Upcoming EULA changes, round 4

Vladimir Golovin
Administrator
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 2676
Filters: 54
We've just finished a revised version of the proposed changes to the Filter Forge End User License Agreement (EULA) designed to prevent non-creative texture selling. For earlier discussion, see Round Two.

Quote

4. Distribution of Results.

4.1. Definitions.

"Result" means an image produced Using the Product or Filters.

"Insubstantially Modified Image" means an image on which any combination of the following manipulations have been performed, whether selectively on one or more pixels or uniformly across all pixels:

(i) upsampling, upsizing, increasing pixel size, downsampling, downsizing, decreasing pixel size,

(ii) orthogonal rotation in any direction, 90-degree rotation in any direction, 180-degree rotation in any direction, horizontal flip, vertical flip, horizontal mirroring, vertical mirroring,

(iii) brightness adjustment, contrast adjustment, automatic contrast adjustment, levels adjustment, automatic levels adjustment, gamma correction, shadow/highlight adjustment, dynamic range adjustment, histogram-based tonal adjustment, black point adjustment, white point adjustment, tonal range adjustment, exposure adjustment,

(iv) hue adjustment, saturation adjustment, color balance adjustment,

(v) sharpen, sharpening, unsharp mask, blur, blurring, Gaussian blur, motion blur, box blur, lens blur, smart blur, edge-preserving blur, noise removal, de-noising, scratch removal, blemish removal, dust removal,

(vi) any offset operation where pixels that are pushed beyond an image edge are 'wrapped' back on the opposite image edge,

(vii) crop, cropping, trim, trimming,

(viii) conversion to indexed color mode, conversion to 8-bit channel bit depth, conversion to 16-bit channel bit depth, conversion to 32-bit channel bit depth, conversion to any kind of RGB channel mode, conversion to any kind of RGBA channel mode, conversion to any kind of CMYK channel mode,

(ix) saving or re-saving as any image file format,

(x) addition of any frame, border or outline.

"Insubstantially Modified Filter" means a Filter to which any of the following changes have been made, whether by using any tool(s) for filter editing included with the Product or by changing the source code of the Filter in any other way: (i) changing any textual information within the Filter such as filter name or description, (ii) changing the Filter in any way that does not affect its output image, (iii) changing the Filter in such a way as to make it perform on its output image or any part thereof any combination of manipulations described above in the section "Insubstantially Modified Image", (iv) changing any anti-aliasing settings pertaining to the Filter's output image.

"Secondary Result" means a Result which is based on an unmodified or Insubstantially Modified Image originally generated using an unmodified or Insubstantially Modified Filter originally obtained fr om the Licensor’s Filter Library or included with the Product.

4.2. Distribution Restrictions. Unless otherwise provided herein or expressly permitted by the Licensor, you may not

(i) offer Secondary Result(s) for sale on any website, including but not limited to, istockphoto.com, shutterstock.com, gettyimages.com, corbis.com, turbosquid.com and renderosity.com;

(ii) offer Secondary Result(s) for sale on any physical media, including but not limited to, CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, Blue-Ray disks, floppy disks, hard drives, flash drives, solid-state drives and memory cards;

(iii) make Secondary Result(s) available for free download on any website;

(iv) make Secondary Result(s) available for free download on any peer-to-peer file sharing network, including but not lim ited to, BitTorrent, eDonkey or Gnutella.

You hereby agree that the Licensor may, solely and at its own discretion, request that you cease any such distribution of any Secondary Result(s) that it may deem not in compliance with this section.

4.3. Exceptions. The distribution restrictions defined in the section 4.2. shall not apply to you and your Secondary Result(s) if

(i) you are the author and copyright owner of the Filter(s) based on which you developed the Secondary Result(s),

or (ii) you obtained an express written permission from the author and copyright owner of the Filter(s) based on which you developed the Secondary Result(s) to distribute the Secondary Result(s) in the manner described in the section 4.2

or (iii) all Filters based on which you developed the Secondary Result(s) are so-called "effect filters" which derive their output image from a user-provided input image ("Source Image") as opposed to generating their output image solely by algorithmic means, and a Source Image is recognizable in each such Secondary Result and constitutes a substantial part of the Secondary Result.


