is this allowed?

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2515253.html

found another one

Lame

Ohhh, I always feel flattered when they are my textures... wait, that has never happened.

The Shutterstock portfolio of Super87 shows many more Filter Forge generated tiles. Super87 is totally within his rights to publish them under the existing Filter Forge license. How many are unaltered presets and how many are modified in some way has no bearing.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Super87 is totally within his rights to publish them under the existing Filter Forge license.

----Sure, but other than Microsoft, show me someone who has ever won a Eula lawsuit. And even then, it doesn't trump any real laws or regulations, under which an unmodified preset falls into the automatically copyright protected from the-time-it-is-made as being a 'work of art' category of U.S. law. That said, good luck proving that it is "unmodified", as they could change one slider by 0.01 and it'd be technically modified. It really is a moot point, we've gone over it endlessly here, if ya don't want yer graphics used like that, then just don't submit them to the library and save yourself the angst.

jffe

If someone were to put strychnine in his guacamole I would not mourn his loss.

I dont agree with publishing hi-res images for sale derived from un-altered FF presets, even if that is within the EULA rules...

Just think it's a bit of a cheek...

Quote
uberzev wrote: If someone were to put strychnine in his guacamole I would not mourn his loss.

LMFAO

But saying that, apart from my day job as a media developer, I also sell pre-made HTML/CSS design templates, quite a few of them have been given the Filter Forge treatment to some degree.

Although just by looking at the layouts, chances are the FF elements would not be blatantly obvious.

Quote
uberzev wrote: If someone were to put strychnine in his guacamole I would not mourn his loss.

.....so you don't like it, eh??? LMAO.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Fred is right.....totally permissable under current EULA.....

Unfortunately!

I guess the easiest way to protect yourself against people selling presets or only trivially altered versions of your filters is to create high-res bitmaps yourself and publish them publicly (for example on flickr.com) with an "all rights reserved" copyright notice. When their publishing date clearly precedes the one of the impostors' at least this might help you to convince sites like shutterstock to take down the parasites' copies.

I dont agree with reselling presets, but dont have a problem with using non-presets for stock (we all have our own opinions on where to draw the line). If I buy ff (or download a trial, why images are not watermarked during trial is beyond me) and do a million dollar advertising campaign that is ok, but selling it for $1 isn't??

Copyright varies country to to country, some countries dont even recognise it but AFAIK filter creators create a filter which they have copyright over not the final product so dont have copyright the final image produced. much like if use a word template to write a doc the final product is my copyrightable piece of work (or piece of garbage in my case not the template creator or microsofts. even if that doc only consists of "once a upon a time..." (obvisously I couldn't enforce it, but it is my work). Similarly if i set my camera up to take a shot and you walk in and fire a wireless trigger after me, you own the copyright of your image (even taken on my gear without my permission) because you pushed the button, i own the copyright on my image, even though they are exactly the same. As such, images produced with ff are the end users work, they pushed the button (just because other people can create the exact same image doesn't change that).

Anyway Istock will accept ff creations in theory, they just dont like any raster art so approval rate is extremely low. On other sites they are already flooded with it and not overly interested. on shutterstock basically there has been too many people do it and sales are pretty minimal and so it has become hardly worth the effort, most people move on from doing ff creations on shutterstock because the time vs monetary return is low (including the person who is linked to above).

something to remember when discussing strychnine etc. people doing this generally have the pro $239 version which supports ff (The competing products actually recognise that these people form a significant part of their customer base). So you come to site get told hey, buy this program, download over 4000 filters and generate images that you can do whatever you like with, but if you use in a manner we dont like you deserve to die???

How much worse is what they do than ff basing its main sales pitch on the work of the texture creators? (many of whom create filters in mad frenzy trying to get themselves a free copy) not knowing that chance of doing so (especially in the 30 days trial) is minimal). FF owners make money on your work, as do the stock / rendosity / graphic designers / advertisers / game makers / etc etc. like I said I dont agree with using presets but not many people buy FF because it is fun, it is a tool to be purchased to generate income.

just my 20 cents
Phil

I have around 30 odd filters that I have "created" (like most people starting out they are variations or combinations of other filters, basically I want this filter to do this extra thing like some other that I have seen and so combine and modify). They would need serious cleaning up to be submitted (some people would get annoyed with 3 sliders labelled "opacity" ). Basically I havent had time to go back and clean them up and upload them (and realistically there is only little incentive for me to do so)

Phil

So... I'm new here (and I'm loath to stick my nose into this highly contentious issue), so please forgive me if this is an obvious question:

Why doesn't Filter Forge Inc compile renderings of all the presets and sell them individually, themselves?

A) This counts as 'publication'. (Key copyright concept establishing authorship.) Guys like TheSupe87 may still try to render and sell presets, but you have much more of a leg to stand on if they are selling something otherwise identical to what you have already been selling.

B) You can't really reasonably argue that you have incurred 'damages' (another key copyright concept: economic impact) since you yourself are not financially benefiting from selling the preset rendering itself, only from the sale of the software which make them.

C) As a side benefit, selling the presets might be a small source of revenue for FF inc. (Who might even share w/ the authors, for incentive.)

D) You can stop having this conversation about copyright and EULA, which can't be good for sales.*

*Our legal guy explicitly forbids us from using FF downloaded filter for any assets which conceivably wind up shipping in a game title, because of just this. We have to build our FF stuff FROM SCRATCH OR NOT AT ALL. Moreover, I can't upload stuff to FF either, for the same reason... lest someone download it then retroactively claim author's rights over the stuff we've since shipped. Granted, he's slightly paranoid (ahem, 'risk averse'), and that's not how I read the EULA, but <shrug>... his call not mine.

BTW: I'd recommend Content Rights for Creative Professionals (2nd ed), by Lutzker. Actually readable by mortals.