"All your filter are belong to someone else!"

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Let me ask a straightforward question. Two choices ... nothing inbetween

Prohibit it!!! .....because FF needs to provide some type of return, compensation, or incentive beyond the current reward system in order to keep talented authors submitting quality filters here.....otherwise, talented authors will only do enough to get the program and leave......

How about making a choice between these two???

A) Protect author's copyrights to filter construction and preset images.....and a library that grows with exemplary filters for you to use.....

or.....

B) Have no restrictions on filter use.....and a library that grows with only mediocre and sub-optimal filters for you to use.....

Having a look at Renderosity - ironicly vendor of the month [Removed by moderator] and his direct use of the chainmail filter - it states in there own eula ' Artist maintains that all items in the archive are their original work, ' [ copy and pasted ] it seem he is in breech of there terms, I'm not a member there maybe some one who is could point this out to renderosity.

Personaly I like Fred's ideas of free and commercial filters at FF, they would also benifit from obviously all the authors who are not submitting there best filters, and taking a percentage of sales, [those filters wouldn't be entitled to reward points]

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: It would be nice if those whom wish to make their textures 100% for non commercial and commercial use could do so.

Just to clarify myself, this pertains to filter makers whom wish to make their filters available to texture makers free of charge or royalities or any other obligations.

Yeah it's annoying when people just use someones textures to make quick money imo, i think if people on renderosity are using FF they should only make packs of original filters or at least there own creations, imo its a bit like claiming something as your own and taking the rewards someone else should get.

Quote
maybe filter authors could, *ahem* drop him a congratulatory note...

Lol yeah if he didn't make the filters i think thats exactly what the authors should do, good advertisement for FF also

It's like theft someones stealing something and then saying it's theres, i think a good public name and shame should do the trick Sorry im feeling mean today although if someone does it they probably deserve that anyways

Good luck trying to post anything in the comments area for that chainmaile set, seems posting has been shut off there and in the VOM section the staff has to read your post first before it's added. Renderosity knows he did wrong.

Quote
there's a congratulations page for his Vendor of the month here: http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=13842 maybe filter authors could, *ahem* drop him a congratulatory note...

The posts are being moderated, so unless you say something nice, I doubt it will be posted.

Quote
Sjeiti wrote: Well, we know what he looks like now

LMAO

Quote

karen1573 Forum Moderator Posted Sun, Dec 9, 2007 6:20 am Folks, I can confirm that we have received communication from FilterForge that under their current EULA, all commercial usage is unrestricted. This means that any textures produced by a filter are perfectly legal to use in your own work, or sell commercially. Since the question has been asked and answered, and there have now been a couple of posts (which I have deleted) pointing fingers at specific vendors (which is quite unfair as their products are perfectly legal and allowed) I am going to close this thread down now. Thanks for your understanding.

So it looks like we can sell the presets from anyone's filters. Sorry Crapadilla, but you got some nice looking presets and I can always use some extra cash.

Like I said earlier, I give my presets away. If people want to pay someone for something they could have gotten free, then let them.

She deleted my post over there that let people know the link to the filter that the chainmaille presets were from. Guess she was afraid people would get them for free and she would lose some money.

Quote
I have not seen this vendor of the month, nor do I know his work. But I am sure to reach a distinction like that, he must have done more than flood fill an area to make his textures.

He didn't... you should really take a look. Among his stuff are about ten FF filters and from what I can tell he really didn't do more than just render stuff directly from FF and put them up for sale.
It wouldn't be an issue if he'd put some effort into it to create something original.

But he can do that to the entire FF library for all I care. People like that always run into a brick wall eventually.

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: Ok...this is getting a bit ridiculous.

Maybe you should have a look at what we are refering to

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: To imply that its the filter doing all the work for creating a texture is ludicrous, and damned insulting.

That is exactly what a texture filter does create Textures the application of these texture is not in question, what is, in this particular case [of the chainmail] the vendor has made rendering from the preset then is stating through the Eula of Renderosity that they are original work which laughingly he create through insomia and hard work.

