We've launched the Filter Forge Gallery

Wow! Really cool guys! Congratulations! What amazing work.

I mean, the structure, form and the works already sent. Congratulations to the developers and submitters!

Hey FF team, just some doubts:
a) where are the terms and conditions for the images sent?
b) Will they be watermarked? Maybe we would have an option in the submit form.
c) Will they be transfered to FF when submited?
d) Will FF user allowed to use any submited image?
d) Are there any info about it?
e) Can we post a link in the comments where we sell the images sent?
f) Are the images sent passed through inspection to be approved?

Well, that all for a while.

Thanks and congratulations once again.

Oh nice. I've used FF in a lot in projects. I just hope I can remember how I did most them.

...also... a lost of times I modify a filter somewhat to meet my needs... does that still count?

Quote
Sjeiti wrote: lost of times I modify a filter somewhat to meet my needs... does that still count?

Yes, that counts. Actually, you can even submit works that don't use Library filters -- as long as you can explain how you used Filter Forge in the comment.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: The links were messed up/scrambled when I checked it out

Yep, we've already fixed that.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: plenty of space to take from "Filter Forge Homepage" tab

We'll take care of that during the site redesign (later this year).

Will there be some sort of link between gallery submissions and the user account?

I noticed that gallery submission has a hotlink to the name of the author, but perhaps create a duplicate of this page http://www.filterforge.com/filters/au...page1.html so users could easily find all the gallery images by that author.

Additionally, I'd love to see a link to a gallery on filter-pages themselves (if the gallery links to that filter).

Overall, always nice to see new features on the website- keep up the good work.

which of lucato's 'd's did you answer, vlad? (there are two d's)

will the redesign of the gallery later this year, also allow for the sale of the images in the gallery?

would it be possible for the thumbnail to be generated from the submitted image? i mean, this is a bit of a pain to make a thumb besides submitting both the original and altered work.

Quote
JPG only. Width: 990 pixels. Height: 470 to 750 pixels. Up to 700 kilobytes. Width and height must match the "Before" Image (if it's uploaded).

ok, i see a potential problem here. it looks as if you've fixed the width dimension at 900 pixels. that's fine, but then you've also defined the height as being smaller than that. that means every image has to be wider than taller. thus, that wont work with every image.

might i suggest you simply put a max dimension size be it length or width.

also, that 990 pixels seems to indicate that all images MUST be that size. if it's smaller than that, will the image be rejected?

the 700 kb is certainly a nice increase over the forum limit!

oh, and one more thought on this; what about stitched panorama shots?

Just one question in the terms of use it states as follows

"Information and Materials Provided By You
Unless otherwise specifically provided herein or authorized by Filter Forge in writing, any materials or information submitted to, sent through or in connection with this Website by you ("User Materials"), will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary, and immediately become the property of Filter Forge, subject to any privacy policies posted on this Website. Filter Forge may use such User Materials as it deems fit, anywhere in the world, without obligation for compensation, and free of any moral rights, intellectual property rights and/or other proprietary rights in or to such User Materials."

When we submit to the gallery we give over the full copyrights to filter forge?

Carl, we're looking into this.

Quote
Lucato wrote: So Vladimir, I'd like to request to cancel my submissions "Traffic Light" and "Seasons" or provide a writing send to my e-mail that my submited works doesn't belong to FF or fit in this T&C item. I just authorize Filter Forge to use it in its Gallery to show to the world what FF can do and how it can work. ;0)

Yep, we'll delete them, as we decided not to accept watermarked images anyway, and yes, the ToC needs an urgent fix. I have some ideas regarding this -- I'll PM you with the details. (In short, we'd like to allow showcasing commercial images by including an explicit "Usage" section on the gallery page that describes how the gallery image can be used.)

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Yep, we'll delete them, as we decided not to accept watermarked images anyway, and yes, the ToC needs an urgent fix. I have some ideas regarding this -- I'll PM you with the details. (In short, we'd like to allow showcasing commercial images by including an explicit "Usage" section on the gallery page that describes how the gallery image can be used.)

Thanks Vlad for your quick reply. I'll be waiting for your PM, thanks.

Vlad, regarding the watermark, maybe you guys would create an automatic FF watermark. So, it would avoid submitters creating its own watermarks (like I did) :0) and would avoid visitors "saving as" the preview images and using it, once there are submitters here that sell images at this FF preview sizes and have or not exclusivity of selling with some companies. Well just a suggestion. I'd like to share my final work with FF team and gallery, but in my honest opinion, I'd like to have some watermark on it.

If you guys don't intend to sell images from this gallery right now, as a suggestion you guys would add in the forum an input field to a link where the image can be found to be downloaded at high-resolution (free, bought or other)

Well just my 2c.

A hug and have a great day.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Including a URL for microstock purchase is precisely what I was thinking about

That will be great Vlad.

Quote
but I'm not sure we'd want watermarks -- that would interfere with a primary purpose of the Gallery (i.e. demonstrating what Filter Forge can do). On the other hand, extra-small web resolutions sell quite well on microstock sites, so the absence of the watermark can potentially hurt these sales.

I see your point and I do not disagree that a watermark could interfere in an image look or in the purpose of the FF Gallery, but IMHO, it depends on the kind of the watermark that will be created (size, repeat, transparency). Ok, mine was a little exagerated and repetitive. Hehehe. But, just one FILTER FORGE GALLERY (only shadown/edges) on the center.
I totally agree with you on your second statement. The extra-small resolutions are really the best sellers on microstock sites, so it would really hurts the sales. Ok, I know people will say if you don't want this kind of risk don't submit your image. But that is not the point. A lot of people don't use FF just to play or as a hobby. They use commercially and for final projects, and they want to share it with the FF company and community, but they want to be covered and have some kind of "protection".

