Upcoming EULA changes, round 3

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I read well enough to remember that it was you who early on coined the term parasite to describe publishers of seamless tiles.

To my knowledge, it was me who used the term first (see here for the thread that started the whole discussion!), and I used the term specifically to describe a very specific kind of 'seamless tile publisher': the 'lazy copy-cat' type that put NO effort in his merchandise other than hitting render and obscuring the true source of it.

[Note that in the first post of the thread I linked to above, I particularly emphasized the fact that the 'tile publisher' even claimed copyright on the texture.]

However, my very specific use of the term was very consistently overlooked and misinterpreted by many, and those using the term (including Vlad and myself) were subsequently accused of badmouthing all tile publishers, which never was the intention.

[I'm working on the assumption here that the 'lazy copy-cat' type of tile publisher is NOT representative of all tile publishers.]



At this point in the ongoing discussion, I still have the feeling that most people have not clearly understood what exactly the proposed EULA changes were meant to combat. Instead, many appear to have the impression that there are extensive blanket measures being devised to broadly discriminate against a particular group of FF customers.

This indicates to me that the discussion is bound to do much more harm than it is doing good for Filter Forge and the community, and I can almost see the competition rubbing their hands with glee at all the uproar and confusion this has created here. Since there will always be some 'agent provocateur' feeling obliged to dig up and incite this thing anew, we need to put a definite end to it, once and for all!

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Really you need to decide who you are aiming this program at. Is it the filter makers or the artist looking for help with creating textures?

Isn't it rather strange that you should think there exists such kind of a divide among the users of Filter Forge? And that there was a difference between a filter maker and a digital artist using the tool? I doubt that any of the regular contributors here are making filters as a be-all-end-all as you appear to suggest. After all, there would be nothing in it!

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: As Vlad said: Quote The biggest problem with all this is that we can't strictly define what a 'blatant copying' is.

I said that ages ago. Since then, we suggested at least three revisions of proposed changes. The current version of proposed changes, on the first page of this thread, defines exactly, explicitly, in precise terms, what a blatant copying is. The phrase you're quoting is not relevant.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: when does a "non-substantial modification" become a substantial one?

1. Open the first page of this thread.

2. Use your web browser search to find the phrase 'non-substantial modification'.

It's not there. Again, what you're quoting refers to an old, outdated version of proposed changes.

Quote
Genie wrote: Have people actually read the proposed restrictions?

Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case.

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote: Quote Sign Guy wrote: As Vlad said: Quote The biggest problem with all this is that we can't strictly define what a 'blatant copying' is. I said that ages ago. Since then, we suggested at least three revisions of proposed changes. The current version of proposed changes, on the first page of this thread, defines exactly, explicitly, in precise terms, what a 'blatant copying' is. The phrase you're quoting is not relevant. Quote Sign Guy wrote: when does a "non-substantial modification" become a substantial one? 1. Open the first page of this thread. 2. Use your web browser search to find the phrase 'non-substantial modification'. It's not there. Again, what you're quoting is an old, outdated version of proposed changes.

"Ages ago" is only 30 days prior to your Round 3 proposed changes. Your term changes from "non-substantial modification" to "secondary result" and "Insubstantially Modified Image". The intent is the same.

You offer "Definitions" of what is an "Insubstantially Modified Image" without offering any definitions of what would qualify as a Substantially Modified Image that would presumably pass your test of a permitted use. You then proceed in Section 4.2 to restrict distribution of secondary results thereby hanging a cloud of confusion over your product for all licensees who are not in the habit of reading all terms of a EULA or up to comprehending legalese.

As someone who has followed the progression of posts on the EULA and its proposed modification, I do not feel that there has been any break from your original thinking that you would like to eliminate the use of Filter Forge as a tool for publishers to use to produce ready-to-use textures and sell them. The lack of any stated criteria that would meet the test of being a substantial enough change to be in compliance with whatever vague standards are being proposed reinforces my feelings that you seek to remove or cloud my rights as a licensee in favor of the separate rights of other licensees and filter authors as well as keep intact the benefit you receive from donations of filters to the free library.

