Upcoming EULA changes, round 3

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: I don't think that author's revenues will be significant.

Really??? I was thinking that an author could create tilable texture packs from a single texture filter.....get very creative with it by running results thru other filters, etc.....and sell them with copyrights for let's say $10.00 each (what other sites are selling them for). At a 50/50 split with FF, authors would get $5.00 per sale.....50 sales would be $250.00.....which I think would act as a pretty good incentive......and that's just for one filter. I think the incentive would even work at a minimum of $5.00 per texture pack.....undercutting texture pack prices at other sites.....and bringing customers here to save some money on texture pack purchases.....

I also think this would continuously bring in droves of new authors......rejuvinate existing authors.....and keep them all here continuously creating new textures to try and sell texture packages from. I also think that something like this would be most beneficial to FF if used as a reward level beyond obtaining lifetime upgrades of the program.....guarranteeing that authors are well-versed with the program and creating useful quality filters before they are allowed to start selling texture packs.....

Finally, I think that it would be a good business move to start taking customers (and their money) from all those other sites and bring them here to purchase FF textures.....which would benefit authors with greater returns on their filter work if they stay with it....while also benefitting FF with greater author incentives, program marketing and promotion, and increased profits from both texture pack and program sales. I think the resultant author-generated "buzz" alone in the graphics market would create and maintain serious spikes in that "traffic" chart here.....

Quote
Carl wrote: I'm use to my gallery stuff at 33 1/3 percent commision

I would demand more!!! .....

***COUGH***

Quote

StevieJ wrote: I was thinking that an author could create tilable texture packs from a single texture filter.....get very creative with it by running results thru other filters, etc.....and sell them with copyrights for let's say $10.00 each (what other sites are selling them for). At a 50/50 split with FF, authors would get $5.00 per sale.....50 sales would be $250.00.....which I think would act as a pretty good incentive......and that's just for one filter. I think the incentive would even work at a minimum of $5.00 per texture pack.....undercutting texture pack prices at other sites.....and bringing customers here to save some money on texture pack purchases..... I also think this would continuously bring in droves of new authors......rejuvinate existing authors.....and keep them all here continuously creating new textures to try and sell texture packages from. I also think that something like this would be most beneficial to FF if used as a reward level beyond obtaining lifetime upgrades of the program.....guarranteeing that authors are well-versed with the program and creating useful quality filters before they are allowed to start selling texture packs..... Finally, I think that it would be a good business move to start taking customers (and their money) from all those other sites and bring them here to purchase FF textures.....which would benefit authors with greater returns on their filter work if they stay with it....while also benefitting FF with greater author incentives, program marketing and promotion, and increased profits from both texture pack and program sales. I think the resultant author-generated "buzz" alone in the graphics market would create and maintain serious spikes in that "traffic" chart here.....

I've scanned through some of these threads and figured I'd throw in my two cents.

First, It's apalling that the filter creators are not receiving a benefit from someone selling the textures flat out. To me, this strikes me as slightly unethical, but certainly not illegal.

I keep in mind, tho' that the ability to create such textures is probably why those individuals purchased FF in the first place.

More importantly, restricting the EULA to require a drastic change in the texture would prevent those who would like to use the texture "as is" in a 3d model or environment from doing so. This may also be detrimental to sales.

As is being discussed now, a happy medium may be to provide the creators the capability to sell collections of filters here for a modest fee--that way they will receive at least something for their effort. If there is a concern with still providing a source of free textures (to support the program), perhaps the creator would have to qualify by having a number go "gold" similar to qualifying for free updates.

Quote
GM Syndicate wrote: More importantly, restricting the EULA to require a drastic change in the texture would prevent those who would like to use the texture "as is" in a 3d model or environment from doing so.

No, it wouldn't. The upcoming restrictions are very narrow and specific -- they limit only four kinds of use: (i) selling rendered textures online, (ii) selling them on physical media, (iii) uploading them as a free download and (iv) uploading them to p2p networks. The restrictions say nothing about texture usage in 3D models/environments. See "4.2. Distribution Restrictions" in the first post of this thread.

Quote
GM Syndicate wrote: I develop a simple wall section for poser and apply a seamless texture, then I would be making the texture available for download by whoever downloaded my wall section. The texture itself could easily be pulled out

GM, good point. I'll think about this scenario (although, to be honest, I don't want to introduce additional restrictions).

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: a clause in 4.3. Exceptions that lets filter authors specify that they don't mind texture reselling in the filter description.

That way everyone is happy!

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Not that making a 3D wall takes much effort

5-10 seconds!

