"All your filter are belong to someone else!"

I never said "this discussion" is bad, this discussion is a good thing, because there seems to be alot of misconceptions going around.
The problem is in the open harrasment of the customers of FF who use this program, and trying to make them look like they are doing something wrong, when they are well in their right to do what they do.

In reality, what do you expect people to do with the filters they download from here? Do you really expect people to not be able to make money by using them? A filter is a resource for any artist, how they use the output is up to them.
There is no solution that FF can offer anyone, the copyright laws will speak for themself.
Its not a matter of percentages of who agrees and who doesnt, this isnt a popularity contest. Its a simple matter of facts and laws and what the realistic use of filters is.
You can ignore those facts if you like and try to stir up a mob mentality to make something into a witch hunt...but like I said, the better recourse is to educate people as to the power of FF, rather than lynching people for using the program and scaring others away from using it.

Quote
James wrote: i would rather they didn't use the software

Well, that is your opinion... but I am sure FF would rather have people using their program. The more people that do use it, the better the company will do.

Quote
James wrote: If you read through most of the thread you will see that your in the small percentage with a different view to the majority. Of course you are entitled to your opinions but so are we.

This is true but you are only talking about the majority of those who have posted in this thread. The majority of licensed users are unaware of this thread, have never submitted a filter, do not plan to submit a filter, and use whatever filters appeal to them for their own benefit and profit.

Filter Forge is a product which pushes the boundaries of copyright and patent law. Users agree to a EULA when they purchase a license and most are unaware or even think about the fact that a separate license exists between the filter authors and the program authors. Neither do they consider that they are doing anything wrong when they use any available filter ... after all, they did license the program in order to use it for their own benefit and profit.

Just because one of the many uses is to use Filter Forge to generate tiles, tile packs and tile collections does not make those who publish such renderings criminals, thieves or ripoff artists. When they then, in turn, claim a copyright on those renderings, they are simply following standard operating procedure with the primary intent of creating a legal barrier to any redistribution of the renderings.

If the user chooses to publish a rendering created from an unmodified preset, he or she does so at the risk of any other user publishing the same unmodified preset. So the concerned user is well advised to make some modifications ... but is under no obligation to do so.

The rights and limitations of the various parties in the world of Filter Forge are really pretty clear:

• Filter Forge owns their code. They license filters from filter authors and, in turn, grant licenses to the filters to users.

• Filter Authors own their code. They license the use of the code to Filter Forge or directly to users.

• Users own their renderings be they presets or not and be they produced work or digital files. They do not have the right to redistribute the Filter Forge code or the Filter Author's code.

• Buyers of digital renderings are subject to whatever EULA the User Publisher chooses to place on his or her digital renderings.

I have no problem with your second suggestion but I do have with the first.

The preset serves a lot of purposes and demonstrates what the filter author/artist had in mind in creating the filter. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that it should be treated as a "hands off" item, limited by a court's uncertain interpretation as to where the boundaries are. The implication without reading the licensing (what most folks do) is that it is there to use just as the filter is there to use. I would liken it to giving someone a gift with strings attached.

I think it makes far more sense to let Filter Forge know what you think about the two library suggestion previously put forth. In that scenario, everyone benefits. In your approach, there are clouds placed on the correct usage of Filter Forge which will not benefit anyone.

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: wow...is this nonsense back again?

That's nice.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: The legal problem here is that FF has made authors the copyright holders

The thing is, the only thing FF can leagally attribute copyrights to is the code that makes up the presets. So that code cannot be copied legally...but the output created by FF software using this code cannot be copyrighted. As soon as it is rendered, the render is the "creation" of the person using the filter, and they hold any copyrights to their render.
Admittedly it is a poor artist who simply uses presets, but thse who lack that creativity to expand a filter beyond its presets will never amount to much anyway. So it doesnt matter....and the artist who simply uses presets will loose any professional respect they might gain as FF becomes better known.
That is why the best approach to take is simply spread the word of FF, and help the company grow.

ok, this is just getting silly here. by now, everyone reading this thread shld understand what the EULA actually says. but perhaps not. so, let's just boil this down to the simplest ideas here. any license, any eula, any contract is nothing more than an agreement or set of agreements. that's it. that's all. it's all agreements. the entire copyright laws are nothing more than agreements. your license with FF is nothing more than an agreement and the end user's rights to use FF are all just agreements. that's it.

so, the agreements are simple. you bought or were granted a license to FF.

FF owns the PROGRAM but NOT the filters (unless those filters were made by someone at FF operating AS FF or an agent of FF)

YOU own the filters you make. FF agrees to this and the end users agree to this.