Lots of solutions have been proposed and dismissed. If you want to keep the free library available as a marketing device, maybe you should just stop accepting donated filters and publish only those you develop yourself or compensate third party authors for. That is the crux of the problem and it puts publishers and filter authors in conflict with each other while Filter Forge receives benefits from both the donated filters and the license fees for use of the application. In essence, Filter Forge has a conflict of interest and seeks to remedy it at the expense of publishers.

Quote
Have people actually read the proposed restrictions? They are VERY reasonable and I really don´t see the problem. Just that FF will be the only one (to my knowledge) of it´s kind that will be implementing them.

Yeah i agree the EULA is perfectly reasonable, genetica actually does have restrictions on user creations see below for info -

Quote
Could you please post a link?

Theres a post about it which says -

The thread -

http://www.spiralforums.biz/index.php...ic=79&st=0

A quote by staff -

Quote
Textures posted by forum members are not included under the same rights. There are many generous members here who are willing to help others with texturing questions and also to share their work freely. However, it is appropriate to ask permission to use members’ textures on a case by case basis.

The official usage rights page -

http://www.spiralgraphics.biz/packs/usage_rights.htm

So basically they provide a set ones you can use made by devs or special commissioned ones for users to use, users are free to post textures etc on the forum but that does NOT give them the right to render them and sell them unless the original creator is ok with them doing so and various users mentioned they did not want this happening.

So yeah just give the library rights to the original creators and make a commisioned or dev made set and apply the EULA and keep the library but for learning purposes with owner rights. Thats my opinion anway, and people that are not willing to learn the app can use the stock ones provided or look elsewhere.

Also from that thread:

Quote
The images you generate with our texture software, whether that be the Wood Workshop or Genetica, are royalty free with no strings attached. This includes commercial usage.

Quote

Any textures released by Spiral Graphics including those posted by staff on the forums are royalty-free. You can read our usage rights here. Textures posted by forum members are not included under the same rights. There are many generous members here who are willing to help others with texturing questions and also to share their work freely. However, it is appropriate to ask permission to use members’ textures on a case by case basis.

Quite frankly, I couldn't give a hoot about Filter Forge any more. I would not touch it with a barge pole. Give me Genetica any day. They behave in a professional manner and the use of their software is in line with every other filter I have ever used. It also produces much more realistic results than Filter Forge.

Thank you to everyone for making me look for another alternative. I have found one which is much better and only half the price too.

By the way, it is unethical to advertise your free filters the way you do and to offer for sale the lower versions of Filter Forge which literally force people to use the software in ways which are against your intended EULA. I do not blame people for wanting their money back and only hope you will have enough morals to refund those customers who are now not happy.

Quote
The images you generate with our texture software, whether that be the Wood Workshop or Genetica, are royalty free with no strings attached. This includes commercial usage.

Yes but it's already said that with FF it's perfectly fine to make your own creations thats exactly what this means also it does not include others work.

Quote

Any textures released by Spiral Graphics including those posted by staff on the forums are royalty-free. You can read our usage rights here. Textures posted by forum members are not included under the same rights. There are many generous members here who are willing to help others with texturing questions and also to share their work freely. However, it is appropriate to ask permission to use members’ textures on a case by case basis.

Quote

Quite frankly, I couldn't give a hoot about Filter Forge any more. I would not touch it with a barge pole. Give me Genetica any day. They behave in a professional manner and the use of their software is in line with every other filter I have ever used. It also produces much more realistic results than Filter Forge. Thank you to everyone for making me look for another alternative. I have found one which is much better and only half the price too. By the way, it is unethical to advertise your free filters the way you do and to offer for sale the lower versions of Filter Forge which literally force people to use the software in ways which are against your intended EULA. I do not blame people for wanting their money back and only hope you will have enough morals to refund those customers who are now not happy.

Well it's up to you of course, i use a range of apps myself, but remember what you quoted states 'released by Spiral Graphics' so that does not include forum creations from non staff members and a user could easily have the rights to anything posted on a stock site they did not permit and get it pulled you quoted this part yourself which is suprising because thats what everyones been saying all along that the user should have control over there creations but you have seemed against this. This is what the EULA is trying to do so whats the problem? As i suggested if theres a basic royalty free or commisioned set but users get the rights to there projects it would solve the problem imo.

Fred -- thank you for the clarifications, they are all reasonable and don't change the intended meaning in any way.

As for the level of clarity, I now see that EULA alone is not enough. I'll postpone this matter until we can show a mock-up of the plain-language page, with a case-by-case FAQ or something like that.