If 3d restrictions are to be implemented, I think there should be a seperate section for game developement, since textures can´t be extracted from them. At least I think they can´t... But if I recall correctly, there was a consensus that if a texture is applied to a 3d object, it would be considered derivative work enough.

Wouldn't it be neat if we could circumvent the new EULA by just supplying a properly uv-mapped 3d model of a cube with every seamless texture preset rendered?

Alright I read the whole thread, now I have a head ache.

If I had know this about texture packs believe me when I say this I would not have paid almost 300 dollars Australian to buy this product. What I do is the following open up filter filter forge load the filter I like, then I play with the settings I don't use the randomizer to generate new filters at all to make texture packs.

How does this come under the new EULA, and do I have to pull the packs I have made, I want to know now, I have never broken copyright rules ever and I am not about to begin now.

Also would it not be prudent to change the terms for all filters at the discretion of the filter maker on how they want this filter to be used, I would not mind paying a one of fee to use a filter, price being their discretion again so at least I knew that the texture packs I make will not break any copyright.

And what happens to the packs I have already have in store should I pull them now and return any money to those that bought them. I have never heard of buying a commercial product and then finding out the supposedly free filters are not for use anyway. No disrespect to the filters makers but the guys that own this company have not gotten the EULA right from the get go.

Angela

Quote
Carl wrote: no you don't have to pull them they are completly legal and the new eula can't be retrospective

If you follow Vladimir's posts, finding a way to make the restrictions retroactive is something he has written that he would like to do.

Either way I would love to know. Sooner rather than later.
And thanks Carl, from me an Aussie to you too

And yes Steve that is how I read the original EULA that the filters were free, it would of been nice if the filter owners were given a choice from the get go to provide for free with not restrictions or one for copyright and commercial usage fee applicable. I would pay and so would allot of people. Even if you had one or two sets of free filters that only worked in the demo version lets say but not in the commercial version, then you would not get those that did not buy Filter Forge abusing it like all the free mega packs on offer at say SCGshare.com

When I see them offering them all up for free I feel like screaming.


Angela

I would gladly pay royalty to a filter maker, no problem if I can fork out almost 300 dollars Australian then you know I am genuine. Its those others that steam me.

And yes a great reason to help out all those filter makers that spend time and money, lets not make a mistake you have to pay to get the versions that makes filters, I don't have the time, I also make my own tiles from scratch but the beauty of filter forge is there filters are there if you need to use them.

Bring on the paying system for filter makers I would pay gladly.
those that don't want to pay, should never have access to the program in the first place.

Had a look at your filters Steve nice job on them I haven't made a texture pack from them though VBG. Just being cheeky. LOL.

Angela

Come on be nice lol, give me a texture filter, no seriously I don't blame you unless the EULA is properly fixed I would not either.

Now If I had the time and the patience I would sit down and do a couple of my own filters but took one look at the learning curve and nearly passed out.

Yes it looks like The Aussie's have landed lol.

Angela

You can imagine how I felt then from the other side of the fence, I thought I was allowed to use those filters and now it looks like no soup for me lol.

It does not matter if I am asked to pull them out of my store I will do so gladly. I respect their right to ask me to do this. Just as long as the EULA is fixed so I know what I can and cannot do It took me about one week to do all the packs as I put all my own settings in and did not use the randomizer thats with the program.

Angela

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: If you follow Vladimir's posts, finding a way to make the restrictions retroactive is something he has written that he would like to do.

I've been following stuff pretty closely, and didn't see him suggest that. I know few people have been asking if they will look into doing this.

Personally, I think trying to make it retroactive would not be a good business move. What's out is out. Lesson learned, move on and makimprove the future.

Quote
3Dillusions wrote: I am willing to pay for the filters to use them commercially but this is up to the actual filter makers.

----Sorry to butt-in, you seem to be the newest/most serious FF user to show up here, and that's not meant as an insult, just an observation. Do you mind if I ask what you do with the filters that makes you money, ie = do you just sell texture packs on renderosity or a similar site or what exactly ? There are a growing number of us here with some experience and varying styles (at filter making), that I think I can safely say, are looking to sell renders from filters we have made that may never see the library. Going even further, I'd say at a 50/50 split, I think there are some of us who'd start producing that material in 30 days time or less if there was more than $5 a shot involved. Just asking etc.

jffe

Quote

jffe wrote: ----Sorry to butt-in, you seem to be the newest/most serious FF user to show up here, and that's not meant as an insult, just an observation. Do you mind if I ask what you do with the filters that makes you money, ie = do you just sell texture packs on renderosity or a similar site or what exactly ? There are a growing number of us here with some experience and varying styles (at filter making), that I think I can safely say, are looking to sell renders from filters we have made that may never see the library. Going even further, I'd say at a 50/50 split, I think there are some of us who'd start producing that material in 30 days time or less if there was more than $5 a shot involved. Just asking etc. Big grin

No I don't mind at all, with some of the texture filters I have made packs for sale, but the only difference being when I open filter I do not use the randomizer, I change all the actual properties so it does not in no way look like the original, as for a 50/50 split I don't know as you might be aware there are so many packs out there that we already lose 50 percent to the host that has the texture files. And I only sell the packs for 6 dollars and I get 3 dollars if they sell that is, some have sold but so far small amounts only.

