Upcoming EULA changes, round two

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Here's the new draft of the upcoming EULA changes intended to limit the texture selling business. It's not finished yet so we may tweak the wording to plug some minor holes, but I don't expect any big changes in its structure or logic. So, let's discuss the new version:

1. The new version does not address results which were created prior to the revised EULA taking effect. Is it your intention to also cover these results? If not, how will you distinguish one from the other?

2. Paragraph 4.1 does not make clear what is a substantial modification and what is not except to say "as defined by the applicable law." It would be far more appropriate to make a substantial effort to define what is substantial and what is not in the EULA than to leave it as it is. Otherwise you are leaving that definition to a court of law and to whomever has the better attorneys. It could be argued that a failure to do so only points to the fact that issues of degree are just as unclear to Filter Forge as they are to the rest of us.

that first part means that all presets are goverened and therefore restricted. i think that's a mistake. presets, in many cases are the best of the best and what attracts a person to that filter. restricting their use is going to restrict filter downloads and program sales.

secondly, fred, copyright laws differ from nation to nation and will override any Eula in existence if those courts so order and there's nothing you can do about that, so there's no real point in saying 15% or 20% or whatever in the Eula. Great Britain is something like 15% where, if i remember correctly, the U.S is somewhat ambiguous and i'm sure other nations have other rules governing and other percentages.

and third, i think this whole thing is a mistake, at least in this form. this is going to open things up to quibbly, nit-picking, haggling and other forms of abuse, name calling and uncertainty. let's take an example. 'Bob' buys filter forge. bob wants to make and sell textures. bob puts up various texture packs for sale, using his own creations and some alterations of existing textures, including some 'substantially' altered presets. in other words, bob puts up only what he gleans from the Eula to be legal textures.

'Mary' sees bob's texture packs for sale and begins going through them and finds something that looks a lot like one of her presets from one of her filters. this may or even may not have been one of bob's alterations of a preset. mary files suit. bob is now in the precarious position of having to prove that he made the filter and the presets and let's say he did and it's just a coincidental near copy of mary's. bob is now liable to mary even though he created the filter and the preset.

filter forge is a tool that can, much like photoshop, create almost the exact same thing in many different ways. bob could easily create something that duplicates mary in Result, yet have achieved it through quite different means. but, bob is now liable even though he did nothing wrong.

i think this is going to open up FF to a whole bunch of headaches. i think you do things either as an all or nothing basis. either you completely protect a filter or you leave it more or less and 'open source' (open use, actually) like it is now. therefore, i still like fred's idea of a dual library system, open use and commercial. i see nothing but unending squabbles the way this new addendum proposes.

with over 4000 filters and growing, you're going to get duplicates, and i mean unintentional duplicates, not just slight alterations of existing filters and presets. ok, effect filters dont count, so less than 4000 by quite a bit, but nonetheless, how many are going to create 'wood' filters? and 'brick' filters? and whose is going to take precendence in a legal squabble? i REALLY think this new proposal is the wrong way to go. authors DO have protection currently. all this 'i'm hurt, i'm being ripped off by the evil empire crap' is just that, crap! the Eula is pretty unambigous now. why change it? or, if you are going to change it, then make some VERY clear divisions of ok for commercial, not ok for commercial that isnt going to bite FF in the butt down the road. currently, a few authors are crying foul, but it's those same authors that dont understand the Eula (or didnt at the time they submitted) that are doing so, and that's just not right. there is nobody here that can truly cry foul with any sort of righteousness. if authors were naive enough not to have read and understood the contract, then THEY are at fault. FF shldnt bend to that sort of ignorance and that's what i see happening with the new proposal.

you dont need to 'protect' authors further. they are already protected. simply dont submit the filter to the library and you have your protection. the library exists in a spirit of free to use any way you wish. adding in provisions and restrictions is going to open a can of worms i wouldnt want to have to deal with. i really think you had it right the first time, vlad. open use. that some are now realizing the potential of their creations is good and fine. so, make another library, one where they can now realize that potential. the filters in the current library are not going to be subjust to any revisions in the Eula anyways. you cant make it retroactive without the consent of everyone involved, FF, the authors AND the end-users. so, why bother? that's a near impossibility. you can try saying it's retroactive or implied, but anyone with a half a lick of legal experience is going to tell you that those filters that currently exist in the library were made under a separate contract and a contract is always between more than one party and that to change that contract, you need the consent of ALL of those parties. so, those filters are 'grandfathered' and not subject to the new Eula.