Anyone reading the thread and feeling confused, read this:

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote: 1. These are PROPOSED CHANGES, NOT THE ACTUAL EULA. 2. These changes are NOT FINAL. They are posted here for public discussion and are subject to change. 3. According to the current EULA, there are NO RESTRICTIONS regarding selling textures. In other words, selling textures is currently COMPLETELY LEGAL. 4. The changes WON'T GO LIVE until we resolve the problems and possible conflicts. That's why they're being discussed publicly.

Quote

I would also like to add that the people who post free textures in the Genetica forum gain nothing at all from Genetica. People who post good filters here are rewarded with a free program for their efforts. The intended EULA would not be so bad if these filter creators created filters without any rewards AND Filter Forge was not advertised as having thousands of free filters to use. Genetica DOES have THOUSANDS of high quality filters and other textures provided by members of the forum are extras and provided out of generosity. Some members do not mind how the textures are used while others just want them used for non-commercial use. Seems very fair to me.

Well no, people posting textures there gain feedback from others and tips on how to improve there work, i think thats the whole point in user sharing to begin with imo so they DO gain from it but not in a financial way. The reward thing i agree, i actually won a free copy but did not originally think i was going to and was actually saving for it just before i got my email so it was a nice suprise for me but the deal seems to still be going now, the advertisement seems to be aimed at the fact that theres tons of filters and i agree possibily not the best thing to do untill this is sorted out and these new versions also which complicates things a bit imo.

The sharing rights thing Genetica does i think is a good idea the problem is it's quite late into it now with FF so some of my previous suggestions might hopefully resolve this, like putting a royalty free set to use and making the library a learning resource with user acess to there content and maybe choose do display how there works can be used if wanted. Set the EULA to user rights and something like whats currently there now then it should be fine except im guessing some re-sellers would be unhappy but thats to be expected and can't be avoided. And the sooner the better really imo so it does not become a worse situation.

Quote
The operative word in the Genetica statement is "generate". Nothing references creation. The limitations put forth regarding forum sharing get no criticism from me. The 5000+ free library from Filter Forge is not at all the same thing. It is offered without restriction as an inducement to pay a licensing fee.

Yes but that does not cover what else was said which you did not quote about usage of user forum posted content which is not allowed and was posted by a official staff member.

The advertisement of the user content is probably not the best thing yeah i agree with that 100% and as i said imo a good idea is a commisioned/dev made set.

we've basically got three interested parties here, FF inc, third party authors and lastly, end users. some of those may overlap, but that's the 3 basic parties involved here.

and here's the jist of the problem: FF wants/needs authors.

FF wants/needs end users.

authors want HU's (as compensation for their work) and want credit for their work.

end users dont want to be hassled with copyright this and copyright that and for the most part dont make filters, they use them.

so, FF has a conflict. authors have a conflict and end users have a conflict (at least in the proposed new eula).

FF wants authors to be happy so they keep making filters and submitting them.

authors want compensation and credit.

and end users dont want to be bothered with copyright issues and possible royalty claims (at least the ones in dispute here)

so, FF makes an author/upload eula that basically lets the author keep his copyright but that also allows end users the right to use it without compensation, if the filter is in the library.

FF also makes a deal with end users to allow them to use the filters pretty much restriction free.

so, some users use and dont give any compensation to the authors and no credit. authors get upset, yet, they signed an agreement that said this was ok. so, there's the first mishap. authors shldnt load their filters to the library if they're going to try to control said use of filter thereafter. they cant. they signed an agreement that users could use. so, authors havent a legal leg to stand on in yelling foul.

nonetheless, vladimir, wanting to keep his authors happy, decides to amend the eula and announces such and said changes. authors are happier but now some of the end users are pissed off because suddenly the program they bought is going to change the rules.

frankly, there's been a bit of blindness going on here. authors just didnt read the upload eula carefully enough. i did, but i didnt mind uploading and having others use those filters. i also quit uploading as many. i'm not working for free for texture sellers, or least not for the most part.

so, the solution isnt to change the end user agreement. that's just not going to work. there are over 5000 filters already grandfathered by the original author and end user agreements and you cant make a new eula retroactive to the old filters. it just wouldnt hold up in court.

