Render Usage and License Terms

I use FF to make textures for 3d models. I *thought* that when I bought the software that this was acceptable.

But lately, I've been coming across quite a few notes on filters, like this:

"3D Artists please merge all your textures into you clothing or props, you may NOT make Seamless Tiles for sale with any of my filters these are my terms if you do not agree then do not download this filter."

Now, while I am sure there are ways to bake textures into 3d models in some applications, it isn't always possible, nor desirable.

To be sure, I could always simply not use this filter, as the author requested. But after reading some of the threads here, that doesn't seem to be a complete solution.

Someone here got someone else's posts removed from a server even though it looked like that person had legitimately bought and used FF to render the images.

That's scary.

It means I can't use ANY filters that have been made by someone else because they *might* at some later date decide that they don't want the renders output by those filters to be used.

I *have* read that the copyright to renders belongs to the person who renders the images, not the filter author. But that will not help if a filter author decides to issue a DMCA takedown and the admins of wherever that render is being used decide not to argue (which they usually don't). Being accused, whether rightfully or wrongly, of copyright infringement can ruin a person. Reputations can be destroyed over things like this; livelihoods can be destroyed. And not everyone has the resources to pursue a defamation suit against an overenthusiastic filter author who may live on the other side of the world.

But even if I just limited myself to filters that I created, without snippets or anything -- what if my rendered output looked enough *like* someone else's that they were convinced it was their own?

It would be nice if filter authors who don't mind their filters actually being used would say that, outright, in their descriptions. That way, I'd know whose work I could trust. But as it is, I'm not even sure I can use FF at all for anything that might possibly be displayed in public.

What to do? Give up on FF and buy Genetica?

ETA: I have to add that I've never, ever, experienced such a quandary with a paid -- professional -- version of software. Being afraid to use the tools you paid for is crazy. If I'd realized it was such an issue, I wouldn't have bought FF. It's never going to be the "best Photoshop plugin ever" as long as people are afraid of using it. I have many, many Photoshop plugins, and this is the *only* one that has such restrictions (whether they're endorsed by the company or not, if authors pursue their rights -- as they see them -- you're still restricted to not using someone else's work at all if you want to be safe.)

Just a note to authors reading this:

1. We do spend hours and hours on making FF filters. But it's our responsibility to decide what to do with the filter. If you don't want people using it, don't make it public.

2. Telling people what to do with the filter's output is not under our jurisdiction. You cannot, and should not claim rights to do something to the end-user's output. The basis idea of the library is that the output is free for use. This is the overall consensus of FilterForge users.

3. The FilterForge library is not the only distributer! You can sell filters if you want to! Just like you can sell Photoshop Brushes, gradients, or other assets.

4. Respect your users as much as you respect yourself.

5. We all have feelings about this. But the general consensus, legal code, and other details conflict with emotions. It's human to feel this way, but we gotta keep in mind that we have responsibility to our own work.

6. Let's be professional about our work. Be proud of your work and be proud of your users. While some people may be malicious, not everybody is like that, in fact the majority isn't. You should not be afraid of the public, rather embrace the glory that you've helped somebody's work. The paranoia isn't helping people to what you made publicly available, free of charge.

Quote
I guess what I don't understand is why FF's creators don't make the license term very, very clear -- officially -- on the website where everyone can read them when they download filters.

Questions in regard to usage terms for the library have popped up several times on the forums. Often times mods do answer with a pretty clear point that the output is yours to keep. But nothing stands clear on the FF library page itself. I think it's assumed that any creation using FilterForge is yours anyway. It's like how whatever you do in Photoshop is your creative work, not Adobe's.

The complexity just comes in when end users come into play since everybody has a different idea of what their rights are. The unifying point though is the general consensus which I mentioned a bit earlier. This ambient idea is really the only thing that I find assuring that the output of the filter you download from the FF library is yours.

And that's just some critique I've always had with FilterForge.

In the end it's also mildly situational. For example if there's a FFXML file lying around on the forums, there's a good chance it wasn't intended for general usage, but more to demonstrate a point or idea.

So what's outside of the library is a bit more ambiguous than what's in the library.

Of course, the best of the best is just make everything from scratch. But why bother when the library's got tons of great creations! Wish you luck on making stuff.

As far as myself I think that Skybase pretty much summed it up for me...Aside from that you can use my filters and there output in any way that you wish..This is why I submit them...

Quote
The license is put as clearly as we can. Every filter author must accept it before submitting their filter to the online library. You can read it in Filter Forge or find it attached.

Ah, well. That must be why I never found it: I haven't uploaded any filters. So I have been looking for a license agreement that covers those who download filters. It did not occur to me that I would need to look for license terms for users who upload because, well, I haven't reached that point yet.

So, thank you for pointing that out.

However, the fact that I didn't find it because I didn't know where to look -- as a USER (not a filter author) -- suggests that FF could indeed make the license terms clearer and easier to find.

No one should have to create an account to ask the question in the forums, yet it gets asked over and over. And someone who is wondering whether an author who wants someone else's renders pulled from a website shouldn't have to spend very much time figuring out whether that request is legitimate or not. Right? Because ultimately, that's what worries me. Not whether I'd prevail in some hypothetical court case (I'm reassured that I would: thank you!) -- because no one wants such a misunderstanding to go that far.

ETA: Nevertheless, I very much appreciate your unambiguous response, and I feel much more reassured.

Quote
For example if there's a FFXML file lying around on the forums, there's a good chance it wasn't intended for general usage, but more to demonstrate a point or idea. So what's outside of the library is a bit more ambiguous than what's in the library.

Any clarifications on this matter?

As I see it, if someone makes public the 'source or method' their intent is to disclose this and share it. If not, they would have just shown a render of the 'source or method' and not the FFXML file. Furthermore how many alterations of this disclosed 'source or method' are required for it to be considered an original work?

Regarding processes, has anyone ever had any trouble with any patent violations here?

Also...

The legalese in many intellectual property companies' Terms of Service disclaimers states that the company's rights hold "in each country, in all languages, and throughout the universe."

See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22in+...niverse%22

Question:

Regarding the use of the phrase "throughout the universe" in many TOS, how might this potentially contradict the Outer Space Treaty of 1967?

Discuss!

To help further clarify my obscure question:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_c...uter_space :

Quote
The Outer Space Treaty provides a basic framework for international space law. It covers the legal use of outer space by nation states. The treaty states that outer space is free for all nation states to explore and is not subject to claims of national sovereignty.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_h...man_Rights :

Quote
Whether the principle prohibits the patenting of the human genome is contested by the corporate sector.[23]

Quote
So could you please tell me wh ere it is?

On my PC the license is located at C:\Program Files\Filter Forge 3\license.rtf.

Quote
I personally think it's a little cheesy to sell seamless tiles without any modification.

One of those things that irks me as well. But it's not wrong to do so.

I make my filters so anybody can hit the next-variant button. Don't wanna say in a bad way but unlike many filters listed in the library, I try my best to make sure the next-variant button always works so it outputs consistent results. So it's easy to get results and it's tweakable if you want to get more specific. So now I get to say that it's really really really really lazy if anybody outputs presets out of my filters lol. Cause you can hit a button and it lands you a new preset.

Quote
Which makes me wonder why if someone felt that way, they would post the filters in the first place?

Yeah, I really wonder why. I don't mean to dismiss the author's rights but I just ignore the whiny stuff like "please don't sell my works" when the filter's in the library. If it's posted elsewhere I honor whatever rights the author gives me. But this is pretty clear cut: there's no emotional pleas, no gray areas, no weird statements with the library.