Light version of FF and comercial FF filters

hi enrique,

nope, you're not off the mark here. i've mentioned this idea before here on the forums. it's actually a common practice any more to have a 'reader' and a 'reader/writer' for a program like this.

as for selling your own filters, it could be done, since the filters themselves are transportable separate from the editor/gui interface, and you still have to have a reader or the full version to use those independents, but i kind of doubt you'll see too much of this, even if you had a separate reader. the current library has over 700 filters and ostensibly, if you bought a 'reader' for FF, you'd have access to the full, existing library. so, why go looking for independent sellers? sure, there might be a few specialized filters you might want that dont exist and so there may grow a small independent group. but i kind of doubt it will grow very fast or very far.

and, this is still beta. how many filters will be in the library by the time FF is released? there are a LOT of creative people out there

craig

Since filters are in open, human-readable (and to some degree, human-writable) format, I seriously doubt you can successfully sell filters -- the simplicity of sharing filters will allow the "casual piracy" to kill the sales in an instant. People don't tend to treat content (especially text content) as a potentially pirated software, like they do not with MP3s and so on.

While I'm not an FF's legal expert, I believe there are no limitations to sell (or exploit in any other commericial/noncommercial way) the filters which are created by you.

Thanks Vladimir,

I'm not planning to sell Filter Forge filters (to be honest, I didn't considered it yet).

But considering the complexity involved in programming Photoshop pllugins, it is noteworthy the enormous potential of this application.

You should be aware that lots of us who had the desire of developing our own plugins, now have an incredible easy way to do so.

I always considered FilterMeister as the best alternative to the Photoshop SDK. But now I'm quite sure that for many reasons, Filter Forge is perhaps even better than Photoshop SDK.

Enrique

I guess that "non-commercial beta-testing purposes" applies to the program itself, not with the content it's used to create. So, while Vladimir may elaborate more on this topic, I'm 99% sure you can sell (lend/lease/whatever they usually write in the "commercial use" parts) images created with Filter Forge.

Knock, knock. Is Vlad there? Hey Vlad, any news about that? I mean, the 1%.

Thanks in advance.

Quote
Lucato wrote: So, the phrase what you create in Filter Forge is your creation and your property, and you are free to do with it whatever you want applies also for Beta testers

Well, that phrase isn't present in the EULA / Upload License That was just my non-lawyer attempt to explain that we don't claim ownership of filters and the authors retain the copyright. Logically, you are free to do with your property whatever you want assuming that your actions don't conflict with the EULA / Upload License.

Quote
Eflouret wrote: Vladimir, I guess that Lucato was talking about selling the IMAGES created with FilterForge and not the Filters.

Enrique -- I was talking about filters, but I believe the same can be applied to images, they also are your creation and therefore copyrighted work. However, when you upload a filter to the Filter Library, you give other users the right to use your filter to create their own images, which therefore will be their copyright, not yours.

And next time I'm working on a EULA, I'll make sure that it doesn't restrict the commercial usage of the beta version -- I'm all for encouraging the full commercial usage of betas.

Quote
Eflouret wrote: Are you working on a new Filter Editor? New components perhaps?

Left-to-right direction of connectors, marquee selection with behavior similar to that of the Windows desktop or a Starcraft-like game, panning triggered by right or middle mouse button, and some minor enhancements.

Any news about selling images created by FilterForge native and third party filters?

I'm now in the same position as LUCATO. Although it seems that it is LEGAL, I would like to have a confirmation from Vladimir or whoever is in a position of doing so.

Thanks!

Enrique

Thanks Vlad and good luck. I'll be waiting your next feedback and news here.

Trole, we wanted all filters in the filter library to be fully open to all users so that they can learn how they work, that's why we don't have the 'binary' phase. Plus, without encryption, such binary files can be easily reverse-engineered back to their human readable form.

Quote
Eflouret wrote: Any news about selling images created by FilterForge native and third party filters? I'm now in the same position as LUCATO. Although it seems that it is LEGAL, I would like to have a confirmation from Vladimir or whoever is in a position of doing so.

I'm also interested in...

is the commercial usage of the images obtained with FF legal ? (also with beta-version?)

Thanks

thanks a lot!

I've talked with our attorney regarding this, and we have removed the phrase "for non-commercial beta-testing purposes" from the EULA. The new EULA will be included with the next beta update of Filter Forge. The paragraph on the beta version now reads as follows:

Quote

a). Beta Version. If you have received, downloaded and/or installed a beta version of the Product, the Licensor grants you the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to Operate the Product on an unlimited number of Client Devices exclusively for beta-testing and evaluation purposes until (i) expiration of the beta testing period, or (ii) your subsequent acceptance of the end user license agreement for any non-beta version of the Product, whichever is earlier.