what the complaining authors did, whether they realize it or not, was figuratively sit down with everyone involved, FF, end users and other authors. just imagine all those folks sitting in a room together. and what they did was to hammer out a contract that ALL agreed to. that contract said that anyone could use the public library filters in any way they chose. FF agreed to this, authors agree to this and end-users agreed to this. meeting adjourned. that's done.

a few authors are now trying to re-negotiate that contract. ok, that's fine. i doubt most of the complainants realize it cant affect the existing filters and since most of the complaining authors are NOT selling texture packs themselves, i find this a bit of a case of sour grapes. they submitted their filters, they've no doubt used other's filters and yet, when someone tries to make a nickel off their filters which they freely submitted for use by all in any manner one wished, they now cry foul. sorry, but that's just not right.

ok, my point in all this is simple. you dont need to change the Eula. it's that simple. but, if you do want to change things to give authors a fair shake at some of those sales, then do it right. FF shldnt have to babysit authors and filters. FF shld be selling programs. if authors were blind and deaf to the Eula, they have no one to blame but themselves. but, that you now want to 'protect' the authors seems silly to me. they are already protected. if you want to REWARD authors even more than you do now, then do that right also. reward them. dont restrict the end-users, reward the authors. a second library, commercial, would do that. FF wins, authors win and end-users win. end-users win because they go right on selling from the current 'open use' library with the addition of any other filters that someone may wish to submit there, plus they get an additional library, of quite possibly better filters, from which they can sign an agreement of use on a commercial basis.

and, if FF doesnt with to do the second, commercial library, i'll bet there is someone out there willing to do it for a price. simply contract it out.

but, nit-picking the Eula is going to be nothing but a hassle and a headache, as you've probably already experienced a short bit of.

Vladimir, i admire the hell out of you for what you've done with FF and how you've done it. i'd hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot now

Quote

Kraellin wrote: secondly, fred, copyright laws differ from nation to nation and will override any Eula in existence if those courts so order and there's nothing you can do about that, so there's no real point in saying 15% or 20% or whatever in the Eula. Great Britain is something like 15% where, if i remember correctly, the U.S is somewhat ambiguous and i'm sure other nations have other rules governing and other percentages.

That's only if Filter Forge as the Licensor chooses to change the venue. Otherwise, a U.S. licensee would be forces to defend his or her position in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Here is what the EULA says:

Quote

7.1. Governing Law; Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia without reference to conflicts of law rules and principles. This Agreement shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is expressly disclaimed and excluded. You agree that this Agreement is to be performed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States of America and that any action, dispute, controversy, or claim that may be instituted based on this Agreement, or arising out of or related to this Agreement or any alleged breach thereof, shall be prosecuted exclusively in the courts in the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States of America, and you, to the extent permitted by applicable law, hereby waive the right to change venue to any other state, county, district or jurisdiction; provided, however, that the Licensor as claimant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Other than my first reply to Kraellin, I agree with his post completely.

In the previous thread, numerous examples were given as to the difficulty of sorting out originals from derivatives. Many responders, including Filter Forge management, have chosen to ignore those examples or to propose workable ways in which to sort them out. Now we are faced with a new set of rules which will effect a lot more than just publishers.

In the previous thread, suggestions were made to create a second library so that legitimate publishers would have an approved path to create and distribute texture packs and collections. Many responders, including Filter Forge management, have chosen to ignore those suggestions. Is this on the table or off?

If it is not on the table, than I propose that someone volunteer to fill the role of organizing and marketing filters for authors outside of the Filter Forge organization. This is not, in particular, a role I seek, but I think I understand about 98% of the details of a workable solution. That having been said, I stand ready to counsel with or join with any group of authors or individual author interested in taking on this chore.

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: If we go through the library now we will see hundreds of filters that are very close to each other, and heck, many times some of these filters are even just reworkings of previously submitted filters. So then who holds the copyright?

