'Claiming by' post closed

Quote by William:

Quote
Then you designers should get together, form a sort of 'union' and put FF management under some pressure. After all its in their own interest to keep peace with those who are creating the most useful attributes of their software. And its not as though it'll cost them anything.

I'll reiterate what I've said before regarding this. I think it's a bit counterproductive to go so far as to create a union against FFinc, instead try a more positive inclusion approach. I'll quote myself fr om the previous thread:

Quote

I'm all for copyrights and protection of work, but you guys simply have to realize the consequences of when you click yes to that submission agreement that you're forfeiting pretty-much all of the usual protection you would incur. Is it an issue that people might withhold filters because of this -- yes, I'll concede that it is. I'm not convinced, however, that FilterForge Inc. is the entity that should be responsible for the solution. This is a strong, smart community, and I'm surprised that nobody has banded together and tried to make a third-party filter/texture marketplace. It would be somewhere wh ere each author could protect his/her filters to whatever extent they felt necessary.

Re: The previous thread closure, GMM, I'm not certain about the particular agreement posted on this discussion board, but from my understanding, it's understood that comments made by users don't reflect upon the website owners. Any potentially libelous statements are the responsibilities of the individuals making them, not the website. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

william,

it's a bit of a rock and a hard place for FF, inc. on this. if they restrict the usage they offput the buyers/users. if they dont restrict it somehow, they end up offputting the authors.

the best route would be one that doesnt restrict either and rewards both.

also, one last comment on the original topic, if you take a picture of a tree this is comparable to hitting the save button in FF. what rankles the authors is that someone else is claiming they made the tree and not just the snapshot. we dont mind others using our filters; that's why we put them in the library. what grates is someone claiming they made the tree and not the snapshot. that's just rude.

Yea I totally agree but the guy in question was claiming the 'process' was his not just the results of it. That's a different thing altogether.....

Quote
Sphinx wrote: right now we don't even have the legal backup to report that guy on the various sites he posts stuff on That would be a good start.

Yes, it would be a good start....but that would entail giving authors tangible copyrights on texture results....which would constitute a "restriction" just on people selling straight texture results without permission and/or compensation to the author.....the negligable percent of straight texture sellers scream as though they constitute a majority of FF users who will stop purchasing FF if any restriction of any kind is placed on it.....and FF is afraid that any restriction will hurt their sales....

Quote
William Turner wrote: The reason why people buy your software is because so many others have worked to create brilliant filters, not just because of the software itself. You need their support.... Watch it doesn't come back to bite you

It's true.... I personally feel that FF has become quite complacent with what they have for filters now and the trickle-in submission of quality works currently going on. Many skilled authors have stopped submitting due to this issue....and from there being no further incentives to submit....

It is "biting" FF, IMHO..... This program now has unbelievable creative ability....and due to this issue and there being no further incentives, FF really isn't getting anything compared to what they potentially could be getting from authors here....

Quote
Remarks like this may be called an ad hominem attack. This thread has gone too far and is closed now. Any posts commenting on the person will be removed.

Ad Hominem variant Guilt by association takes the form:

Quote
Source A makes claim P. Group B also make claim P. Therefore, source A is a member of group B

You don't throw out all the apples just because of a few rotten ones. We had a good discussion going. Deleting/editing the offensive replies instead of closing the whole thread would be great alternative.

I really appreciate all the hard work the team put into developing and supporting Filter Forge, and the thriving community backs up the fact that it is a fantastic product.
On top of that you have a community that submits new filters everyday, help people in the forum and update the wiki. All this help you sell the product, and the filter library is perhaps one of the main selling points.

When artists/authors to an unanimous degree point out that a certain kind of use is over the limit, you ought to listen (this is not an "or else ..!" argument, it is an ethical point).

I propose that you implement multiple licenses.

For the whole reward point system there is nothing wrong in requiring submission under the current FF license.

For people that care more about the copyright of their work, you could offer CC licenses as an alternative.

Quote
William Turner wrote: I may not buy the software after all

You should get it!

This is probably a high priority. They had the mac thing to do. Then they had v2 to get out. A rework of the eula and contributor compensation is a logical next step if ff is to tap the power of v2. A workable solution would add as much value as offering a competitive product. Afik, ff’s situation with this forum is unique. Contributor feedback is qualitatively different and more valuable, that that provided by users – very unlikely that they do not realize that.

Quote
Sphinx. wrote: I can't follow that logic.

Basically, FF is afraid to place any restriction of any kind on usage for fear that it will hurt sales. The people selling straight texture results fr om FF filters certainly don't want that to happen and cut into their business, so they have voiced strong opposition here to the implementation of this type of restriction.....and it has come under the "guise" of "any restriction will hurt FF sales" and "I won't purchase/use FF if any restriction is placed on it". It has happened countless times every time that I've posted something on this topic.....

Quote

Sphinx. wrote: implementing Creative Commons licenses doesn't mean that people can't use the renderings, it just means that there are further requirements (depending on the license type). With some of the lighter CC variants a texture seller would simply have to mention the original author/filter artist. With a little tweaking of the marketing wording this can easily be turned around to a positive selling point.

