Renderosity MarketPlace & FF library textures?

Quote
...or are derivative works from something found, and verified, to be in the public domain

I guess this is the keyphrase.


To hell all it, Dilla! Let's open our own market for us and all our friends?

IMHO....The filters/textures in the library are not Public Domain in you would have to purchase or earn a copy of FF in order to access the filters....Of Course..
Also the results of the filters are also not really the public domain by the same assumption as stated above....
But as far as the Original Work renderosity is vauge on that point.....They should make it more clear to some people what is an "original work" perhaps there needs to be a new definition of this....

But I AM NO LAWYER AND IN NO WAY EMPLOYEED BY FILTER FORGE.INC AND MY VIEWS AND OPINIONS DO NOT REPRESENT NOR SPEAK FOR FILTER FORGE.INC IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.............

of course it's an original work. even the presets are original works. it's just not THEIR original work .

but think about this; i'm sure renderosity also has original works up from folks using photoshop and that some photoshoppers are selling those works, no? so, FF works are probably, IN THE MINDS OF THOSE SELLING ON RENDEROSITY, the same deal, no violation.

i would also add in the next line to the arguement, dilla:

Quote
Artist maintains they legally possess the power to grant the Buyer this license for all enclosed materials.

that, taken just by itself, is enough of an agreement for the buyer's concerns, at least in most cases.

the bottom line is still going to be the end user license in FF, though, regardless of how Renderosity is working theirs. it's the FF license that would come into play in a court of law, with the renderosity one being second to the FF one. in other words, the foul perceived is going to be a violation of FF's license, not Renderosity's.

jffe, I have confidence that the "swamp" will dry out all by itself, so to speak. No lawyers wanted and needed!

James, I believe the case with FF is more along these lines:

An artist creates a matrix for printmaking. Pleased with their work, the artist shows a bussiness man a print made with the matrix. The bussiness man likes the print and asks the artist if he can have the matrix for people to use, in his shop. The artist says yes. The shop owner then asks if people can sell the prints they make with the matrix, and the artist replies yes, they can do as they please, then signs a contract to that effect.

Some time later, the artist sees a print made with the matrix they gave to the shop owner, being sold by a third party.

A painting is something unique and difficult to reproduce. A filter has the ability to recreate the exact same texture over and over again.

Best solution for the artist? Not to give the matrix away, make the prints and sell them.

Well, of course "hitting render" doesn´t make one an artist, let alone a great one. An artist will make their own textures.

Quote
James wrote: meanwhile in the galaxy the saga continues....

LMAO. Well, it would seem that this all discussion has called the attention of many people that have started selling more library textures. As things have been developing, I have a feeling that even if a new EULA is implemented, this topic will still go on.

Universal Widget Inc. develops a machine that will by applying a variety of processes which can be infinitely varied, produce finished products in a variety of shapes, sizes and materials. Widget maker Smith acquires a machine and works out a way to align the processes in such a way that, when the machine is run, pops out a blue thingamabob that he can sell to lots of buyers.

Universal Widget sees the results and contracts with Smith to license his process and supply it for "free" so others will buy the machine and be able to also make thingamabobs. Smith receives the agreed upon compensation from Universal Widget. Universal Widget places no restrictions on the process except to insure that it will only work in a Universal Widget machine and includes it with every machine purchased.

Now along comes Jones who buys a machine and likes the potential of the thingamabob and goes into production and distribution to retailers who sell to customers that want all the thingamabobs they can get. Jones adds red, green and gold thingamabobs to the lineup and also makes blue ones.

So did Jones do anything wrong? Did Universal Widget? Everything was governed by contracts and all that Smith can point to is that he should have negotiated a better deal or not licensed his process at all. He is free to not do it again and he is free to make his own thingamabobs and compete with Jones.

Producing renderings for sale to buyers is a reasonable expectation of a licensee of Filter Forge just as a licensee has a reasonable expectation that he can use a texture as part of a 3D design for which compensation is being received. There is no restriction that says selling a rendering of a preset or a modified preset is any different than producing thingamabobs using Smiths unmodified process is prohibited. Yes, the filter artist owns the copyright to the filter design, but that copyright creates no obligation on the part of an individual who uses the program and the process to create the rendering under a separate license. The right to do that is what the licensee has a right to expect for his license fee.

Moral to the story.