Posted: December 29, 2007 11:37 am Details E-Mail
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 2676
Filters: 54
Everyone please read this before posting:

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.

these quotes are from december 2007


the last quote is interesting as this is exactly what has happened ............. a definite answer of nothing is going to change / something will change will stop this from comming up over and over ........... and maybe retain author submission from people like Dilla who brought this up originally

If it won't work for you Vlad maybe an alternative, which has been suggested by several people, of a market place for filters which common sense would only benefit FF program sales

Yup, very "telling" how that all went down....some straight texture sellers and associated authors vehemently opposed any restriction of any kind being placed on the program.....by saying that any restiction of any kind placed on the program would kill sales and that they would not buy/use the program anymore....I believe that Vlad/FF bought into it and got worried about what it would do to sales.....tried to placate and stall by saying that their lawyers needed alot of time to draft the new EULA....Vlad flip-flopped on the issue, then just disappeared without any further comment....V2 was released and FF sales went up as a result....the never-ending discount seems to be working....sales are probably pretty good right now.....Vlad took a nice vacation and none of the FF team seems to be complaining of malnutrition .....they seem to be content with the "number" of filters in the library and disregarding the discontent of authors over this issue and the resultant negative effect on quality submissions....I'll guess that they don't want to "rock the boat" or disturb the status quo by placing any type of usage restriction on the program....take a chance on texture sellers using the restriction to blow the issue way out of proportion so that customers are misled too believe that they can't use FF textures creatively....when placing a restriction on selling straight texture results would not have any affect of any kind on how 99.99999% of customers creatively use this program....

To top it all off, FF chose to skip the "window of opportunity" for implementing the straight texture result restriction with the release of V2. Something like this has to be implemented with a major release.....impossible to do it now because you can't place a usage restriction on customers who purchased V1 and V2 versions of the program with no usage restrictions upon it. I'm sure straight texture sellers are quite happy about that....but they aren't going to get the same level of quality texture filters like before.....which unfortunately means FF is not going to get them either.....

IMO, if straight texture sellers had thought about the long-run ramifications here, they should have supported the texture result restriction....then they would have gotten access to many more quality texture filters that they could quickly modify beyond the original and crank out textures to sell from them. Both FF and the texture sellers just looked at the short-run and completely ignored the long-run effects of this issue, IMO....

So here we are....the few, the proud, the FF-faithful ....still trying to talk Vlad/FF into temporarily dropping the short-run $$$ thing and focussing on ways to keep skilled authors producing quality works here.....which would go much farther towards promoting sales of this program over the long run, IMO....

Does that sum it up pretty good???

Quote
StevieJ wrote: To top it all off, FF chose to skip the "window of opportunity" for implementing the straight texture result restriction with the release of V2.

yes that was disappointing and I know several authors were under the misconception that some was going to happen.

other licensing agreements have also been suggested

"
Sphinx.


Posts: 745
Filters: 34

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.


First of all, as I proposed, it would be perfectly fair to require submission under the current FF license if you want to be in the game of reward point hunting (mutual gain, you get free FF, they get free filters). Alone this should ensure a steady flow of new filters.

Secondly, 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."

or
"Totte
Ãœbernerd


Posts: 1035
Filters: 79
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.
"

I'm really a noob to this, and I appreciate your points of view. You've mastered FF and have produced and contributed many artful filters. I've contributed one so far and am nearly ready to submit number two, a fairly feeble beginning and I hope to get better and produce more as I learn. It takes time of course. However, I really enjoy the idea of being able to contribute my filters freely without expectation of how they're used or distributed. I know that may seem trite since I've only contributed one so far but I assure you my feelings won't change over time. I think that since it was a given when submitting the filters that they would be free use to all it's a little odd now to change mid-stream but that's just my opinion. I also like the idea of establishing a ProFilter Store. Maybe user ranking could be used to establish what would or would not rise to the level of 'Pro'. Please don't skewer me, I'm just thinking out loud here and wanted to weigh in with the 'big dogs'.
Signed,
Little Cat

Quote
LeoLion wrote: Please don't skewer me

Quote
Carl wrote: I hate when cat fur get caught between my teeth

LOL....

Bottom line....if you are going to have a problem with 'customers' selling straight texture results from your filters or hijacking your filterwork as their own, then don't submit your filters to FF.....it's just that simple.....

I am a fan of the EULA "in-progress" shown at the top of this thread because it does not restrict whatsoever the ability to download and use "free filters" (assuming you own filter forge), but only the re-selling of the results. It is a shame that it has been disregarded for so long.

I highly disagree with the "FF store" idea. The point of FF is "free filters", and making users pay for the best quality filters will make them feel inferior.

If you would like to sell your filters instead of submitting them, go to a different website. Don't display them on the FF website, as the extra cost will turn many potential FF users off.