Also, while we cannot give you a legal advice (only a certified attorney in your employ who knows your specific situation can give you such an advice), here's a statement on our position regarding filter sales from our legal counsel (the italics are mine, added for clarity):

Quote

The following statement shall not be deemed as a legal advice as it expresses a general position of the company relating ot its products and its rights. This is a general statement of intent of the company and Filter Forge's position regarding its right will largely depend on particular circumstances and the actual use of the Filter Forge products. Filter Forge believe that the end user shall have the right to sell his or her "results" of his or her own "labor." By using Filter Forge software under current EULA, an end user creates a result, which in turn, can be distributed by such end user. Filter Forge does not intend to claim any interest in such result, in essence in the same way as a toolmaker would not claim interest in a product that was created by his tools or a producer of a photo camera or photo lense would not own a copyright in the picture taken by a professional photographer. Furthermore, this statement in no way should be construed as waiving any of the copyrights or other rights of the company or as an inducement to violate third party's rights.

Also, see my replies here:
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...=5&TID=977

Vlad I'm new here but and I've been reading the forum threads on this topic. Here's my take on the images (not the filters).

If I take time to make a filter and carefully select my presets; from what I've read someone can take the preset, sell it as royalty free or even claim it as their own.

Now that's just not right- it's also not legal. Despite what you wanna put in a uela lisence I believe that can be out-trumped by state and Federal Copyright Laws. Whether the end user clicks on the link or not- when that user picks up an art book and see's their image in it- it's not going to be a good feelings all around. And it's funny how life works out that way and how we stumple onto circumstances that are one in a million odds. Trangressions have a way of showing up.

My point is that you're going to loss large parts of the graphics community when their 30 day trial is up if they know that all the presets and filters they take time to make will end up being royalty free when someone else cashes in. Maybe they are just making the filters for others artists to use- like me. I'm not doing to supply someone with images to sell in a collection.

So you may have tons of people excited for the "free" images- but that has a down side... and the down side is it will eventually turn away the artists. #1 Rule... Protect your artists.

No need to reply- I just felt after reading thru all the threads on this that I'd throw my caution to wind and comment. Because I really do love this program and I love sharing filters with other artists. But I don't think I'd shell out money to give my images away and creative/intellectual ability away- so I'm not a Beta Tester and in 27 days or so I've go to decide to buy this program (I don't believe the award system is geared to deliever a free copy in 30 days- LOL- I wish).

And Vlad- When it's time for me to buy this program- I'll be thinking about what I just wrote you. And I'm not the only artist who feels this way- it fact it's a main vein of the digital art community on the web. I've been making graphics on the web since 1998- so I feel I know a bit about how the community as a whole is going to view this. It's not going to fly despite all the excitment from those ready to sell free work from the graphics artists- you still have to deal with the artist.

Too bad too because I really liked this program.

Persidio

P.S. And please don't tell me this is to get Beta Testers- because I'm sure you could get all the free beta testers you wanted from this forum alone. You can get artists to Beta Test without the lure of "free images to sell". The bottom line is the company wants us to agree to this so that the company can make money.

My answer... I'll give you 30 days of images. But I won't shell out money to take my time to make images others can sell. The real reason I make the filters and images is so that others can use them in their art and web projects.

Quote
Persidio wrote: #1 Rule... Protect your artists.

Persidio, if I understand your point correctly, you need a clause in the EULA that explicitly forbids the sale of images based on the presets of the library filters, except when the image is not sold as a part of an image/texture collection but incorporated into another product or service?

Quote
Persidio wrote: when that user picks up an art book and see's their image in it- it's not going to be a good feelings all around

The solution is very simple -- if you don't want someone else to profit off your creative skills and time investment, don't contribute.

Quote
Persidio wrote: My point is that you're going to loss large parts of the graphics community when their 30 day trial is up if they know that all the presets and filters they take time to make will end up being royalty free when someone else cashes in.

A 'community' and a 'community of contributors' are different things. Why a member of the community should necessarily be a contributor? FF is a complex tool, and complex tools form communities around them because people need answers to their questions, not because everyone wants to contribute.

Quote
Persidio wrote: But I don't think I'd shell out money to give my images away and creative/intellectual ability away

You're paying for a tool, not for an obligation to give away your creations. You buy it, you use it, that's it. Posting on the forums and contributing filters is not a requirement.