Upload filters and share with the FF community via the Library;
Pro's, you may get HU's & nice comments;
Con's, high chance if its a nice filter even if it doesn't go HU your probably see the presets/renders for sale somewhere with someone else's name attached.

Wow, this has run 'off-topic' again, but anyways:

In my opinion, the whole problem is rooted in an oversight on the part of Filter Forge Inc., which was there from the very start: People could download the free trial version, render out textures for a whole month and put them up for online sale without even having paid for an FF license. This practice should have been restricted by the EULA from day one!

[My guess is that Vladimir did not foresee that some people would start 'mirroring' a 'best of' of the filter library in their online shops. Also, it appears he was mistaken in the assumption that the tool appealed only to those who would want to use it creatively in their 'original work'. ]

To me it is clear that the proposed EULA changes are not so much an "attack" on a specific group of FF customers, but rather a long overdue attempt at closing a gaping loophole that undermines the success of the product in the long run for ALL customers!

To complicate matters, this underlying problem is partly obscured by the heated conflict among the proponents of what is "legal" and the proponents of what is "right". And again, the EULA 'loophole' has an emotionally undermining effect here, because the knowledge of its existence makes filter authors think thrice about submitting a filter to the library.

Yes, one could argue that filter authors should have known they had it coming, because they've accepted the license terms for filter submission. One could argue they've already been rewarded with free licenses, community praise, etc, so they should not complain at all. Or one could argue that those who let themselves be exploited should be exploited, that it's just business, and all the usual rationalizations.

However, if we hold those convictions, we're silently sealing off the filter library's fate as just being a servant to the self-interest of all sides. We're acknowledging that it should experience only a marginal qualitative growth in the future, with the odd exception of an outstanding filter being submitted every now and then by a 'green' filter author.

Quote
----It's good that you still "fight this fight", but it is a losing battle one way or another. The immoral majority always wins, and while Ghandi and others get 1/2 of a page in the history books, they end/stop nothing, they just slow it down a year or 10.

Well firstly just because more of one side argues it doesn't exactly mean it's in there favor at all it's all down to the devs at the end of the day. Next it depends how it's done, i suggest giving the copyrights of all created filters up untill this point back to whoever is listing as posting it, next give them the power to choose what they want to do with there rights if they choose to take down some lazy merchants pack that would be in there rights, if they wished to make it royalty free they could etc. The main thing with this is the re-selling part this would cover it perfectly and just put a Creative Commons license choices thing for uploaders so they can state how they wish new filters to be used.

As for slowing it down as far as i see it the devs were trying to correct the previous loophole (progress), then all the merchants jumped in with a load of points what if this that, twist 360 happens. Someones original creations should be there own to use how they want, just because of a gap in a bit of text it doesnt really give people the right to exploit them because they wanted to be friendly and share with a community and i think all the merchants know that but doesn't like the fact if the EULA goes ahead it means less quick cash for them.

Edit -

Just for a stupid point (but could really do, but won't), i could go to all of the free artist resource sharing site and plaster them with packs rendering every preset from 'Simplest Chainmaille' plus a few randomizes, add a comment about how i made it, wait for people to reply, listen to there praise, tell them thank you with a grin on my face, lie about how it took me ages to get the details just right, watch them reply back saying 'they are really great, i just used them in this and that project would it be ok if i sold them', sure thing i reply, they tell there friends and the comments and praise builds. Then i could go to all merchant and stock sites plaster them with the same thing, i get sales from people that don't know about the FF filter and keep getting them every now and then, im happy with all of the praise and money i make, i then take a trip back to the filter forge forum, i misteriously come across a discussion about the EULA and what merchants are doing, the EULA says i might not be able to keep doing this, as i don't really care who made the original filter but am happy with the rewards i put in a arguement agaist the EULA and bring up a few points and say it will never happen etc.... hmm sounds familiar for some reason.

I know that you submit all your filters knowing that could well happen, but the point is if you cared or 'if it wasn't already 90% done by someone', or you submitted before the EULA was brought up and don't like reading loads of text, you would probably be for the EULA if you found hundreds of links to renders of your work and cared slightly, thats the point, one could totally exploit that filter if they wanted due to a gap in a piece of text and this is exactly why people want the EULA just as much as some are against it. If im wrong then sorry but im guessing you don't want the EULA to happen from what you posted and the end part sounds like evil will win over good?