Quote
Lime wrote: submission under the current FF license if you want to be in the game of reward point hunting (mutual gain, you get free FF, they get free filters). Alone this should ensure a steady flow of new filters.

Just not happening....30-day trial is not enough time for most to learn program and create HU filters.....then you have to wait months for filters to go HU without use of program.....forcing most to abandon trying and buy the program....which is what I think FF wants to do.....force sales first and be satisfied with the trickle-in submission effect that they are getting now.....

Quote
Indigo Ray wrote: I highly disagree with the "FF store" idea. The point of FF is "free filters",

I very much agree with that.... FF currently has to run back to back continuous discounts to make sales under the guise that the current "one-time" discount will expire (misleading sales practice, IMO).....and gauging customers for access to the best filters would, at the very least, force FF to drastically lower the program's base price in oprder to make sales..... Huge mistake to do pay/pro filters, IMO.....

Quote
Carl wrote: The silence is deafening

Not hard to figure out why FF is going out of its' way to ignore this subject....but ignoring it isn't going to make it magically go away.....

oh, to speak... IF i had not read the author's eula, then yes, i would feel a bit cheated if someone were getting money from my filters. no question. but, i did read the author's eula, so my submissions were made based on that and based on the fact that i got $800.00 worth of programming from FF, inc. that's not too shabby. (and frankly, i think the program is still underpriced, so in my mind i got more). therefore, i do NOT feel ripped off by texture sellers. hey, go make a buck. that they only had to hit 'save' or 'save as' is irrelevant to me. they bought the program (hopefully) and therefore are entitled to use it per the end user license agreement and that has NOTHING to do with me as an author (in my mind). i made my exchange already with FF, inc. and am quite happy with that result.

also, if i were strictly an end user of this program, i would NOT want any restrictions put in the eula, just as almost all of the programming i pay for is licensed. i dont want to have to worry about royalties, commissions, pay-for, and the rest of the hassles in some weirdly written, lawyer laden, quirky, only-on-fridays-of-the-third-month-of-a-leap-year thingy. it's a pain in the *ss and i like simple. making the eula anything but simple for the end-users is going to drive folks away, no question. artists, game houses, and all the folks that use FF do NOT want to have to pay a lawyer to figure out if they can use the textures and effects of FF because of some obscurely written eula. every time we have this discussion it's ALWAYS followed by one or more folks coming into the forums and asking if they have to pay for the textures if they bought the program. in fact, i think we've already gotten one this time, also.

but, i DO like the idea of further compensation for authors for good filters. this is one of the best things (from my perspective) that ANY software company has ever done. to continue something along those lines only makes good sense for all the reasons we've stated in the past.

i think we have to look at the greatest good for the greatest number here. we have FF, inc., authors and end users. i think we're being a bit selfish here as authors worrying about re-sellers. they ostensibly bought the program in good faith. go look at the models out there, photoshop, paint shop pro, paint, etc, etc. the model is pretty much unrestricted use for end users. i'm not talking about gpl, gnu, open source licensing. that's a completely different model. i'm talking commercial models. these models were hashed out years ago and are what works for the type of programming these are. photoshop wouldnt be nearly as successful or prevalent if it said re-sellers couldnt use textures made with photoshop. the model is sound.

we also have to look out for FF, inc. if they fold, well, we're in a pickle then, arent we. so, what's in their best interest.

and the authors, yup, gotta look out for them, too.

and, believe it or not, you have to also look out for the re-sellers. they are not bottom-feeders (usually ) and have rights, too. sure, i'd like to see my filters and textures given credit, but i also know i signed a contract which says they dont have to do that. well, tough for me. but, i did get paid

so, what works for all of these parties? who benefits and who loses from what? hash it out. work it out. there is a solution or two in there that will work for everyone without anyone really losing much.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i DO like the idea of further compensation for authors for good filters.

Me too....but I personally would have a big problem with buying this program (even at a 50% discount) and then have to pay extra for the best/most usable filters. I don't like companies that hook you in and then prevent access to needed things as a way of getting more money out of you....I'm quite sure that I'm not alone in feeling that way....and I think FF's sales graph would take quite a dive if they tried to do it....and Vlad/FF is well aware of it....

I predict that nothing here is going to change at all....there will be no usage restrictions placed on filters, no pay/pro filters, and no investment in further author incentives beyond the current program rewards. The sales spike from the release of V2 will level out....and FF's "practice" of having back-to-back discounts (with FF's infamous "expiration bug" freezing the number of discount days left) will continue indefinitely.....