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: Its like telling a graphic designer that its photoshop that creates their art.

No thats not what people are talking about - a better example to relate it to you is some one take one of your dragon [ without any alterations ] and turn round and sells it as there own creative work - would you think that was ridiculous or fair enough ?

Quote
Carl wrote: No thats not what people are talking about - a better example to relate it to you is some one take one of your dragon [ without any alterations ] and turn round and sells it as there own creative work - would you think that was ridiculous or fair enough ?

Ummm...no, thats not a better example....that makes no sense at all


A filter is designed to be used as a filter....and derivative works of that filter are allowed to be used as an artist sees fit.
My artwork is artwork, fully copyrighted and has no clause for being allowed to be used to create derivative work.

Apples<----- --->Oranges

Oh come on Rawn... have a look.
Don't tell me you'd have a clear concience if you did the same thing this guy did.

The problem is that people are selling the presets. In other words they aren't doing anything more than clicking on presets and then rendering them. If they were using the filter to make their own textures by starting out with the presets then it wouldn't be so bad, but these people aren't doing that. Now that Renderosity has posted that FF has said that it's ok to sell our presets all anyone has to do is download the demo, grab all the texture filters they like, and click on all the presets, render them, and sell them.

Actually, that could get interesting to watch. Think about it, a few hundred people looking to make a fast buck all uploading our presets and trying to underbid each other.

Here's a thought...if we all were to take our texture presets and give them away as freebies to the different sites we could get people interested in our filters and put the preset sellers out of business. Then people would actually have to go and fiddle with the settings and make something of their own design...you know, actually use the filters and not just grab presets.

Just a thought.

Yeah i mean come on it's like buying a stock photo and then selling it, in fact i don't even think your allowed to do that technically, it's technically just the same with someones FF project but a different media form which is why im not cool with it and im sure everyone else sees it like that also.

Quote
Here's a thought...if we all were to take our texture presets and give them away as freebies to the different sites we could get people interested in our filters and put the preset sellers out of business. Then people would actually have to go and fiddle with the settings and make something of their own design...you know, actually use the filters and not just grab presets.

Yeah i think we should do that i mean if the filters are open source that means that we can put them online for a price or for free, if the filters go on renderosity etc for free then people won't bother to pay for them and we are perfectly entitled to do that (i think)

Quote
This guy saw a market for something he was legally entitled to do, and he did it. Good on him. Yes its something anyone who has FF can do, there is no denying that, but he did it and is making money from it. So all that means is he is smarter than those of us who are not making money in the same way using the wonderful tool which we have.

No offense to you but thats exactly the type of attitude/concept which makes me question if i should ever actually upload any filters i mean im happy to buy FF so technically theres no reason other than to let people enjoy and learn from my efforts but why do that if people are just going to rip me off and use them then claim them as there own.

I put a lot of controls in my filters so people can make their own designs. When I do the presets I make them as an example of what can be done with the filter and hope that people will actually use the filter to make something from it. I don't feel ripped off that the one guy with the CDs has a number of my presets in his CD, I just find his laziness very rude to me. It's like he is telling me that my presets are good enough to sell, but my filter isn't worth trying out. Does that make sense?

I would be very happy seeing textures people have made from my filters. It would show me that the time I put into making the filter was appreciated by someone else and that they liked it enough to make their own textures with it.

(sorry for all the editing...typos)

Well, I guess the fuhrer is over at RR now. I hope that Designfora is able to sleep well....or maybe not. lol

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: Its like telling a graphic designer that its photoshop that creates their art. Like there is some magic "make art" button in it.

Well, in case of rendering out presets on filters like chainmail, quilts and Lounge lizards that's exactly what it is. You hit one button and render it out.
So, yes, in those cases the proverbial 'make art' button does exist.

No-one is objecting texture work where texture artists have put a bit of their own work and creativity into it.