That end bit could be flipped and it doesn't matter what anyone says as it's in the devs hands after all they coded it they should be able to do what they want with it just like a persons work should be there own. Hopefully the devs aren't even bothered with reading any more posts on this now and just took the step forward with this and the finalizations are being made now behind the scenes and FF will anounce the EULA is put in place with a restriction on re-selling library filters from now on, Creator rights given back, Creative Commons licenses etc and make a big list of all the lazy merchants with reference to any re-seller packs with library stuff that creators can see where there projects got uploaded. great idea, fingers crossed.

Quote
And really, if *you* aren't doing it (rendering FF stuff and selling it) then why would ya care if someone else does, that's kinda my ultimate take on it.

Becuase it's not right basically, also the fact that it's ruined artist resource sites, rather than finding a decent set of hand painted textures etc you find pages of useless FF featured filters where someone has clearly just hit render or changed a color, so if you ever actually wanted something you go though at least 20 pages to find anything worth looking at let alone purchasing.

Then another one is the fact i make textures from time to time totally from scratch and hand edit fine details, not just made in FF etc and sometimes decide to put them on a stock site even though i don't have many online, a few days later i get some dumb automated email from the stock site saying the catagory is already covered with too many textures or something along those lines, so i type in whatever it was say 'seamless broken stone texture' to be shown pages of the same stupid FF/genetica textures that have been randomized or preset rendered, for someone that takes texture art seriously and is why im bothering to be here in the first place i find that totally stupid that a original texture that i spent a while making gets rejected due to hundreds of rendered presets that look no where near as unique or realistic, with a non natural color etc but have the same catagory theme in general so mine gets rejected.

I don't really plan/hope to make money from stock sites etc though but it means any chance i or anyone serious about there work has of making a bit on the side from a hobbie they enjoy is basically gone due to the flood of preset renderers as it's not likely a listing or 10 original creations gets noticed as a user with 15000 preset renders that can't be bothered to make something unique and looks at it as a get rich quick idea, so any hobbyist artists that actually spent effort never get noticed due to quantity over quality. It also shows that nobody takes anything seriously anymore and can't even be bothered to quality check untill a limits reached then anything afterwards that might be serious gets a sorry no.

I also don't like the arrogance/no morals that 'pro artists' and 'pro merchants' have when they happily take credit and label it as there creations so it look more pro to people and benifits them and argue against a idea that could sort things out due to the fact there greedy and can't be bothered to work for things so they reference things that dont exist in a text because the developers probably expected creativity from users rather than exploitation.

Then theres the point you make about decent stuff always being held back now, it's very true i think if the EULA was in place now/to begin with things would have been much nicer community wise and sharing would be more popular and higher quality and good tips being shared etc, i don't deny that theres sometimes some nice additions but far less than it could have and i think everyone knows that as this has basically destroyed what could have been a good reputation and 'popular for the right reasons' app. But sadly things sort of went down the drain with it imo. Maybe the saying money is the root of evil could apply to this in ways and rather than finding a occasional new filter to learn from and think how it could help your own building with the tips inside the project they think 'ooh a new filter to render and sell for there own gain', kinda sad really, i always learn best when i can see whats happening where and when from looking at the insides of a project but it seems a lot of the things you see now is a generator pluged right into the shader and nothing much more and you can see how quality has gone down now in the library.

Even though the filters i made are not very good that was when i first started with the app and slightly later found about the situation, the ones on my listing are basically like a scribbles compared to the stuff i am capable of making now yet i have seen them rendered out only still and now and for a long time i wouldn't ever dream of submitting another one untill somethings resolved as i originally planned to share/learn with the community but it's not exactly ideal to do this these days no wonder theres a User Gallery section where people will even put logos over low res images etc because someone would probably think it was free to sell otherwise, so the point i guess is things could have been good for building skill levels with using the app but i had to do it the hard way with FF due too greedy imo not even real users taking advantage of things and ruining anything good there was for anyone taking the app seriously.

So yeah thats a few reasons why the situation should get fixed imo. And also i know that no doubt somethings happening now as it was said people didn't actaully read the EULA changes planned but still argued against it, this could carry on forver though and i have a lot of free time But yeah i have pretty much said my views and points already and im sure many of them strike chords like in the previous thead which is why i got so many replys directed at me even though they were mainly general ones but i find quoting a good way to share a view on a specific topic so thats what i usually do. And i don't expect to change anything if anyone thinks thats my plan as i said before it's no users choice really but the devs and im sure there doing something/discussing about this right now as i type as i doubt it's a easy topic to resolve right away.