Quote
Redcap wrote: What I want to see: An inovative way to encourage veteran filter forgers to continue to submit filters.

Me too....

Quote
Redcap wrote: Lets face it, we all submitted filters for only one reason at the start, a chance to get a free copy of FF. After that, there was some filter submission for the fun of it, but the novelty ran out fast for many of us.

Exactly....

Quote
Redcap wrote: Losing Crapadilla's continual presence in the forums and filter submission was as bad to Filter Forge as the Oil Leak was to BP.

Yup....Dilla was the very first highly-skilled author to stop contributing filters here over this issue....and many others have done the same since then for the same reason.....

Quote
Redcap wrote: model only focuses on new comers.

Yup....mostly intro filters now.....with a few trickle-in exceptions here and there....

Quote
Redcap wrote: Hire some people to submit high quality filters.

Think they are kinda already doing that now with Egret, Kuchobey every once in a while, Vlads simple ones being made into V2, etc....

I think the biggest "indicator" of how things are going is the complete lack of works that explore the new creative abilities of this program.....

I personally don't like the "complacency" that I'm seeing with FF doing absolutely nothing to keep skilled authors contributing here....kinda like FF has a "Hey, we got 8,000 filters to sell this program with....and don't care about the mean quality of our filter library or getting new cutting-edge filters" type of thing going on, IMO....

Quote
Indigo Ray wrote: I did not say anything about disallowing personal parallel filter marketplaces, I only said that to put them right on the FF website would be foolish.

I didn't claimed you did, I was always refering to FF setting up there own marketplace, so they benefitted from another revenue stream and making FF even more appealing to buy, not as you added " personel "

Quote
Indigo Ray wrote: I am a little surprised that no preventive action has been put in place, since ripping off presets doesn't even require purchasing the program.

Don't understand there reluctance either, they are cutting there own throats on sales when you don't need to buy the program to be able to harvest all you want.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: it would be a good idea to make him get his 3 HU's first IN THE PUBLIC library and then FF, inc. might provide some server space and a storefront of some kind. you might even want to require he/she got lifetime upgrades,

I don't think that is a good idea, there are many people who have bought FF and make there own excellent filters that never upload to the library, giving them an incentive of a market place [ and FF have editorial control on whats quality is allowed in ] would mean a lot of new contributor that have no interest in giving away 8 Hu filters would be enticed in.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: go look at the models out there, photoshop, paint shop pro, paint, etc, etc. the model is pretty much unrestricted use for end users.

come on craig there is an obvious difference all the program you use as examples need input by the user to get a result where FF has built in end results.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: so, what works for all of these parties? who benefits and who loses from what? hash it out. work it out. there is a solution or two in there that will work for everyone without anyone really losing much.

absolutly agree ...... it only works if FF contributes to the discussion which obviously have choosen to ignore.

Quote
Redcap wrote: What I want to see: An inovative way to encourage veteran filter forgers to continue to submit filters.

I think it's the one thing that we all can agree on

Quote
Redcap wrote: 1)Competetions with prizes. (Ipods, software, cash,videogames,playstations, etc

ignored by FF even after we offered giving away our own Hu points as prizes

Quote
Redcap wrote: Hire some people to submit high quality filters. Good filter submissions encourage others to submit their filters as well. Seriously, even a part time intern would do wonders. Also good filters give other a skeleton to build other good filters from

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Think they are kinda already doing that now with Egret, Kuchobey every once in a while, Vlads simple ones being made into V2, etc....

it's certainly one way to get better filter but will never compare to the variety of filters from wide cast net.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: but I personally would have a big problem with buying this program (even at a 50% discount) and then have to pay extra for the best/most usable filters.

As you are not getting those filters anyway wouldn't you prefer to have option of getting better filters?

Quote
StevieJ wrote: . I don't like companies that hook you in and then prevent access to needed things as a way of getting more money out of you....I'm quite sure that I'm not alone in feeling that way....and I think FF's sales graph would take quite a dive if they tried to do it....and Vlad/FF is well aware of it....

By suggesting the sale of Texture rendering is what you would like and not the filters that produced them isn't this a double standard, where a rendering no longer requires you own FF, while the selling of filter can only increase the sales potential FF as you need it to run the filters?