I find people need more textures like lace and shiny patterns which you guys don't make many of Hope this answers you question. And as for me being the only one, The rest are chicken lol, and I don't hide away from an issue, I would like it resolved, its best for me, the filters makers and the owners and distributer of Filter Forge in the long run The sets I sell on Renderosity are my own seamless tiles, and have nothing to do with Filter Forge but this is only one of the 2D and 3D markets out there.

If they figure out a price for buying filters I would be happy to pay a one of fee don't care what it is, but as for a split I suspect people will not take to that idea at all. So lets pay for them, I am all for that. That way I know I can make whatever and then the filter maker makes a cut too.

I forgot to add I would be willing to pay up to 10 dollars for a really good patterned filter

Angela

Quote
Kraellin wrote: the new eula is not in place yet. you are not in violation of any copyrights or eula agreements and you do not have to pull any packs you've made. ALL existing filters, as of this date, fall under the original eula, since the PROPOSED new eula is still not in place. so, rest easy.

Thanks I needed to ask, I don't want anything coming back to bite me on the behind, and I refuse to hide like some lol. So I await the new EULA, let see what we can get out of it, and please make it clear English no gibberish.

I make my own free packs with seamless tiles. The reason I bought FF was so I could go commercial, but I have stopped using the filters now for my store until this is all sorted out

And think about it if I paid you 10 dollars and you had say 100 people a day downloading the filters in the end you would make more money than I ever could lol

And believe me I would pay for great filters.

Angela

While you find lots of reasons not to pursue a commercial income from either filters or renderings, new commercial grade ready-to-use tile libraries are coming to market to meet the demand.

In addition to the two volumes we've released, Volume One and Volume Two, THIS ONE was released just this week by a full time publisher-developer. Next to reach the market will be from the major company I mentioned in a post a while back. They will be incorporating access to their tiles into their sign making program as well as distributing them through more than 200 resellers around the world.

Fellers Inc., I'm told by informed sources moves about 2,500 copies of Monster Wrap Fills a month through it's 50 locations. And they're just one major player.

Why am I pointing this out? For a couple of reasons ... although I'm sure Conniekatt will insinuate otherwise. First off, I have been pointing out the situation the filter artists are in since last August in this forum. Secondly, I am actively pursuing this market in the sign making community and am quite willing to publish commercial grade renderings made from filters not in the free access FF library under a royalty agreement that any of you here may want to submit for consideration. Be forewarned, as jffe discovered, that it is a very time consuming chore to render most high resolution tiles. If you'd rather license filters for commercial use and publication of the renderings in ready-to-use form, I'll be happy to look at any filters you may have that are not in the existing FF library and negotiate a one time fee for the non-exclusive use of those filters we may feel have commercial appeal in the market we are targetting.

Thats a nice set of tiles, good luck to the owner of this filter.
Yes the larger renders say over 1000 pixels are murder on any pc and very time consuming I have mine set at the standard of 600x600 they seem to work better for me and no complaints as yet. If I every make a filter work rendering then I will of course submit it for consideration Most High End Texture designers prefer to use a large size. Especially those in the 3D world of texturing. I dont provide for this market as mine are way to small.

Having more than 2 Gb of RAM is next to useless if you run FF (unless you have other programs running, but you shouldn't). Also, punching the "Memory usage limit" slider all the way to the right might help.
Also, I would like to note that if you're using a 32-bit client Windows OS (Windows 2000/XP/Vista), having 4Gb of memory is usually pretty useless, since you won't be able to use 300Mb (if you're lucky with your driver layout) up to 1.2Gb (if you're very unlucky).

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Most people I talk to are hanging on at 32 bit because of the negative issues associated with Vista, the extreme cost of upgrading their other applications and the lack of availability of updated drivers for their hardware.

Try living in Australia and see the prices we pay for computer software not to mention hard ware, for me the upgrade would take a huge chunk out of my savings but eventually I have to make the move rendering with 712 ram is for the birds, lol

Angela