Quote
How about we allow a copyright notice in the bottom-left corner of the artwork (but no watermarks across the image)? Microstock agencies are very strict about copyrights, so a copyright notice should be a good thief deterrent.

Well, to be honest with you Vlad, I prefer watermarked images, actually both (Watermark and © notice). :0) Vlad, there are people using in their websites the small watermarked thumbnails from microstock sites, just to don't pay a buck on an image! They prefer to get the risk of being sued. I know we won't stop it, but we can make it harder. I think watermarked images can reduce or avoid its use. Even with just a copyright notice it's easier to use the image and the preview in the FF Gallery has a great size for website use. It gets 2 diferrent size prices at some microstock sites. So, I still stick with my vote of one FILTER FORGE GALLERY watermark (only shadown/edges on the center) and a copyright notice in the bottom-left corner of the artwork. ;0)

Well, once again, just my opinion Vlad.

Quote
Quote Kraellin wrote: every image has to be wider than taller This is mostly for the viewers -- otherwise the page will be too long. If this becomes a problem we can easily change that.

thanks for answering my questions, vlad. the only one that still concerns me is the one i just posted here. i'm not going to pretend to know what most viewer's monitor and desktop resolution settings are. for the longest time, mine were no larger than 1024 x 768. but that changed recently when i went to a new lcd monitor instead of crt type. it is now 1680 x 1050. so, it's a wide screen format. having looked at many pics on many different sites, i dont think viewers would mind too much if things went a bit long. but, i suspect with the better monitors these days, that 990 on any dimension, isnt going to be that difficult for anyone. with my own resolution on the vertical now being 1050, images still all show up completely on the monitor viewing area. so, i'm not sure the 990 even poses a problem.

anyways, that and the copyright issue are the only things bugging me about this. by the way, there is a way to keep folks from 'save picture as' without using watermarks. we had a discussion on retouchpro about this and some folks demonstrated how this was done quite effectively just on normal web pages. i'll have to find that article again.

There are methods by which to block direct image saving from websites and/or converts an image to super low res upon using an image capture program.....which I think would work nicely here. Watermaking just doesn't give a good "air" in the midst of a "visual" program like this.....and would turn people off as being super-restrictive......IMHO.....

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: I'm still rather opposed to the watermark idea.

So, you agree with me..... LOL....

How about one of the resident website image programs that do this.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: block direct image saving from websites and/or converts an image to super low res upon using an image capture program

I just think that a pop-up EULA type of thing won't do much (if anything) to stop people nowadays.....unfortunately.....

We've updated the submission form:
http://www.filterforge.com/gallery/submit.html

Now it requires the submitted Gallery Image to have a mandatory copyright notice, and if your image doesn't have it, the form can add the notice automatically (you can enter the text of your choice).

We have several submitted works in the queue that were submitted under the old Terms and Conditions and don't have the copyright notice embedded. We'll email their authors and ask if they'd like to resubmit the works under the new conditions, or keep them as they are.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: how about a link on the filter's description page to the gallery???

Already planned.

Okay, I'll shut up now..... LOL....

Disclaimer: IANAL. What follows is not a legal advice.

Quote
Lucato wrote: I didn't get this "but not limited"

This is a key thing here, and formulations like this are used in almost any agreement. "Including but not limited to" or "including, without limitation" means that the list that follows is not exhaustive.

Here's an example: "You're allowed to bring any living creature, including but not limited to, cat, dog or pig." The phrase means that you are allowed to bring any living creature, not just a cat, a dog or a pig -- they are listed here just as examples for clarity.

Quote
Lucato wrote: you grant Filter Forge a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, assignable

Contrary to the previous example, the list of rights you grant us is exhaustive -- it's not preceded by "including but not limited to". Which means we get only the rights listed there.

Quote
Lucato wrote: I think that Store and Display are ok, but the words Use, Reproduce, Distribute, Create Derivate Works,and so on, gives the idea that you are allowing FF to do whatever it wants

A couple of well-known examples:

From YouTube TOS: "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business"

From CGSociety TOC:"You retain all of your ownership rights, including but not limited to Copyright, in your User Submissions. However, by submitting the User Submissions to CGSociety Services, you expressly acknowledge and agree that you grant Ballistic Media worldwide, nonexclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the CGSociety, Ballistic Publishing and Ballistic Media (and its successor's) business."

As I said before, IANAL, but I think it is a standard formulation. Note that the formulation is essentially the same for American and Australian jurisdictions (CGSociety's TOC is governed by Australian law, and YouTube's TOS by Californian law.)

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i looked at the main page there. what part of firebug does that? is that the DOM thing?

No, DOM is something else. If you look at the 'Net' tab, and set the filter to 'All', you'll see all the uri's to all the files for the page. Right-clicking one brings up a menu. But this is just an example of how easy it is (it's what I always use). There are countless other ways. Just remember: (just about) everything you see online is actually somewhere on your computer. A persistent person will always find a way to get it.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Wouldn't it be better to separate the comment threads for the new gallery into their own forum section and rename the old "User Gallery" into something like "Work-in-Progress"?

Good suggestion.....

ok, i've still got a question on the gallery file sizes. the submission form says width 990 pixels and then gives a variable size for height and the max on that one is 750. so, with an application that does seamless and mostly only for square images, can i or can i not upload a square image to the gallery?

and, i got your answer on the portrait aspect ratio, vlad, but this still seems very limited, especially for a photo art gallery. could we maybe try this out with a couple submissions or something? and the same for the square stuff? i mean, this current limit is cutting out about 2/3's of my work from possible submisssion.