Look at this Carl.
It's vector displacement paint brushes. You literally paint with sculptures. It will not be long before there is a 'vector forge' where they argue about who should get credit.
Btw, I order mudbox yesterday I only had to sell part of my soul to get it. I sold the enkephalo, I didn’t know what that was so I hope I don’t miss it.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Me too....but I personally would have a big problem with buying this program (even at a 50% discount) and then have to pay extra for the best/most usable filters.

steve, wouldnt that also then apply to selling textures and texture packs? it's a good point, though. but, we wouldnt lose the current library and there are plenty of good filters there. but, i could see folks pulling their filters fr om the library in order to place them in an FF store. so,there's that, too. the library might well dwindle to nothing but crap. so, you'd have to lock the library fr om that or put in a clause that says you cant put a filter into the store that has ever been in the library.

Quote
Carl wrote: Quote Kraellin wrote: go look at the models out there, photoshop, paint shop pro, paint, etc, etc. the model is pretty much unrestricted use for end users. come on craig there is an obvious difference all the program you use as examples need input by the user to get a result wh ere FF has built in end results.

carl, i do get this. i do. you, as the author, created those presets. you created the filter. you created the presets and someone using those is then ripping off your work. i do get this. but, changing the eula to restrict or eliminate this will likely never work. if joe blow downloaded your filter BECAUSE he liked your presets isnt it a bit unfair to now not let him use them? i mean, that's why he chose your filter. the presets are advertising. it's the promise of what's there. to now say someone cant use those, when that's why they chose your filter, would be a bit unfair in my book.

let's take this another way. if you worked for FF, inc. and your job was to make filters and you were compensated for this and a re-seller took and rendered your presets out and sold these would you feel the same way? or, let's even go back in time a bit and say FF, inc. never had a public library but only sold filters and textures, would you still feel the same way? would it be fair to the customer to lim it his use to only non-presets?

basically, this issue seems to boil down to exchange. and by exchange, i dont necessarily mean money. a 'thank you' can be exchange or a 'well done' or a 'created by ...'. all of those qualify as exchange. i used to tell my dad, 'i'd almost work for nothing if you'd just say thanks once in a while.' well, almost the point is, whether we're talking about 'further compenssation for authors' or giving credit where credit is due is essentially an issue of exchange and rewards for work done. if that reward is a byline or a copper, it's essentially in the same ballpark; authors are feeling cheated or would like some proper compensation for good work done. that's actually an easy thing to accomplish, start a partner program. forget separate libraries, texture packs, filter selling, etc. Just have FF, inc. 'hire' independent contractors or, 'buy' the filters they place into the public library. frankly, that's the easiest solution of all. FF gets to choose what they 'buy' and authors get compensated. re-sellers no longer get hounded by hungry authors because the authors ARE compensated already.

now, you'd also keep the library open to contributions and keep the HU program. those have both been successful for generating filter production. but, now you add in 'professional filter authors'. FF, inc. gets a growing library of quality filters plus the contributions, authors start producing good filters for FF, inc. again and end users keep their 'free' library. i think this is something along the lines of what Fred (sign_guy) was proposing way back, at least in general terms and it would solve a ton of these issues.

It's probably a matter of opinion... I really don't see at all how this is unfair, there are so many other things that can be done with FF and the filters besides reselling the preset renders as is. This would only be a tiny restriction, not hard at all to respect, it would hardly limit its usage while making the best FF contributors feel much better about submitting their filters here. Cause lets face it, those best filter authors ARE the ones selling the program, not that little line in the terms of use that says people can do whatever they want with the preset renders. Imo, FF should make a little bit more efforts to show some appreciation for them and make them all very happy.

ronviers wrote:
Look at this Carl.

Quote
It's vector displacement paint brushes. You literally paint with sculptures.

Ahhh..Takes me back to Amorphium Pro...It was a fun app to use...Didn't have vector displacement but could use other things....

"jane, you ignorant slut" oh wait, never mind

lucie, i do appreciate your arguements and you're right, it is a small restriction... to most of us. but, it's still a restriction. and let me try this a different way. let's say you went to a hat store and there were hats in the window advertising the hats you could make, so you went in to buy one of the hats and they said no, you cant have that one. you'd feel a bit tricked, wouldnt you? so, in filter production and display, you tend to put your best results in the presets so you can get an HU. you want to draw folks in. so, now you've drawn in some users and are now saying you cant use those. to me, that's not fair. it's a bad practice.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Unfortunately, I think FF's inaction on this issue and author incentives denotes that they are currently satisfied with sales and the current "number" of filters as a selling point.

i'm not sure, steve. FF, inc. may surprise you yet. you know vlad, he likes to surprise us at times

lucie,

i'm glad you said 'believe' instead of fact. i frankly dont know any re-sellers personally, so i'd be a bit hesitant about villifying any of them or about drawing too many conclusions without actually doing some sort of research.