If you read current submission guidelings, you will see that unless the submitted filter is considered a substantial modification, it doesn't make it into the library.

You guys may want to take a closer look at the bold part:

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

It means that you can still sell textures, you just have to get permission of the (I think) filter author, or filter author may ask for a fee.

For those whom may be making significant amount of money, that shouldn't pose a major hardship!!!

You just can't harvest a bunch of textures, render them out and sell them as their own.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Clearly Filter Forge is the Licensor in all matters dealing with the license an end user agrees to.

No doubt about that one..

Quote

Sign Guy wrote: Clearly Filter Forge is the Licensor in all matters dealing with the license an end user agrees to. They are the licensors of the filters because they have licensed that right from the filter authors. If meeting some additional licensing requirements were to become an acceptable solution, it will have a much better chance at success if it is organized. it would have an even better chance if it is organized by Filter Forge.

Yes, that would be even better.

I think you're right about FF being the licensor in this case. I was still thinking about another part of eula, where the filter author is the licensor, and FF licensee.
(LOL, I better get back to decorating cookies - not doing a good job with split attention)

Quote
Looks like the apparent duplicate was removed after it was discovered. I don't see a problem there? I didn't expect it to be a fail-safe process. Half a dozen out of a few thousand filters slipping through the cracks is hardly going to create a major problem.

Pretty much all 100+ filters with uuk's name on them are copies of other people's filters.

My real complaint is that if a person is only selling the presets then he is basically saying that your presets are worth something, but your filter isn't good enough to use. That's what hurts me. I saw my presets being sold on the CD, but nothing extra made from my filters.

I would like it if when people resave our filters into their My Filters section that the use of those filters would still give credit to the filter maker and not be given the user's name. It would help for people like me trying to earn the HUs to continue to get credit for the filter use.

Thanks for reading.

Quote
garbanzo wrote: when you upload something there you have to give a statement saying that everything being uploaded is your own work. this person simply lied in that statement.

I believe you missed the all repeated discussion that a render is a user´s work, not the filter author.

Quote

Kraellin wrote: and third, i think this whole thing is a mistake, at least in this form. this is going to open things up to quibbly, nit-picking, haggling and other forms of abuse, name calling and uncertainty. let's take an example. 'Bob' buys filter forge. bob wants to make and sell textures. bob puts up various texture packs for sale, using his own creations and some alterations of existing textures, including some 'substantially' altered presets. in other words, bob puts up only what he gleans from the Eula to be legal textures. 'Mary' sees bob's texture packs for sale and begins going through them and finds something that looks a lot like one of her presets from one of her filters. this may or even may not have been one of bob's alterations of a preset. mary files suit. bob is now in the precarious position of having to prove that he made the filter and the presets and let's say he did and it's just a coincidental near copy of mary's. bob is now liable to mary even though he created the filter and the preset.

This is something I am worried about. The way people are going after users around here is making me think twice about selling MY OWN TEXTURES. There are so many leather looks or so many metal looks. As it was said before, you´re bound to find 2 or more filters that look alike, but were created from scratch by different people. So by trying to sell textures from FILTERS I CREATE, I open myself to headaches I really should not be having!

I think that the way this is all going will only serve to make people stay way from FF. Hence the news that Sign Guy shared on the other topic that that multi-million dollar corporation passed on filter forge! Was there any doubt?

Quote
[...] a few authors are crying foul [...] nobody here that can truly cry foul with any sort of righteousness [...] you dont need to 'protect' authors further [...] a few authors are now trying to re-negotiate that contract [...] Vladimir, i admire the hell out of you for what you've done with FF and how you've done it. i'd hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot now Smile

For the sake of this discussion, let us please get one detail back into correct perspective:

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote elsewhere: Literally a minute ago I finished the new additions to the Filter Forge EULA I was working on with our attorneys for some time.

[My emphasis added! Note that the 'infamous' thread was less than 2 hours old by then.]

My point is, the whole issue behind this debate already sat there cooking for some definite time, Vladimir knew about it and acted on it to protect the interests of the company (which were and are being harmed currently). Implying that somehow it was the oh-so-whiny filter authors who started all this outrage merely helps to diffuse this discussion.