the solution is to leave the eula alone. if authors are pissed about their filters being used, then why the hell did they upload them for free in the first place? that's just a sour grapes situation. that would be like someone telling adobe that they'll write filters for photoshop and adobe doesnt have to compensate them and then they do so and users like and use them and then the author goes back to adobe and says, 'hey, protect my filters and credits!'. uhm, that just doesnt work... as we can well see from the controversy now existing with this thing.

and, in doing that, leaving the eula alone, if FF wants to keep their current and future authors happy, then offer them some sort of compensation for the filters uploaded. FF would then be the screening agent of all filters and could and would disallow 'junk' filters. no sense paying for junk, right? authors would have to shape up as far as meeting standards in order to be compensated and we'd have a better, albeit more trim, library. and, if you (FF) just wanted to leave the current library intact and use that for an anything goes library, like it is now, then fine, make a second library that is the 'professional' library. authors get compensated there, end users get a no hassles library. FF could even charge for the Pro libary and use that to compensate authors. FF wins, authors win, and end users win.

but all of that also assumes FF has the time and personnel to do all that or even a willingness to do so. there's nothing wrong with the eula. there's actually nothign wrong with the upload eula, except that authors ignored it somewhat. so, you cant cry foul to the texture users like fred said. they did nothing wrong, technically (though i do admit i feel sorry for the authors whose filters were just blatantly 'used' ). it would be nice if texture sellers gave credit, in the very least, and moreover compensated authors, but that's just not likely to happen unless you signed a deal with one up front or something.

if you gave this whole mess to judge judy and asked her to resolve it, i can see her now asking the authors for a written contract protecting the author and when all the author could produce was the upload license agreement, she'd rule in favor of the texture sellers, hands down every time. and that's what fred's been arguing the whole time, that authors have been naive' and that they shld be being compensated, but that by uploading their filters to the library, they arent entitled to any other than the HU agreement(s).

so, vlad, i know you're not asking for votes here and i know you'll decide this on your own, but to me, authors are going to have to bite the bullet on this one. those of us who did win enough HU's for free copies and even for free lifetime upgrades pretty much knew what we were getting into and if we didnt, then that was our responsibility to find out. it's not your responsibility to alienate your end users by now imposing more limits on them. that's how judge judy would rule and i think that's going to be your only viable option here, much as i know you dont want to hurt the authors.

ok, a lot was posted while i was composing that last post.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: there are over 5000 filters already grandfathered by the original author and end user agreements and you cant make a new eula retroactive to the old filters. it just wouldnt hold up in court.

Precisely.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: So I think if you clarify what represents an acceptable change, you will not hear much in the way of complaints because it just makes good business sense at the same time.

That's what we're going to do next. No more legalese threads -- people don't get them anyway, and some of them start to spread uninformed panic and rage all over the Internet. In the next installment we'll discuss a plain-language page.

Quote
jffe wrote: Then why start now ?

jffe, we're not starting anything until we understand what's the best approach.

Quote
jffe wrote: a few vocal angry people

An interesting fact about 'vocal angry people'. Two most vocal and most angry people we had here were on different sides of the barricades -- Person One was angry because of texture reselling, and Person Two was angry because we're trying to find ways to prohibit texture reselling.

3Dillusions, please stop posting here.

As an exercise in discerning the reality behind the fiction, one need only look at the Renderosity stores of some of the vocal anti-EULA-change-people here.

Following that illuminating web excursion, one cannot help but realize the sheer amount of hippocrisy inherent in their statements, which - to me - is nothing short of nauseating if not outright disgusting.

Coming here and daring to accuse the FF developers of "false advertising" (while it is actually their very own online stores that should have 'Caveat emptor' stamped all over the place) is only the latest episode in the rationalizing of their double standards.

But, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record...

OK, before I close the thread, here's my usual 'broken record' snippet. If you're feeling confused, please read it:

1. These are PROPOSED CHANGES, NOT THE ACTUAL EULA.

2. These changes are NOT FINAL. They are posted here for public discussion and are subject to change.

3. According to the current EULA, there are NO RESTRICTIONS regarding selling textures. In other words, selling textures is currently COMPLETELY LEGAL.

4. The changes WON'T GO LIVE until we resolve the problems and possible conflicts. That's why they're being discussed publicly.