Quote
onnetz wrote: You can't download a filter and change it slightly and then submit it here as your own but you can sell it elsewhere without any mods to it at all. What a pity.

That's a excellent point!!! It wouldn't be very good for appearances if FF protects author's copyrights in filter submissions......and then completey abandons all copyright protection to make sales

LOL..... Well, I think that authors want a little more of a return for their efforts

Lynn (MysticBlueRaven) has the right idea......she's packaging up her own textures and putting them up for sale

Craig, I read everything you said, and I agree with your analysis of it in general.....but those other paragraphs seem to be in conflict with it.....

From reading the beginning of this string, it looks like Vlad is going to have filter construction and presets clearly protected in the EULA.....

I guess the only guarranteed way for authors to protect their filters and maximize a return for their efforts is not to submit them here.....package up the textures from their filters......and try to sell them themselves.....

I hate to say this because I want to see FF flourish, grow, and keep enhancing the program for my own benefit.....and in order for this to happen, I believe FF needs to do everything they can to keep talented authors submitting quality filters.....by providing some clear copyright protection on filter construction and texture presets......so authors will feel secure in submitting their works and using FF as a marketing tool.....to showcase their talents, filters, and possibly sell the copyrights to their texture presets to those who would like to resell them in texture packages......

I would suggest that FF start creating straight texture packages and sell them seperately from the program.....create incentives through some kind of reward/compensation for authors of the textures used in the packages.....and completely diffuse the users that are copying texture presets and reselling them online......

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Craig, I read everything you said, and I agree with your analysis of it in general.....but those other paragraphs seem to be in conflict with it.....

uhm, not sure what other paragraphs you're referring to here.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I guess the only guarranteed way for authors to protect their filters and maximize a return for their efforts is not to submit them here.....package up the textures from their filters......and try to sell them themselves.....

yup, that's what i tried to tell persidio way back when she first showed up here. the fact that we've been blind to the EULA and its possible uses, doesnt excuse our own ignorance. the way things are now, it really only makes sense to submit a filter to the library while trying to earn a free FF. other than that, we're just nice folks, but you know what they say about nice folks

and, from what i can see of vlad's ideas of change, i think i'd prefer fred's idea, two librarys, one commercial and one free. everyone wins there. it's not that vlad's ideas are bad, but by the time the lawyers get done with it, i'm afraid it will be so illegible that no one will understand it and i just hate that. by separating commercial from free use, authors have a clear choice, folks going for a free copy have a good choice, and FF wins in both case. even the re-sellers win. they can make use of the freebies if they like and also the better commercial ones, if they pay. so, to me, that's the best overall idea. but, that's up to vlad and crew as to whether that will/could happen.

and dont get me wrong about my stance on the EULA. i hate seeing some of the great filters here just being ripped with the authors and FF not getting paid or even mentioned as the source. that just sucks. seeing the 'Mandala' filter and some of dilla's stuff and others posted on renderosity just sticks in my craw. but, there's also no point getting all ruffled about it either. they submitted those filters under the EULA as it stands and, oh well. it's legal...currently. so, water under the bridge.

and i'm also sure vlad has been talking to or even visiting with the lawyers again. he knows this is going to hurt him as-is. i've already pulled back on submitting new filters and i'm sure others have as well. and where mine arent all that great compared to some and where i dont make a lot of textures, there are plenty here who have been ruffled and are pulling back as well, i'm sure. and, i'd love to submit filters to a commercial FF library and make a little spare change, if possible. i'd find that much more appealing than posting on renderosity.

and taking this hypothetical 'commercial library' one step further, if Ff were willing to do it and admin it and handle all the financial end of it (big if's there), then what would be a fair exchange, both to the authors and to FF and to the buyers? do you go for volume sales and put the prices rather cheap, or do you go high end, exclusive or something else? and what would the hypothetical split between FF and the author? 50/50, 60/40, 20/80? hehe, it gets tricky.