YOU agreed to let FF put your filters in the library. when you did that, you ALSO agreed to let FF decide how those filters would be used. sorry, like it or not, but you did.

FF agreed to let the users use the filters, presets and all results from those filters, whether original or not, IN ANY MANNER THEY PLEASE AND WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION OWED TO YOU! period!

that's it. that's how it works. YOU AGREED TO LET THE END USERS USE YOUR STUFF IN ANY WAY THEY WANT TO, COMMERCIAL OR OTHERWISE! sorry, but that is how it reads!

so now, you're (whomever) grousing about the FACT that YOU AGREED TO THIS! uhm, can you say, double standard, hypocritical, sour grapes?

hehe, ok, so i'm getting a bit rude and ok, i know that some understand all this and are now trying to get this changed a bit. i do understand that. but for those that dont YET understand what they agreed to... YOU DID IT! YOU SUBMITTED YOUR FILTER TO THE LIBRARY AND GAVE, THROUGH FF, THE RIGHT(!) OF ANYONE TO USE YOUR PRESETS, YOUR FILTERS, YOUR WORK IN ANY WAY THEY LIKE WITH NO COMPENSATION OWED TO YOU! so QUIT GROUSING!

now, DO work to change this if you think this is unfair or would like it amended. that's all fine and well and as it shld be. but let's quit calling the end users 'thiefs' and 'unethical' and all that other garbage. otherwise, i'm going to start calling YOU a FOOL for agreeing to what you agreed to without even realizing it or for being so naive' that you thought nobody would ever use your filters for financial gain! YOU GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO!!!!! and not only that, but some of you WERE compensated!

Craig, did you have decaf this morning??? LOL.... J/K.....

Well, that's about as blunt as you could possibly be about the way it is right now.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: DO work to change this if you think this is unfair or would like it amended

I'm trying.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: No, you are the copyright holder of the code and layout of the filter(s). You licensed the right to Filter Forge give the filter away under any conditions they chose to use. No one, however, is engaged in the illegal redistribution of your filter(s) and your copyright is intact an has not been infringed upon.

I know this all too well.....and I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying..... I want FF to "clearly" protect filter code and preset images (just like Vlad stated on the first page of this string) so redistribution would be in violation of an author's copyrights and illegal.....thus my suggestion to amend the EULA as follows.....

Quote
AUTHORS ARE THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS TO THEIR FILTER'S CONSTRUCTION AND CORRESPONDING PRESET IMAGES.....WHICH CAN NOT BE COPIED AND RESOLD "UNALTARED WITH NO CREATIVE INPUT" WITHOUT EXPRESSED WRITTEN AGREEMENT OR CONSENT FROM THE AUTHOR OF SAID FILTERS.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: but that would not have any effect on already licensed users

I agree.....you can't change the EULA on those who already have it.....unless they go to update/upgrade the program and get a new EULA downloaded to them.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I don't think it could be well enforced

That could be true.....but it would deter the most reputable, popular sites from doing it.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: The two library approach and better compensation by Filter Forge to Filter Authors is far more real world practical

Maybe so.....but I personally would just like to see one library with one EULA governing over all filters.....easier to deal with, no "I can use this one, but I can't use that one" type of thing, etc......

Just for fun…here is a sample court hearing over the copyrights here:

Judge: Ok, let the case of Filter artist against Texture resource person begin. FA, open your case.

FA: Well judge, ya see, I made this filter using filterforge, and FF promised me I have the copyright over the presets I made for my filter. Then this TR person tried to sell my preset samples.

Judge: I see, and did you register your copyright?

FA: well, no, but the copyright is implied because I created it.

Judge: Ok, so we will see your name listed as the creator?

FA: Well, no, you will see “nixidix999” as the name, but that is me

Judge: Oh, I see, and is this a registered company name for you?

FA: ummm…no…that’s my screen name

Judge: Oh…do you have any documents to identify you as this person?

FA: well, no, but everyone on the forum knows me.

Judge: * makes notes * Ok…that aside. So you say this person was selling your copyrighted preset? How did he sell your filter?

FA: Well, he didn’t sell the filter, he used the preset in my filter in an image he rendered and was selling that?

Judge: How could you tell it was your preset?

FA: Well, it looks like it

Judge: How did you create this preset?

FA: Well, after I made the filter, I hit the “variation” button a few times till I saw a look I liked and saved the preset

Judge: “A variation button” what does this do?