i do understand authors being a bit rankled when they see their presets being sold without even so much as a thank you to the author or FF, inc. that's just common curtesy to do so. however, i'm not sure we shld be in the business of trying to enforce curtesy. some folks say thank you and some do not. but you'd find yourself going crazy trying to make all those that dont into those that do. that's all. and to change the eula based on some that dont seems a bit hypocritical to me. they paid for the program. they paid for the right to use the filters and now a few here are crying sour grapes. it just doesnt seem right to me.

but, like you, we've about beat this horse to death yet again. but, i'm sure there are some more responses coming, so... oh well

For anyone reading this post, I will start by saying that I am a regular seller of seamless texture renderings made with Filter Forge, Photoshop, and the applications of a couple of competitors to Filter Forge. We have two collections on DVD, a website that sells those collections, and a website that sells individual downloads. We also operate the highest traffic website in the sign industry on the internet. Our primary focus and market is the sign industry and, in particular, those shops with wide format printers. We also have recently begun offering our vector files and selected seamless textures at Shutterstock, Fotolia and Dreamstime. So I can share some insight with you in this continuing debate.

I certainly can't speak for FF, but I can point out some major difficulties they would have to deal with should they ever decide to act on the wishes of many of the filter authors by restricting the EULA:

1. Filter Forge 1 and Filter Forge 2 have both been licensed to all end users without any restrictions on how the renderings are used. Any change at this point would only apply to new licensees and existing licensees who agree to the change. Such a change would mean segregating the existing library from any filters added beyond the point of the change because all licensees have a contractual right to access the free library without any restrictions..

2. Enforcing such a restriction would be virtually impossible. Without getting into independent sites and sites aimed at the 3-D users, I just took a count of five major stock photo sites using "seamless" as the search keyword. The results are over 250,000 images. Some are not seamless and are mislabeled, and many were not generated with Filter Forge ... but many were. Trying to sort them out and go through determining and proving that any given images was generated after a EULA change date with a copy of Filter Forge licensed after that date would be virtually impossible.

For those interested, here are the search results:

• Fotosearch - 23,443 images
• iStockphoto - 21,115 images
• Shutterstock - 133,108 images
• Dreamstime - 32,900 images
• Fotolia - 25,149

What I don't understand is this continuing effort to get FF to somehow solve this conflict. There are literally 100's of content contributors at the sites listed above that have used Filter Forge to create some or all of their items offered for sale. They are within their rights to do so and, I can tell you first hand, that there is no way for them to give credit to a filter author even if they wanted to do so.

Yet any filter author is free to sign up with these sites and upload their own offerings in return for a royalty. The sales results are quite mixed but some are quite promising. At Shutterstock, my current portfolio contains 450 vector images and just over 50 seamless tiles. In our first month, we have averaged about forty downloads a day of which 9 to 10 were seamless tiles. The main downside with them is they are very selective as to what they will accept because of the glut of tiles already in their offerings. If they look like anything already there, acceptance is doubtful.

In addition, either working out something with FF to sell Pro-filters or doing it on your own, while untried, is IMHO a viable proposition.

Anyone interested in scrutinizing my current portfolio at Shutterstock is welcome to do so. Most were not made with Filter Forge and those that were are decidedly not the presets of the filter used.

I'm sure a few members here will attempt to challenge my motives as they have in the past. That's a shame because my motives are honest and straightforward. Any and all of you could be receiving proper credit and compensation for your creativity if you choose to make the effort.

Quote

Carl wrote: Well thats not strictly true for anyone outside the US, Shutterstock [ the one with best sales in textures ] has a complicated and slow system wh ere you have to register with the US tax system, if you want the US government to take only 5% tax instead of thirty you need to spend about $160 on the paperwork [ proving who you are and the tax treaty kicks in ] which still doesn't guarantee IR will except it. Then of course I get taxed by my government. Istock doesn't do it that way [ my tax office takes the tax ] but has far less interest and sales in textures. The others that you mention I don't know what system they work under.

That's interesting and I was not aware of those difficulties. I have had licensing agreements in place with artists from Mexico, Canada and Australia that are several years old. All have filed a W8 BEN tax form with us and we periodically PayPal them their royalties in full. We report these payments in our tax filings (prepared by a CPA) and have never had any indication that we should be handling it any other way. We had very little problem getting registered with any of them other than the tax form information must also match one's registration information.