That would be a step in the right direction.....but I still think it needs to be more than that to allow authors to protect them at major sites via DMA.....and that would entail FF allowing authors to retain tangible copyrighs to straight texture results. The big misconception is that this restriction would only affect a miniscule percent of users who are selling straight texture results.....and no one else who is using textures in a creative capacity.....

Given that people selling straight texture results are having such a profound effect on author submissions, I have always steadfastly believed that it is in FF's best interests to place this restriction on selling straight texture results.....the sellers will definitely beeotch about it, but they will still purchase/use this program....and the increase of author involvement and frequency of quality submissions will surely promote and propegate sales of this program irregardless of this restriction, IMHO.....

Quote
Sphinx. wrote: When artists/authors to an unanimous degree point out that a certain kind of use is over the lim it, you ought to listen (this is not an "or else ..!" argument, it is an ethical point).

.....especially when you have obvious proof-positive evidence to how it is negatively affecting filter submissions to this program.....

This string is where I last 'beat the crap' out of this issue.....it got pretty ugly.....

http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...9&TID=7109

Activating Geek mode
1. By creating a "pro filter store" FF Inc. should be able to attract the very best filters.
2. By encrypting filters in the store they could ensure that those filters wont be ripped, decrypting in RAM only.
3. Selling filters by subscription or pay per download would work, with a percentage to filter developer, a win-win.
4. A "Pro ultimate edition" with nn free downloads, for pro users
5. A download package with nn downloads.

Just my 2 cents

Quote

Totte wrote: Edit: I can drop this issue now, as "he who he must not be mentioned" has changed his text now, to this: How did you make it? This texture was made using software specially designed to aid in seamless texture creation. Some of the programs I’ve use are Photoshop, Illustrator, Filter Forge, Genetica, Image Synth, Alien Skin, Topaz Labs, 3D Studio, and even a pen and paper. I am 100% satisfied with that.

i'm with totte. this satisfies the original subject and i'm very glad to see that gent handle this on his site!

and let's remember why carl started this. it wasnt to reopen the eula debate; it was to simply point out one instance of someone claiming filter authorship. this is different from the original eula debate, so let's stay on topic here.

i would think that all that was needed in the eula to cover this sort of thing would be something like 'you may claim any rendering as your own, however you may NOT claim authorship of a filter you did not make' and that would cover this one instance.

Quote
Lucie wrote: So I'm going to try to rephrase what I said with no names

Thank you Lucie, this is much more neutral. Feel free to continue with the discussion as long as it doesn't touch anyone in person and no accusations are made (false accusations often result fr om misunderstanding).

Quote
Lucie wrote: only the person who has created the filter should be allowed to claim this. I'm not even sure it would qualify as a derivative

This is the case wh ere the common sense meets legal terms. Under the current terms, a filter is not an artwork, it's a tool. We put a clear distinction between a tool and its product/output/render: anyone who purchased a tool (filter) may claim its product (render) as his own. However if someone copies a filter and tries to submit it under a new name, this is plagiarism: we try to catch copycat filters and not allow them into the library.

This the the current situation: we'll have to comply with it until Vladimir has time to work with the lawyers and produce an updated license.

Quote
Totte wrote: effects filters and pure texture filters are two very different beasts. Effects filters do apply to someones original work, making it even more original

The edge between an effect and a texture is thin. Adding a single Image component turns a texture filter into an effect filter: does it count as a 'creative addition'?

Maybe you could put one of those little ‘donate’ buttons on each filter’s page - everyone probably has paypal.
But not hidden away – a pretty one, right under the author’s name.

Personally, I would be willing to work really hard on the ones users were funding.

Don't know why the quote didn't work

Hey Everyone,

As I read all the comments,18 up on this page I agree.

Carl wrote:

Quote
Excellent [ I'm also happy with the outcome ] and FF has also gained by more prospect buyer being aware of FFs existence and capabilities of the program. The "nameless one" also retains his credibility, at no loss to people appreciating him. Believe it, Win Win is possible for everyone

GMM wrote:

Quote
This the the current situation: we'll have to comply with it until Vladimir has time to work with the lawyers and produce an updated license

We will all look forward to this.

Have a GREAT day / evening!

Ron

Hey Everyone,

Hi William,

We are all hopeing for changes!

Good to hear you reconsidered. I purchased the basic program in the beginning as I thought I would never make filters...well 300+ later,..IT IS a GREAT program!

Oh, Welcome to the Filter Forge Forum Family!

Have a GREAT day!

Ron

Quote
William Turner wrote: advice

I think these two would be good ones for you to look at.

http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2217.html
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/8838.html

Good luck and welcome to ff.

emme other filter rough paint might be of use, coupled with one of the spiral filters modified to work above the horizon line

Hey Everyone,

I agree with Steve as he wrote above.

Wonder IF it will ever change?

Have a GREAT day!

Ron

When I bought V2 I was kind of expecting that the license would be changed for this and was surprised that it was not the case.

Keep your fingers crossed, but I have a good feeling.I think things are about to change, and in a very good way. This is a complex problem so it's no surprise that is taking a while to iron out.

Hey Everyone,

I think I remember that.
It was stated very well.

We are all still waiting.

Have a GREAT day!

Ron

Isn't there a rule somewhere in the internet about self quoting?