. Is it legal? Yes. Is it right? Disputable. Consequently, if I were a reseller of textures, I'd be confronted with two distinct paths of action, one that is legal, and another that is both legal and right. Apparently, many resellers seem to have chosen the former path, which is a sad reality. We can but speculate whether in our modern perceptions the latter path still is an issue at all. Some may say it isn't, and I'm inclined to agree, judging from my personal experience. For most it isn't, but that doesn't make it old-fashioned or irrelevant to me.

Still, it is exactly the bad aftertaste of this situation that forces me to seriously reconsider all things connected to filter authoring. As a filter author, I am compelled to react to this situation, and take position. Now, I certainly do not regret having submitted my filters. Quite to the contrary, as partaking in the Filter Forge community is rewarding beyond mere materialistic gains (and I have gotten more than my fair share out of the reward program ). Yet, if this situation is not contained, this very core of Filter Forge - its community - might be at stake eventually, as filter authors might simply decide to not partake anymore and take their work elsewhere.

As an artist, I have invested in a tool that I know will return my investment manifold. I care about this investment, as I care about the filter forge community, because it is an essential part and a great strength of this tool. Naturally, I'd want to be able to use the filters of others in my work, as others may use mine. Also, I wish to see the investment grow, and the tool become better and better. This growth is a function of FF being sold and the devs being paid, as well as of the filter library receiving a steady influx of knowledge about FF (i.e. filters). If the forums were deserted and the library were empty, this tool would be greatly diminished, and the knowledge on how to use it much more arcane.

The point is the following: Do you think texture resellers are currently harming this great product, or are they nurturing its growth? Are they not silently dishonoring their investment, or are they actually putting it to good use? I have the distinct feeling that the former is the case for both questions, despite the fact that it may not be readily apparent.

That is an interesting point I hadn't considered. Since I cannot rest my sentiment on a foundation of solid statistical evidence and business data, I'm rather anxious to read what Vladimir might be willing to divulge on this issue, or shall we say this 'rationalization'.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: and, like it or not, every time i submit a filter to the library, i know that i am basically saying, 'here, have fun, commercially or otherwise. do what you wish with it.'. i'd still like recognition, but i also know i cant expect it as part of the contract.

You don't have to do that, you do have the ability to limit the use type of your filters, even after they are submitted to Filter Forge (If what Vladimir said is correct, and I have no reason to believe it's not)

Quote
Kraellin wrote: ya know, the question of morality versus ethics (legal vs. what's right and wrong) isnt a question here.

Sorry, I can't resist but correct this part...

Morality and ethics are very closely related. Morality is a term used for private lives, and ethics are used for business operations.
Reference: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ethics

There are a lot of business manouvers that are 'legal' but are still considered rather unethical.

Doing what is legal and not a smallest bit more means that one is usually just one step from being a criminal. If there's a legal loophole they'll find, they'll go for it. Without any consideration for whether something is ethical (your basic right and wrong).

Look at this somewhat exaggerated example: cheating on a girlfriend isn't illegal. It's still very immoral, and if she was your secretary, it would be very unethical too.

Can one really say, well, I didn't do anything illegal, so why is everyone mad at me?

Been Reading through all these posts and I surly see both sides of the Coin on this.

I had brought this up on Freds board about what I feel is totally unethical behavior by some companies. We have talked extensivly about this. I would honestly say Fred is not a parasite he is a businessman and makes a product that people want. Just like FF. for One thing I have seen him direct people to this site. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I have bought the Pro Version and use it a lot in my Profession as I see fit and as needed. I have developed a few Filters for our Shop that I will never share as I see them as Specific tool/Trade Secret if you will exclusive to our shop and Business. Other I will share Freely. I am not as good as some of the filters I have seen here and Yes I have used them in our Business but they are always part of a greater Item.

One thing though I have posted links to this site as a education for people in our business. (Signs,Graphics, Vehicle Wraps Etc.). I really think Vlad need to look at his marketing. There is a wide open market for his product. You want to stop the Texture parasites. Market to the people that use your product and the texture CDs and show them outright that you yourself can create the same textures as shown on these CDs. A few Marketing Ideas..
Become a Vendor on www.Signs101.com, www.letterville.com. These sites are a great education to many Sign people (I can personally say that I will first go look at these sites when I am shopping for Products a Feel they are at least someway supporting our Industry instead of just via for my Dollar)
Advertise in some of the trade Magizines. Fortunatly or Not the Sign Industry does not have many Magizines so you will get great exposure in just 2 or 3 of them The main Ones are SignCraft, Sign Business, Vehicle Wraps (A new Mag form ST same as Sign Business) Sign of the Times, Sign Builder. Plus a few others. But I would venture to say that about 75% to 80% of all sign shops in the country get at least 2 of these magizines. Its all about self promotion.