Quote
James wrote: If im wrong then sorry but im guessing you don't want the EULA to happen from what you posted and the end part sounds like evil will win over good?

----I missed that question before (sorry, you typed a lot ha-ha).
----I just don't think there is really a problem with the EULA, or maybe more accurately, I don't believe for one second that FF, or you, or anyone, is gonna go chasing down all the nickel & dime texture resellers who are this supposedly huge problem. So having no faith that anyone will legally require anyone to follow the EULA (cause they sure ain't gonna on their own ha-ha) there is zero reason to change the EULA other than to publicly and LOUDLY, re-announce that it's wide open and fair game, and let the people who are going to do that do that and flood their own marketplaces with the same old same old until everyone can spot the stuff a mile away and has no interest in it. Kinda like a person who just can't quit doing drugs, here's an idea, give them all the drugs they want for free, way cheaper than chasing them around and putting them in jail for another 20-30 years, why do I say that, how can I do that kind of math so simply ? Because they will overdo it and eliminate the problem themselves in no time, which ironically, would be by eliminating themselves in that extreme case ha-ha.

jffe

Hi - just a couple of comments and a couple of questions please.

I think FF is fantastic and I use it a lot, I have even started to mod filters and have modded one and submitted it (you'll see it if it gets accepted more to come as well!)

Comment: I wasn't aware that there was a copyright EULA discussion / chat / rant etc.
until my friend asked if he should also purchase FF and this topic within the forums is what ultimately put him off. one of the main reasons I truly enjoy FF IS the community and the filters I can download / use / mod. I would be a tad miffed if the number of filters posted should trickle down to a few and the ones current "locked"

Question: I don't make filters from scratch (yet) but I have started now to mod them (as I dare say most people do), at what point does it become "your own creation" (no analogies of cars and after market parts such as alloys please ) after all - there has to be a limitation of what FF can produce along the same lines of the desired filter that you want. For example I have modded the fantastic doompannel - but it still looks similar (its a floor panel it CAN'T look that much different with respect to the edges and such). A long way of saying "where does one persons filter stop and another persons start"?

Comment: As for copyright, I full understand that you would be miffed (insert you own word there) at somebody making money off your own creation, who wouldn't. But you posted it for a)Helping the community b)Feedback and the cudo's of people saying how good it is - the enjoyment of knowing that somebody else is using it.

But to be honest, IF you are interested in the commercial side of things and not just miffed at your filter is now being used in a commercial way - the real answer is just not to post it.

Errr.... I know I'm not a heavy poster on these threads..... please don't bite my head off for throwing in my 2 cents.

ae

aegean,

i STRONGLY advise you to read both the upload license that we all 'sign' each time we upload a filter to the library, and the end user license agreement (eula). these are the ONLY contracts that govern the rights and uses of filters. dont trust my opinion; dont trust james' opinion; dont trust anyone's opinion. read and UNDERSTAND those two contracts. that's what you need to know.

as for agreements outside of those two contracts, FF does watch for blatant plaigerism. and sometimes an author will send a protest note to FF, inc. about a filter that that author feels is way too close in effect to one of his own. FF does listen to those and does look and has, in some cases, removed the one complained about.

on the other hand, we do tend to share things here. you can look at quite a few filters around here and notice that someone else is credited with having helped and contributed to a given filter. most notably, but not exclusive to, are the snippets. the snippets get used a lot and though i dont know that it's written anywhere, we tend to give credit to those authors who have contributed to our own filters. it's just good business and good ethics.

there's also the case of the non-snippet. i've taken other's filters and modified them. i think i've even submitted one or two, the most notable in my case, is my 'silver surfer' filter. steviej did a number of metal filters, all quite good, but i wanted a very particular look to mine, but i didnt see any reason to start from scratch. he had almost what i wanted. so, i modded it and submitted it. i also gave him credit in the write ups for the basic metal filter. my mod was still significant enough that FF thought it was ok (in that they didnt reject it) and steve said he didnt mind either. he got credit and he got another metal filter. so, everyone won.

i will also sometimes mod a filter but not submit it. i just use it for myself. since i'm not publishing the filter itself, i simply make a note, in the filter, of who's filter this was to begin with and carry on. or, i may submit it to the web pages here but not the filter library, in which case i again give credit in all notices and i try not to post the filter until the origial has had a good chance to go HIGH USE or, the original author doesnt mind.