Quote
[...] modifications that are insufficient to qualify the modified Filter and/or image as derivative works as defined by the applicable law.

Now, it certainly is debatable whether Vladimir is going in the 'right' direction with going against texture selling, and also whether the new EULA will be effective towards this end. My main question is: Will it serve to restrict only the 'parasitic' kind of texture selling or will it also adversely affect other 'market segements' that might not be the intended target of these EULA modifications? Game studios, 3D artists and graphics professionals for example will have little difficulties in producing sufficiently 'derivative' works from 'Results', and they'll be using FF as just another tool in the pipeline. However, those that work with the 'Results' in much more immediate ways will undoubtably be penalized in some ways if 'sufficiently derivative' is not defined properly.

Quote
Omega3 wrote: Ok..I've read this stuff for days now, and I thought I was clear on it - but now I'm confused again. My interpretation was that no one can render a FF filter "preset" and sell it, BUT...they can change the preset by playing with the sliders,colors, etc... render out the results and sell those. Is this correct or not??

Only if it meets the undefined standard "as defined by applicable law".

Myself, I wouldn't have minded if the person who sold my presets had had the decency to at least use my filter and make a few of his own to sell along with my presets. By only using the presets it says to me that the person didn't think my filter was of any use. So from now on my filters that go into the free library will be effect only filters. Problem solved for me as only people who are willing to use my filters will be able to profit from them and I wish them success. The others will just have to sell uuks.

Quote

Genie wrote: This is something I am worried about. The way people are going after users around here is making me think twice about selling MY OWN TEXTURES. There are so many leather looks or so many metal looks. As it was said before, you´re bound to find 2 or more filters that look alike, but were created from scratch by different people. So by trying to sell textures from FILTERS I CREATE, I open myself to headaches I really should not be having!

You mean sort of like when I design a logo, I have to make sure I don't design something that looks like Nike, or Adidas, or At&T or many other instantly recognizeable logos?
Sounds like business as usual in world of graphics and copyrights.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: You mean sort of like when I design a logo, I have to make sure I don't design something that looks like Nike, or Adidas, or At&T or many other instantly recognizeable logos? Sounds like business as usual in world of graphics and copyrights.

Not really. You are classifying mathematically generated pixels which might or might not be subject to copyrights the same as the much higher standard applied to trademarks. The standard used in most trademark infringement cases is "would a reasonable person be confused".

What Filter Forge does is to provide us with some math in the form of modules or nodes and a way to manipulate the arrangement of the nodes along with a set of inputs, outputs, controls and adjustments to each of the nodes. Put that in the hands of a good artist with good technical aptitudes and some very interesting stuff comes out the result end of the filter.

The catch is that another user might also independently come up with the same arrangement and result or something very close. Or that user might adapt existing filters authored by someone else. Or that user might modify the filter in question, delete all the presets and still come up with something very similar. Or might not tweak an image enough in the eyes of FF or "the applicable law" to prevent confusion among artists, filter authors, publishers, users or FF to know what the licensee did in the process of rendering the secondary result. So if confusion results then the licensee ends up in court in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So the question is, do we as licensees want that kind of a cloud of confusion hanging over our use of the Filter Forge application? The time to clear all this up is now.

ok, first off, please read the title to this thread! this is a discussion of PROPOSED changes to the current upload Eula, not ACTUAL changes that have occurred. when presenting your arguements and points, please, address which you are talking about, the current upload Eula or the proposed changes. in fact, if you wish to discuss the current Eula, it would be much better if you posted those notes and arguements in the preceding thread to this one.

two, please understand what a 'derivative work' is and at least somewhat how law (at least in the U.S. considers this to be). in at least one court case i'm familiar with, Blizzard, a game software company, sued some folks who were making mods of one one of their games and selling those mods commercially. Blizzard won the case because the mods were derivative works of the game in question.

you can liken then (though i dont know for sure that the courts would) to what a derivative work is here with filter forge. authors make a filter and post it to the library. an end-user downloads the filter and creates something with it. that is a derivative work of the filter. it derives or comes from the original source, the filter.