Fred'a actually being fairly decent business-wise about it all. I do question his suggestion that the ideal is to sell/license filters out exclusively, as that could go either way, but is not a given as to best possible method to make $ off creating filters. I have filters that are not that great in and of themselves, but inside, they represent new concepts that haven't been exploited yet, to me, there is value in developing new concepts. Why ? Many reasons, but mostly long term-wise, when everyone has FF then anything that even remotely looks like something from the library will have no value, not when it's all free for the price of the app to begin with. The bottom line ? People selling renders of FF library filters won't last long, either the people into the textures will buy FF and get their own golden goose, or so many people will simply buy 10 packs from the hacks and resell them that they'll have no value that way, it's easier, and thieves don't sue thieves eh. Supply/demand only works when supply is limited, and with digital media, only a high price and small window of time make anything "scarce" in that sense.

jffe

Quote
You don't have to do that, you do have the ability to limit the use type of your filters, even after they are submitted to Filter Forge (If what Vladimir said is correct, and I have no reason to believe it's not)

actually, you do, if you've submitted the filter to the library, at least according to the way the EULA existed at the time i posted that statement you quoted. the EULA is pretty specific and you are legally bound by the contract you 'signed' when you submitted.

now, if you're referring to how vladimir suggested he might amend things, then that's an entirely different case and i wasnt referring to how things might be, but how they were currently, at the time of posting. if you know of a way to legally protect one's work of a filter and it's products, AS THE EULA STOOD AT THE TIME I POSTED, then i'd be happy to hear it.

and sorry, but you are not correcting me about morality vs ethics. i dont use standard dictionaries, which tend to muddle the two definitions into one or use one word to define the other, and particularly not web dictionarys for what i consider to to be the definitions of those two words. morality is something imposed on an individual or group, normally by a group, e.g, a government, a church, one's family and so on. laws, policies, rules and the like are the moralities. and for me, ethics has to do more with what you actually believe to be right and wrong and how you follow your own code of existing and acting. a man in a foxhole in a war diving on a hand grenade to save his buddies at the expense of his own life... that's ethics. breaking a moral code to do the right thing (in one's own view), that's ethics.

and yes, that probably goes against the grain of a lot of dictionarys, but it's a more workable definition, for me, anyways.

and in light of those definitions, then i dont see how, with the EULA as it read at the time i originally posted, that fred or anyone else is violating a moral or ethical code. the authors signed a contract stating that anyone can use their filter in any way they see fit. that it violates YOUR ethical code may well be true. but at the same time that would be a bit hypocritical, since you signed the contract stating it was ok for fred to do what he's doing and for others to do what they're doing with your filters.

you cant have it both ways, folks. you signed a contract and now you're complaining that folks are using it PER YOUR AGREEMENT(s). i'm sorry, but that's how it is, or at least was, when this thread first got started. that vladimir is considering changing the EULA is all fine and well, but until that happens, the EULA, as it stands, is the governing body here. and, the use of all those filters already published in the library are bound by that contract and will continue to be bound by the contract that was made at the time of publication to the library. so, even amending the EULA now is not likely to change the contract on those that were already submitted under the original EULA.

now, connie, i do see your point under my own definitions of morality and ethics. you are contending that ethically, one shld not use the raw textures someone else made and re-sell them as your own. i do understand that. but, you (plural here), also signed a contract when you submitted the filter to the library. and that changes things. ethics now have to be applied to you signing that contract. is it now ethical to demand or require that someone using your filter, who bought the program legally and ethically, to now be expected to amend that contract just because someone authoring the filter doesnt like the way you use it? i think that would be unfair and somewhat unethical, as well.

the ONLY protection you currently have over your filters is to NOT publish them. the ONLY say you have over how your filters are used, is to NOT publish them to the library. once you upload them to the library, you are sub-licensing to FF the right to sub-license them to others. and that license is pretty wide open. i cannot, therefore, find any fault with fred or others that then use that published filter in the manner in which you agreed. it's sort of like the person who complains that the television station they're watching is displaying nudity or something else which is objectionable to themselves. so, quit watching! and that translates, with FF, to quit publishing to the library. you DO have that control.

the spirit of the library is very similar to open source software, or at least some open source software. when you publish, you are putting no restrictions on use (ok, i know some open source does restrict use) when you publish. you are telling folks, here, this is my gift to the community. this is my gift to the world. that someone takes your gift and uses it in a manner which you didnt expect or like is moot. you gave it away! it's like giving a child a toy and then expecting them to ONLY use it in the manner in which YOU want or like, not the child you gave it to. if you gave it away, then it's theirs to use as THEY see fit. or, if you want to make an arguement of that, then substitute child for a newlywed person you gave a gift to. it's theirs. that toaster you gave them as a wedding present is now theirs. they can do with it as they see fit. that they might use it as a bumper for their car may hurt your feelings somehow, but it is now theirs. it's the same with filters in the library, with one exception. you do still hold the copyright to the filter. however, you've legally granted FF to sub-license the unrestricted use of that filter by others that own the program. so, you havent a leg to stand on here.

that all of that is now objectionable, well, that's pretty evident. and that is why vladimir is now considering having the EULA changed. we'll just have to see how it comes up, if and when he does and go from there.