FA: it takes the defined filter, and randomizes the variables to give different looks

Judge: I see, and how many different types of looks can this bring?

FA: I guess it would be nearly infinite.

Judge: Hmmm…so theoretically TR could have also downloaded the filter and hit the variation button and come up with the same or similar pattern?

FA: well yes, I guess

Judge: So really you have no way to know if he in fact did use your preset or not

FA: Well, no, not really, but it looks like my preset

Judge…I see…..So basically you are claiming copyright on filter code for a product you didn’t feel the need to file a copyright on, with no way of even proving you are the person who created the filter, with no positive proof that TR even used the preset in question. Plus TR is not selling the filter which you claim copyright on, but a render created using said filter. So it’s a completely different medium that the perceived copyright.
Ok…so how did TR get your filter?

FA: Well, I put it in a public library

Judge: A Public library?

FA: yeah

Judge: Why are you wasting our time...case dismissed





Ok, this was just for fun, no offense meant, its just an attempt to show how impossible it would be to think of claiming copyrights on this and being able to prosecute someone for it.

Thanx GMM

Its good to have an official word on this.

As for the official word, there's more to come. After I finish my work on the new additions to the EULA, I'll publish an official open letter dealing with this issue. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask everyone to avoid using any offensive terms and posting URLs, names, business names, nicknames and private correspondence of texture sellers.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: does this mean that you are going to leave it so anyone who buys the program can simply render texture presets and resell them as their own

No. My and GMM's posts mean precisely what they say -- we're asking everyone to avoid using offensive terms and posting URLs, names and emails, and we're reminding everyone that what the sellers do is completely legal under the current EULA.

As for our intentions, they haven't changed. We're going to introduce limitations to prevent this kind of business. The measures will be specific and narrowly targeted, so other kinds of commercial use of FF won't be affected by these changes.

Stay tuned.

i never drink de-caf, steve

well, i think perhaps we've all been a bit idealistic and naive in what we thought our filters were being used for and that our altruism has been taken for granted a bit here. but, in all honesty, i didnt REALLY study the EULA until much later than when i first started submitting filters. and only REALLY studied it again when this thread came up again. i think it was Persidio's first post that i actually took a more critical look at the Eula and never truly envisioned how things would progress. but, that's water under the bridge. and i certainly dont regret submitting any of the filters i have. nor, am i now complaining that i was deceived by evil-doers. lol. i've done enough wrong in my life that i dont mind making up a bit of damage by giving away a few freebies besides, i enjoy making filters and i certanily enjoy others getting some benefit from them, especially when they comment here on them.

i think our best bet would have been to have formed an association of filter forge authors, much like fred mentions. a person gets trained by getting the trial, getting the extension to the trial, gets his 3 HU's and demonstrates competency, then gets invited into the association. from there, he starts to limit his uploads to the library (based on his own whims, of course) and lets the association start handling his sales. the filters stay with the copyright holders and the distribution gets covered by the association. authors rights are then more or less protected, at least somewhat. filters and presets might actually have to be submitted to the copyright office for full, legal coverage. so, i like what fred is doing. he seems to have quite a bit of integrity, good common sense, and some understanding of the legalities and issues here and a bit of empathy for the authors. sounds like a pretty good 'association representative' to me.

i've read a bit of the copyright laws of the U.S and i seem to recall that whereas you do hold the copyrights on works you produce, unless they are registered, you dont really stand much of a chance in a court. there used to be other ways to legitimately cover yourself, like sending your sealed works through the postal service to yourself and leaving them unopened once you'd received them back. this more or less used to be considered a legitimacy or proof of ownership and authoring because the seals used by the postal service are dated and an official branch of the U.S government. as long as you didnt open the thing, you were covered. but, i think that's all changed now that the postal service is run by private enterprise and i also know the copyright laws have changed quite a few times in recent years.

and where garbanzo likens all this to photoshop, it's actually a bit different; close, but different. it's more like a plugin author whose plugin can be used in photoshop. plugin authors would never sell a single plugin if they required royalties on everything that came out of the plugin. it just doesnt fly. you sell the tools but you cant restrict how the tools are used and gain royalities on the works produced with those tools. it would be absolutely silly for Stanley tools to expect that a hammer that was used to build a house would gain Stanley tools a royalty from the sale of that house.