certain countries allow derivative works providing the alteration from the original is sufficient enough to be considered its own work and not just a copy or very close relative of the original. since, as fred pointed out, disputes against FF over copyrights and such would be handled in virginia and since the laws of the nation about copyrights are federal and not state, the copyright laws of the united states would take precendence in a legal battle and that battle would be fought in virginia.

i do NOT know the current laws regarding any percentage basis regarding derivative works in the u.s. you should consult the copyright laws of the united states, which are freely available on the internet.

it is my OPINION (and not necessarily fact) that derivative works ARE the property of the original copyright holder, in this case the filter authors. however, AGAIN, the upload Eula licenses end-users the right to make derivative works, without restrictions and without compensation to FF or to the authors, of any filter which exists in the library. filters which are NOT in the FF library are solely owned and protected by the laws of the united states, and ALL derivative works thereof. (though i may be wrong on that last point if a percentage basis right exists on derivative works in the united states).

mira, please understand the differences of this discussion and the ACTUAL existing upload Eula. currently, you may use ANY filter in the FF library completely unrestricted and without fear of violating rights. and please distinguish between what AUTHORS are talking about, what FF is talking about and what the upload Eula actually states. the ONLY thing which governs ANY FILTER IN THE LIBRARY CURRENTLY is the actual, existing upload Eula. that authors may be complaining or attacking or threatening or anything else has NO LEGAL bearing in a court of law. NONE! ONLY the upload Eula is legal at this point as regards this discussion. thus, have no fear in purchasing FF or of violating rights if you shld purchase it. there are over 4000 filters in the library that are and will be covered by the current upload Eula. no ADDITION to the Eula at this point can affect those filters or any others submitted under the current upload Eula. and having been here for a long while now, i can tell you that you can make one HELL of a lot of textures, effects and incredible stuff using those filters!

Quote
Omega3 wrote: Ok..I've read this stuff for days now, and I thought I was clear on it - but now I'm confused again. My interpretation was that no one can render a FF filter "preset" and sell it, BUT...they can change the preset by playing with the sliders,colors, etc... render out the results and sell those. Is this correct or not??

no. that is a misconception fomented by some of the authors here or possibly from other sites you've been on. the filters, the presets, and all derivative works are licensed for anyone to use as they wish, commercially or otherwise IF the filter was in the public FF library. the reference is the upload Eula.

Quote
Frank2 wrote: because I am getting the impression that, for example, Kraelliin above seems to be defining end users as guys selling textures. What are creative graphics professionals then? Chopped liver? To answer your question directly, Crapadilla, no, I don't believe it will adversely effect those categories of users at all, in my experience.

you shld really go back and read all the posts you didnt read when you skimmed through the first thread and this one, and if by chance you did read all of them, then go back again and understand them, particularly the reason why this discussion ever arose in the first place. you waste our time with your mis-understandings.

Quote
Frank2 wrote: I agree and that is precisely what that EULA achieves, it gives independence and full copyright to filter authors.

authors already have full copyrights to their filters, both in published and unpublished filters.

this has never been about copyrights. it's about licensing and use. those are two different things. for copyright laws, go read the u.s. government site on copyright law. for licensing and use, read the upload Eula. for proposed changes to the licensing and use, read vladimir's proposed changes and then read WHO this is intended to thwart. that's what this discussion is about.

frankly, first and foremost, i want to see Filter Forge survive and thrive. that is paramount above everything else in this discussion. without the company and without the product, we all lose. period. so, first and foremost, how do we keep Ff alive? what will make the company and the product survive the best. secondarily is the authors. how do we keep a good stream of high quality filters coming into the library? and third, how do we get users to buy and use the product and the filters? to me, those are the priorities. obviously they are all linked into a mutual survival basis. without FF, authors and uers lose. without authors there's nothing to use. without users FF and authors are of little to no value. so, it's a mutual survival pact we're trying to iron out here. and that also includes the so-called 'parasite' users. they are users also, who ostensibly bought the program in good faith.

to me, the current proposal hurts FF in future sales, hurts some end-users, and doesnt really help authors much, except maybe to make them feel a tiny bit better, but certainly offers no other rewards. i see it as sort of like if adobe suddenly said users could not render and sell textures using photoshop filters that were too close in appearance to the filter origins. just isnt good business.