generally speaking, if you give credit and dont try to sham anyone, things will be fine. and if in doubt, just ask the original author, if you can.

but, all of this is just opinion. my original statement about those two contracts is ALL that is legally binding. the rest is just being polite and ethical, which perhaps in the long run, is the more important.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: we're silently sealing off the filter library's fate as just being a servant to the self-interest of all sides. We're acknowledging that it should experience only a marginal qualitative growth in the future, with the odd exception of an outstanding filter being submitted every now and then by a 'green' filter author.

IMHO, that's exactly what is going on here. Skilled/veteran authors have been submitting fewer and fewer quality texture filters.....largely due to not wanting "texture merchants" (texture resellers IMO) to be able to resell straight texture results from their filters.....and also in part to there not being any further incentives to submit them after achieving the program rewards that they want.....

99.99% of customers who purchase this program want it for "creative" use.....and I'm quite certain that this vast majority of users would prefer to have access to a constant stream of new quality filters.....which they are not going to get so long as there is no straight texture result reseller protection and/or further incentives to keep skilled authors submitting here.....

If I was Vlad, I would totally ignore the unsubstantiated "fear-mongering" that is coming from a few texture resellers here.....who are obviously voicing opposition to the proposed new EULA restrictions because it will cut into their business. I wouldn't do anything to "appease" this negligable group of users.....who, in my opinion, are actually undermining sales of the program.....as well as creating rationale for authors not to submit quality texture filters.....

In conclusion Vlad/FF and the vast majority of "creative" users certainly want more/higher quality filter submissions.....they don't want authors not to submit them because of a negligable group of users who are reselling straight texture filter results.....I would implement the proposed new EULA restrictions ASAP (the sooner the better to prevent this issue from being drawn out and become misleading to more unaffected users and potential customers).....mark all existing texture filters under the current EULA as "unrestricted use" (to adhere to the EULA conditions under which they were purchased).....and I would suggest giving some serious thought to creating new level(s) of author incentives to keep vets active and contributing here. Hey, Dilla can't carry this all by himself.....or can he???

Quote
James wrote: If you look at the marketplace at renderosity or stock people have totally taken advantage of the library and you will see tons of exact or similar stuff to the FF library.

Ah well after sending a notecard in secondlife to a a 'texture artist' that uses FF, I was informed that all they need to do is change the lighting on a preset to make it a new image and that if you have the pro addition you can basically do what you want.

I think I need to reread both EULA's the uploading filter one and the usage of filters from the library again. Mind half the time I find legal stuff more confusing because of the side steps and loop holes etc.

Quote
Ah well after sending a notecard in secondlife to a a 'texture artist' that uses FF, I was informed that all they need to do is change the lighting on a preset to make it a new image and that if you have the pro addition you can basically do what you want.

I don't think that would be the case if the new EULA happens, maybe untill things change though. Changing the lighting, re-seeding a noise or a color means a Insubstantially Modified Image.

Adjusting the lighting means it would fall under this in the new EULA -

Quote
(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,

it's too damn late, steve. there are 5500+ filters already. a new eula CANNOT affect those. CAN'T! they are grandfathered. to change the eula now would be disastrous. you'd have more controversy than you already have and more folks shying away from the program than not. even a plain language contract at this point is moot. the damn has already burst and you're trying to plug it with bubblegum. let it go. any time you put restrictions of use on a program like this, you lose $$. you lose sales. creative folks dont want restrictions and they dont want controversy. you say, well, the resellers arent 'creative people' so we lose nothing there, but in fact, if you clamp down on those folks you have to change the eula and you have to restrict use and you then have an IRS tax system with bugs and loopholes and exceptions and form this and legal law that and all the other type of beaurocratic crap you have in the tax system. it's just a pain in the ass.

and, the other arguement, which i consider more legitimate, about no incentive for authors and in fact a sort of slap in the face towards authors by letting resellers sell author's work for free, just doesnt wash either. authors signed an agreement to upload filters. they didnt have to. they could have held their filters out of the library and done something commercial with them on their own... but they didnt. they uploaded them anyways. even after folks got their free copies and lifetime copies and a second or third copy with lifetimes, they still uploaded filters to the library knowing all the rules on contracts. and then, they continued to cry unfair because their filters were being ripped off. duh! stop whining! if it was unfair then why did you upload your filters? and i certainly dont just mean you, steve.