and i'm afraid that is where we differ a bit, steve. you want to protect the presets. but the presets are the meat and potatoes of a filter. they are the best parts, in many cases. to restrict those is to kill the filter entirely, in my estimation. if i downloaded a filter based on the look of the presets, and since that's all i can see of it before i download, then i'm downloading that filter because of the presets. that's the look, the texture i want! so, then telling the person who just downloaded that filter based on those presets that they cant use them without a royalty or permission, just seems wrong to me. either restrict it all or restrict nothing. but doing it as a come-on tease, just seems wrong to me. it would be like saying, 'here, you can have everything here free except for the reason you downloaded the filter'. hehe, sounds like something i'd do in the forums

and if you restrict it all, then FF may still sell some programs, but i'd say you're looking at a substantial loss of revenue. imagine photoshop with royalties. how many copies would they sell?

at any rate, i'm sure we're all going to be looking more closely at the revised eula. so, if nothing else was accomplished here, perhaps we're at least more aware and informed about some of this.

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote: Quote StevieJ wrote: does this mean that you are going to leave it so anyone who buys the program can simply render texture presets and resell them as their own No. My and GMM's posts mean precisely what they say -- we're asking everyone to avoid using offensive terms and posting URLs, names and emails, and we're reminding everyone that what the sellers do is completely legal under the current EULA. As for our intentions, they haven't changed. We're going to introduce limitations to prevent this kind of business. The measures will be specific and narrowly targeted, so other kinds of commercial use of FF won't be affected by these changes. Stay tuned.

Thanks Vlad and Gmm for posting on this subject thus far..

Myself I have no problems with any of my filters being used nor the presets in any form of artwork or the presets being sold. However, in the fashion that some are sold just urks me a bit but I almost expect it to happen when things are put up in a public fashion. I can think of many apps that are under a GPL lic. that are being sold commercially as the companies own creations when in fact they are not...

But I will still continue to submit filters to the library because I still enjoy creating them and hopefully people will enjoy using the filters that I create.

Sounds like what Vladimir is talking about is on the right track

I don't know that I have anything that'll make any good filters for submission, but whatever I do have, I'm waiting to see the eula change.
Or I may render out my own filters first and put the images up for sale, before submitting them to the library.
I'll think it through in more detail after I get done with my current major project...

Hmm...I just got 6 "edit" ebots (email notification) on the last post here from SteveJ. But..I don't SEE any editing of the post!

Hey Fred, I fully agree with you from your business perspective.....and I would feel the same way if I was you. From my business standpoint (creating alot of my own filters for specific use in art and design), I benefit more by the enhancement of the program.....which completely relies upon FF continuing to be profitable by authors continuing to submit and grow the library with quality filters.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: What I have been pushing for since my first post in this thread is for the creation of the mechanism to deliver those rights and to receive in return the licensing fees that are mutually satisfactory.

I have no argument with that at all.....just so long as it includes something for authors as an incentive to keep submitting quality filters.....

Have you thought of hiring someone 'in-house' to do this work??? It sounds like you would benefit greatly and you would rather have someone right there specifically doing FF work for you....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: So if the core need for Filter Forge is to keep the filter authors happy, then yes, keep them happy because they are what makes Filter Forge so much better than Genetica and others.

I couldn't agree more!!!

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: You, Crapadilla, Sphinx, Constantin and others might all set out to achieve a similar result. Each of you would likely go about it in a different way

Yeah, I would wait until they finish theirs.....then steel one to modify as my own..... J/K...... LOL

Anywho, great discussion.....and I think we all kinda want the same thing in the end here.....no matter how any of us approach it.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: does this mean that you are going to leave it so anyone who buys the program can simply render texture presets and resell them as their own???

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: No.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: My point is that protecting presets is always going to be problematic and therefore will serve to encumber both the filter and Filter Forge.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Yes, I absolutely agree with this. We're not going to restrict the use of presets in any way.

Now I'm totally confused.....

Well, it's just my opinion.....but I think this is going to have profound negetive repercussions in texture submissions.....which are clearly the types of filters that you want the most to flagship this program. I think Dilla's reaction (which started this string), other author's stopping their texture submissions, and some even deleting their textures from the library.....are all pretty good indicators of what this is going to do to texture submissions.....

I don't understand how giving preset image copyrights to authors would be "problematic" to FF in any way??? FF wouldn't have to do anything at all to protect them because it would be the author's responsibily.....

Granted, it wouldn't stop everyone from reselling straight presets.....but it would give authors the ability to protect them if they so choose by DCMA.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_...yright_Act

.....and most importantly, feel a hell of alot better about submitting them to FF.....

Hey Fred.....if FF is not going to allow authors copyright protection on preset images, then this whole discussion is now totally mute.....and the EULA doesn't even need to be changed at all.....