Quote

Frank2 wrote: I'm glad someone here actually mentioned "Game studios, 3D artists and graphics professionals" as actually being customers and end users of FF. Is that category not intended to be the main end user base of FF? I say this, because I am getting the impression that, for example, Kraelliin above seems to be defining end users as guys selling textures. What are creative graphics professionals then? Chopped liver? To answer your question directly, Crapadilla, no, I don't believe it will adversely effect those categories of users at all, in my experience. How could it be any other way? FF is to me, a very good tool for my work. What credibility would any decent graphics guy have, if it consisted of just taking a preset, doing little or no work on it, putting their own name on and then selling it as their own?! They might just a well download wallpapers off the Net and claim them or something. None of the guys I know, would have a problem with that EULA above. I, and they, would know exactly what it means.

AMEN to that!!!!!!!!!!
I'd be ashamed of myself if the best I could do is take a preset and claim it as my own work, and I'm only half of a graphics designer!

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I guess you missed the point

...and that point would be what exactly, Fred?

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I am recognized and enjoy a respectable reputation by a large number of my peers.

I'm sure you are, Fred. No offence intended whatsoever, just me 'calling it as I see it.' But I also recognise that you seem to talk about damn all apart from money, suing, litigation and the court in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Big world, Fred, 4 billion people. You come from America, right? 300 million people. Has it not occurred to you that not all people in the world think the same or are motivated by the same things as you are?

Hey, maybe there are even guys around that are just motivated by nothing more that designing, creating and making good graphics. Under this proposed EULA, filter author guys like that are still free to sell their own stuff to whomever they like. So, where is the problem?

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I can tell you that if the substance of it goes into effect that I will be purchasing a license for Genetica and will reverse my recommendation to buy Filter Forge at my forum of 8,800 professional sign makers.

Hot damn, if that didn't sound suspiciously like a threat made to FilterForge, if so, that comment has the distinction of being the only one made around here.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: You also seem to have missed the point...

Oh, I don't know about that, I reckon I'm pretty well on target, you know. Dealing with Microsoft taught me that....the many times they tried to threaten the Open Source movement, haha.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: you shld really go back and read all the posts you didnt read when you skimmed through the first thread and this one, and if by chance you did read all of them, then go back again and understand them, particularly the reason why this discussion ever arose in the first place. you waste our time with your mis-understandings.

Thanks for the patronisation...seen it all before. You know when you wrote, 'you shld', did you mean, 'You should..'?

Quote
Kraellin wrote: no, actually you cant. the filters AND derivative works are still OWNED by the authors. it's just that the authors have licensed others to use them. this seems to be a great mis-conception in this issue. copyright and licensing are two different beasts.

Well, there's people claiming copyrights to those images right now. On renderosity, and places like sign guy's texture reselling.

Renderosity publically stated they contacted FF, and that the official word from FF was: What the texture seller is doing is not against EULA or copyrights. Among other things, texture reseller CAN claim copyright to the image, and CAN claim it's all their own work.
It's not my interpretation of EULA. It's what actually happened.

Quote
Frank2 wrote: Quote Sign Guy wrote: I guess you missed the point ...and that point would be what exactly, Fred?

It was as stated in the entire paragraph. You have a nasty habit of quoting out of context.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Well, there's people claiming copyrights to those images right now. On renderosity, and places like sign guy's texture reselling.

yes, that's sort of what sparked this whole issue. and to be honest, 'derivative works' is not something in u.s. copyright law i'm fully versed on. in some countries you only have to alter an image about 15% to be able to claim it as your own image and therefore not subject to copyright infringement. but, i'm not real sure how U.S. law treats this. that's why i said to look this up on the u.s. government copyright site online.

but, it's somewhat moot here, in the cases of the renderosity stuff. since the LICENSING allows for unrestricted use, the copyright sort of doesnt matter or at least is now of no real significance as far as a rendered image by a user.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: think of it this way, perhaps: you make a picture. i ask you if i can use that picture in any manner i see fit. you say ok and i go ahead and use it. it's pretty much that simple. you still hold the copyright, but have authorized me to use it however i want. that make more sense?

Yes, that does make more sense. Sorry I have a very simplistic mind. lol