so, i DO agree it would be a nice thing to have more incentives for authors. i do agree with fred that authors got somewhat screwed in all this, mostly through naivety, i would guess. so, stop being naive and for god's sake, quit whining over spilled milk. 5500+ filters. it's water under the bridge. let it rest! if you want to help authors, start a company. make a web page and crank out some unique filters and sell the filters; sell the textures from the filters; sell the art from the filters and textures and whatnot. nag vladimir for an author's library, separate from the public lib. make it a commercial one.

but, please, give it a rest, guys. every time someone comes looking with a question on the eula's we get this same, old tired, i hate to even call it a 'debate' any more... it's just tired whining. give it a rest! vlad has all the pertinent info. he's already said he's not going to do anythign about it now, and he's the only one that can really make any final change to the eulas.

so, let's quit going so off-topic on this junk and just answer the guy's questions. and the answer is, read the eulas! that's the ONLY governing contract here, not my opinion, not yours and not james'.

and james, quit spreading false data: i.e.

Quote
Well the thing is it will only effect you if you plan to directly re-sell a filter from the library

and that, aegean, is why i say, read and understand the eula's yourself. frankly, we get things wrong. everyone's stance here, whenever this comes up, shld be 'read the eulas!' and then you shld shut up and walk away (i'd certainly have been better off had a done so a couple of times)

Quote
Kraellin wrote: it's too damn late, steve. there are 5500+ filters already. a new eula CANNOT affect those. CAN'T! they are grandfathered.

Which is why this would have to be done.....and it would work fine.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: mark all existing texture filters under the current EULA as "unrestricted use" (to adhere to the EULA conditions under which they were purchased).....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: to change the eula now would be disastrous. you'd have more controversy than you already have and more folks shying away from the program than not.

I strongly disagree with that.....FF has to do what is best for business.....and that means addressing the majority demographic of "creative use" customers and what they want (skilled authors submitting quality texture filters).....not the miniscule minority of straight texture result resellers who are undermining sales of this program and "shying away" skilled authors from giving FF and users exactly what they want.....

I think it's crazy for FF to let a handful of texture resellers (and a few misled users) fear-monger that people won't buy the program if they can not render straight texture results and resell them.....which is total BS!!! The only possible customers that the new EULA restrictions would affect and/or "shy away" are texture sellers who are miffed that they don't have a "render/resell gravytrain" with the program. Even then, I really don't think it's going to stop texture sellers from buying the program and trying to take advantage of it.....

Quote

Kraellin wrote: and, the other arguement, which i consider more legitimate, about no incentive for authors and in fact a sort of slap in the face towards authors by letting resellers sell author's work for free, just doesnt wash either. authors signed an agreement to upload filters. they didnt have to. they could have held their filters out of the library and done something commercial with them on their own... but they didnt.

I think you are missing the point.....FF and customers want author submissions.....and for authors not to feel that way.....right???

Quote
Kraellin wrote: so, stop being naive and for god's sake, quit whining over spilled milk. 5500+ filters. it's water under the bridge. let it rest!

Who's being naive here??? This issue is literally causing the mean quality level of the library to take a nose dive. We know that new authors will be much more successful if they focus on creating fewer quality filters as opposed to creating more lower quality filters.....because an author will become known for having "suboptimal" filters.....and thus users will become predisposed to avoid all of their filters, right??? Well, the same formula applies to FF from how the overall quality of its' filter library is viewed.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: please, give it a rest, guys. every time someone comes looking with a question on the eula's we get this same, old tired, i hate to even call it a 'debate' any more... it's just tired whining. give it a rest!

Craig, just don't read it or respond to it if you don't like it.....my posts are right on topic here.....and I'm going to keep on talking about it until it is resolved.....so try to live with it.....

Sorry to double post but I was surfing around a day or two ago and was surprised to see this site.

It is a list of freebie and in the list is a link to the filter forge library here. However, the link heading is "Filter Forge Textures" with no mention that they need to use the filter to create the textures and the gallery looks like it is an integral part of their site. It seemed to imply that visitors to this site could just come here and download the preview images. Is this allowed and is it permissible for a webmaster to integrate the library here into their own site the way it has been done at this site?