ok, we're mostly understanding each other then, connie. despite 'my' definitions or yours, you're saying it's unethical for re-sellers to use the base, raw textures of the filter authors and re-sell them as-is. and, i would agree with you if it werent for the fact that each and every author signs an agreement that that is ok... as the EULA reads in present time.

so, subsequent to that, 'busting fred's chops' seems a bit unfair to me.

that this is set up right for the authors is now in question and vladimir looks like he's going to change the EULA. so, my only point with the current library filters is that even if he changes the EULA, we'll still have about 4000 filters that wont be covered by that, since a contract was already made on those.

now, there is one thing that could be done on the 4000. since those 4000 filters are a contract between FF and the authors, the authors and FF could re-negotiate that contract. that's perfectly legal. the only drawback is that the end users that already had the filters would still be covered under the old contract. remember, there are three parties involved in this contract, FF, author and end user. so, end users do not have to re-negotiate if they dont want to and would still be able to use those filters covered under the old contract. but, once FF and the authors re-negotiated, end users that didnt have those filters before, would be covered under the new EULA. messy, but i think that's the best one could do if the end users didnt want to re-negotiate.

I´ve read this topic from beginning to the end, and I have to agree with both sides - to some degree!!!

Do you really think that people who buy FF will only use it for their own entertainment? Of course not! Designers and other people in the business use these programs all the time for commercial profit! The makers of these programs count on it, otherwise they wouldn´t have much profit of their own.

Did the Filter Makers get a raw deal? ABSOLUTELY YES! A lot of the filters I´ve seen in the library are stunning and professional! They should have been compensated for their work. Crapadilla is a good example of this - his filters are most of my favourites.

However, IMO Kraellin has put this all situation in the best light! You gave your filters to people use them personally and commercially. It´s that simple. So, first you give your permission and access to your filters, but then you go after the people that use them? Calling them parasites or attacking their character, without actually knowing the person, seems to be quite ill-mannered and unjust. Not to mention bad business for FF. So hold the torches and pitchforks for a moment.

The user has every right to use the images/textures they create with the filters as they see fit. Personally, I find it wrong if a user simply uses the presets and sells the result. They are still in their right to do so, but if they use variations of those presets, then I don´t see anything questionable about it. The result images do NOT belong to the Filter Makers or FF. The copyright of the final images belongs to the user. So they are NOT stealing, as it was mentioned before!

I work for a design company. We use programs like this all the time! For instance, my boss gets us FF and I use the "Lounge Lizards" (I can almost smell the leather!) by Crapadilla as a background on an outdoor advertisement for a client. The client likes it and we get paid say $2000. Does Crapadilla has rights for a percentage of that payment? No. But as I stated before, he should be compensated, only not by me, my boss or anyone else who uses his filters, since we have permission to use it. So we really don´t have to use the textures only as the Filter Makers see fit for us to use them. Nor am I morally or ethically questionable for using textures created with the filters for profit.

Please, by all means protect yourselfs and your filters. I agree with the new changes that are brewing, and they should have been considered before by FF and specially all the people that make the filters. But to claim that you´ve been taken advantage until now by people who use your filters, is downright silly! You knew you were giving them away! Want to make some money of the filters you create? Simple! Sell them instead of adding them to the library. And then add "NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE". From the money you make, you can buy FF PRo twice or more over!

<putting my official hat on>

Let me restate several important points:

1. The proposed changes in the EULA will not go live in their current form, as quoted in this thread.

2. It is not our intention to block the commercial usage of Filter Forge filters or restrict it in any way. First and foremost, Filter Forge is a tool for a graphics professional (commercial or otherwise) -- and it will stay this way.

3. Our intention is to block the blatant copycatting and reselling of results, and, as a side benefit, to encourage the filter authors to profit off their investment.

4. We are not going to use any 'blanket measures'. Most likely, we will use narrow restrictions designed specifically to destroy the most widespread parasitic schemes.

<official hat off>

Vlad,

Will the changes you are going to introduce give filter creators some sort of freedom to add/choose conditions for their filters? Or will it be a single reworked generic license?

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: I don't think so. We'd like the license to be universal, to avoid confusion. However, we'd like to have a good universal license.

Yeah, its probably the least confusing solution, I just like the idea about a "dynamic" license though A bit like in the OS world when libraries are licensed using multiple licenses, which developers (filter creators in this context) then can choose from. A beautiful, but surely more complicated solution IMO.

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote: If you ask me, I don't think that the people who render presets and resell them are giving Filter Forge any exposure. I newer saw any link to FF, or any mention of FF on their pages. They simply sell the stuff, that's it. On the other hand, there are people who post the textures for free. Many of them contact us for permission and the majority of them give credit and direct links to Filter Forge.

The following has been added to our Information Page:

Quote
Acknowledgment Some of the images in the Plotter Artâ„¢ Seamless Texture Tile Volume One Collection were created in whole or in part using Filter Forge, a plugin for Adobe Photoshop that allows you to build your own filters or to use filters available from the Filter Forge library of filters supplied by various, talented artists. To learn more, visit FilterForge.com.

It appears near the bottom of the page and includes a link to the Filter Forge website. If there are any suggestions as to how better to word this acknowledgment, please let me know.