Quote
Persidio wrote: And please don't tell me this is to get Beta Testers- because I'm sure you could get all the free beta testers you wanted from this forum alone.

It's the beta test what brought users to this forum, not the other way around.

Quote
Persidio wrote: The bottom line is the company wants us to agree to this so that the company can make money.

Exactly. We're a business, not a non-profit.

Hi OnyXMaster, Thank you for your post. Not everyone makes graphics for money. I don't do this for money- never have never will. And I don't fault those who do cash in on it- absolutely not.

It's not Persidio verses Big Bad Company, however you gave me a chuckle. Thank you.

Oh and you are right it does offend me that Adobe, Corel or other company's can be given or take extracted presets- because I personally don't want to download one of their new versions and see one of my filters come up in their presets, maps or examples.

And the most important thing to understand about my post is that I represent a silent majority that simply is not going to post or communicate- they simply won't buy the product (Filter Forge).

Thank you very much for your input- I do understand the other side of the coin and always welcome hearing others views. And let me apologize if my post offended you; was not the purpose of the post. I actually am not the sort that always looks for bad intentions- if I were that sort I wouldn't be offering a solution- those types don't offer solutions. It's out of character for me not to support something or someone and when I don't that's a red flag. And why I brought it up and why I'm offering a solution.

Hello Vlad,,

Quote
The solution is very simple -- if you don't want someone else to profit off your creative skills and time investment, don't contribute.

That right there is the problem. Keeping in mind that I'm not going to be the only one who feels this way and that this particular problem can hurt sales for Filter Forge with the Graphics Community at large.

Remember that apparently is your target audience on the web... also remember that this particular audience was responsible for the high alert given to copyrights thru the past years. And the reason I made that post Vlad was because that audience is not going to post to you or open communication- they simply will be turned off by your product. When sales decline and competition takes customers away and you're wondering what it could be... this issue is the problem (it's a deal breaker with the end user).

Now I never present a problem without a solution. Simple my dear Watson. You get what you want and the end user gets what they want.

All you have to do is give the end user the option. I mean a real option, not your suggestion of "if you don't like it you can hit the highway". *grin- but I appreciate the bravado*.

Solution: Either in the settings for Filter Forge or when uploading a filter just give an option with a check box. Can this filter be used by Filter Forge for affiliate purposes, "yes" or "no". (This gives control to the end user over their work.)

If you give the end user an option- then everyone is happy and you can sell images to your companies delight- and the end user had an option other then not using the program.

Your attorney will not understand because he is detached from the graphics community on the web- and he has no idea that it was your target audience that initiated the crackdown on copyrights.

I used to work outside the D.C. area and am well aware of the competition among attorney's- even worked at a law firm in Kensington (process serving as a second job). Lots of attorney's in that area that will promise the moon and don't mind going to court when the time comes. But you don't need to pay you're attorney more. And this solution really is better then "My Attorney says I can do this".

Vlad if your team gave a real option- I think this great program would grow larger then you're wildest dreams for it. And that's why I wrote you- to give you a gift of communication from a much wider silent majority that is not going to tell you what the problem is. Because I love your program and I respect what you're doing. And as long as the end user has a choice I hope you become very very wealthy for your contribution to the graphics art community.

Quote
It's the beta test what brought users to this forum, not the other way around.

You underestimate you're product. I've used every filter under the sun since 1998. My husband will tell you I started in 97' but I don't include that year of learning (LOL). A filter on the web takes a bit of time to get noticed- has nothing to do with betas. But if you put that option in I was talking about... flood gates will open for you. Because you're filter has the potential of replacing other filters used by the graphics community. Why spend thousands of dollars when you can buy one filter program?

Quote
Exactly. We're a business, not a non-profit.

I have no problem with that. Just give the artist a choice. Even myself on a good day is going to check the "sure let Adobe and Corel have this one"... and it'll be one of my best when I do- just give a choice that way I'm not stunned when it shows up in their programs. And trust me I'll know about it if they use it- because I've been addicted to graphics since 97'. LOL.

Anyway Vlad I wish you all the best- and you're English is great btw. Just lighten up and offer a choice- it will help you're business not hurt it. And why I posted in the first place (almost didn't and I know others won't- and your target audience is not going to make you aware of the problem when they don't buy). It's really out of kindness that I addressed this - although it might not seem like it to you. Sorry about that.

At least just think about what I've said- I know you don't' have to give this option.

Best Wishes,

Persidio

Persidio, let's clarify the problem a bit. Could you describe a few example infringement scenarios? Here's what I could think of:

"A big-name company (like Adobe or Corel) takes the filter idea, controls, name and look and implements it as a filter in their own product (Filter Gallery in Adobe's case)".

"A competing plugin developer takes the filter idea, controls, name and look, codes it as a separate product and sells it as their own plugin".

"A stock-photo company uses FF filters to produce a collection of images in high resolution and sells it as their own texture pack".

"A textile company bases one of their textile designs on a particular filter and sells that textile".

Is this what you had in mind? If not, please correct. If yes, please add your own scenarios.

Hi uberzev,

Like I said I represent a silent majority who are not going to say a word. I was part of the Copyright Hoopla on the web in it's day- I know this community. They will show their non-support by simply not purchasing or using. This will hurt the company in the long run- especially when competition programs start showing up. And they will. And if they give this option- I'll be buying their program.

I fell in love with this program on my first day- yersterday was day two- today is day three. (Had to look this morning to clear that one up- I kept saying yesterday that I was on day 3). On day two I read about the Uela change- and decided not to buy the product because of it. Now I almost did not say anything and the only reason I did was because I knew no one would bring this to attention. I've said my piece so I did my part- and won't be responding to future posts as sink nicely back into the shadows of the silent majority that will never post or bring this up.

A choice? Not if you want popular filters- you have to upload them. My solution gives those who want their filters popular and want others to use them without giving the graphics away to Adobe, Corel, etc,.

So no really- there really isn't much choice in the current setup.

If there was a real choice like a simple checkbox I'd be buying this filter. And if the program was set up to allow popular filters in 30 days- I'd propably get one that way. (((Hard graphics work for 9 years has it's perks))).

I did my duty and brought it up and gave a solution. For those reading and glad I brought this up ((I feel ya)), and understand that you won't post- as I'm done posting on this too. I have a Mother dying of Breast Cancer, a child to raise and a husband to love- I only came here for the great filter program- for the scrap books with my childs photos and my art that I wish to email to my Mother. (She lives far away). And I don't have much time left to communicate with her as I'm expecting an emergency call anyday now (of which I will be going to see her one last time on her death bed- I currently have a planned trip to visit when school is out- I don't know if she'll make it that long- so please forgive me as I cannot respond past this post. For those that post to me on this topic- I do have to ignore futher posts and simply would rather take the time to email my mother then debate this- as she is wanting lots of emails right now. ((I've racked my phone bill to the limit- seriously thinking of phone web programs at this point)). No one get mad that I can't respond to futher post- even you Vlad- I can't post back- and am happy to sink back to the silent majority. (((I did speak up as gift- but I did my part in bringing this issue to you))).

Why make filters right now- it's therapy. LOL Really helps. Plus I can use the filters on the art for the scrapbooks I'll email to my mother- that way she gets great pictures of her grandchild and gets them with heartfelt original art.

Best wishes to all, Over and Out- I'll see you'all on other boards on other topics when I come up for air.

Persidio

Persidio I don't think the views expressed here can be put any clearer, if you can't accept the terms you should move along.

Best of luck.

PS I think any further discussion on this would be best performed via email. This dialog will only get more inflammatory.

Quote
Persidio wrote: [...] I don't think I'd shell out money to give my images away and creative/intellectual ability away-

Quote
Persidio wrote: [...] if you want popular filters- you have to upload them.

Filters wouldn't get popular - no matter how artistically brilliant - if the community couldn't freely use them in their own projects! The point is, if you want FF for free, you are forced to contribute and share some of your creative output, which sounds like a fair deal to me! If you want to jealously protect your work (like a big company), you can do so, but you'll obviously be forced to buy the program in that case. This is also fair, because the developers have to get paid. Either way, you are receiving a very valuable and powerful tool (that will probably save you money in the long run), and you simply can't expect to get it for free without giving SOME sort of compensation.

And frankly: A 'silent majority', a 'graphics community' that isn't willing to pay or contribute in some way for the tools that are valuable to them as artists? That doesn't sound very credible to me.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: and in the case of a TEXTURE preset, which is a more fixed type image and not combined with another image, yes, that one is available to everyone. so, conceivably, you could have an infinite number of artists trying to sell the exact same texture image derived from that preset.

----Those are copyrighted by the creator. Technically, you can't copyright a photo enhancement tool, like a sharpener, or color changer, but a texture is legally a "work of art" in and of itself. The textures made by presets, are most definitely protected by U.S. copyright law, and the line in the FF EULA for submitting filters where it says we own the copyright to any filters we make. The only problem there is, affording a lawyer if some big company did steal one of your preset (example, not to be used) textures and used it. FF is not going to do anything to stop or help that, that's up to the filter creator to take action on.

jffe