Ok here goes -

Quote
Personally, I think it's foolish to let this go on without closing the "unrestricted usage" loophole on straight texture result reselling. Texture resellers don't even need to buy the program.....when they can use the demo period to crank them out.....and if they want more, all they have to do is start a new demo on another machine.....

Wow the demo doesn't watermark the image or anything?

Quote
The new EULA restrictions are not going to stop all the texture resellers from doing it.....but it will take a majority chunk out of it by stopping it at all the most popular sites who uphold copyright protection.....

Indeed it won't stop, people don't read for one thing, but as you say people doing it that know about it will hopefully stop and people would be able to get the re-sellers packs taken down as you say.

Quote

and, the other arguement, which i consider more legitimate, about no incentive for authors and in fact a sort of slap in the face towards authors by letting resellers sell author's work for free, just doesnt wash either. authors signed an agreement to upload filters. they didnt have to. they could have held their filters out of the library and done something commercial with them on their own... but they didnt. they uploaded them anyways. even after folks got their free copies and lifetime copies and a second or third copy with lifetimes, they still uploaded filters to the library knowing all the rules on contracts. and then, they continued to cry unfair because their filters were being ripped off. duh! stop whining! if it was unfair then why did you upload your filters? and i certainly dont just mean you, steve.

lol, firstly free copys has nothing to do with people getting ripped off. I agree people should have not uploaded but the fact is a lot of people don't like reading lots of documents and thought they would be doing a nice thing and sharing with a community of artists/designers. The problem is they assumed that it was a nice friendly community which it is only it has a load of parasites stuck to it who i assume don't care about anything but fast cash they can squeeze out untill things dry up. Secondly i don't think anyones crying/whining but rather expressing a view on the matter if anything it would be the re-sellers doing that because FF might fix the stupid loopholes.

I won't quote all of it but i agree about the current library, what i would suggest is implent the EULA for any new filters, keep the previous one open because as you say it's sort of too late now and make a new library that people can put usage restrictions/copyrights on.

Quote
so, let's quit going so off-topic on this junk and just answer the guy's questions. and the answer is, read the eulas! that's the ONLY governing contract here, not my opinion, not yours and not james'. and james, quit spreading false data: i.e. Quote Well the thing is it will only effect you if you plan to directly re-sell a filter from the library

It's not junk though it's a valid discussion, the guy should have made a seperate thread with questions really, it was on-topic. Btw thats not false info.

I said that because it seemed like they wanted to do something but were wondering how they would be effected if the EULA happens which is partly what the thread is about. Thats basically what the preposed EULA is saying, so it is NOT false info if it happens. Neither is the reply to Beliria false info, i think you know exactly what i meant though.

As you say though it's not what the current EULA states so you can pretty much take what ever you want if you are a lazy person interested in money, or lazy and want to apply someone 'elses' textures to a 3d project to sell it because it looks nice with someone elses work or whatever else untill changes happen with the EULA. Fact is though theres a proposed change and hopefully it will most likely be happening.

Quote

I think it's crazy for FF to let a handful of texture resellers (and a few misled users) fear-monger that people won't buy the program if they can not render straight texture results and resell them.....which is total BS!!! The only possible customers that the new EULA restrictions would affect and/or "shy away" are texture sellers who are miffed that they don't have a "render/resell gravytrain" with the program. Even then, I really don't think it's going to stop texture sellers from buying the program and trying to take advantage of it.....

Again StevieJ great post, the only people that won't like the updated EULA would be texture re-sellers, anyone creative would be fine. Texture sellers would also be fine as long as they made there own stuff.

Quote
Craig, just don't read it or respond to it if you don't like it.....my posts are right on topic here.....and I'm going to keep on talking about it until it is resolved.....so try to live with it..... Wink

Same here, i don't care if a texture re-seller? or someone who doesn't care, claims im whining. The fact is im voicing my opinion on a forum and last time i checked forums are made for discussion. If it's 'just tired whining' according to someone else then why are they posting too lol. In fact i believe the thing that makes the threads grow is when people quote you or post with something thats probably aimed towards you, thats why you reply and the thread goes on, theres oviously 2 sides to it so anyone who doesn't like what i post 'give it a rest!' and don't reply to me trying to make it look like im wrong. I can express my view as can you, my view is not likely to change and i will express my opinion, if you are 'just tired' of my opinion don't reply to me. Simple

Quote

aegean, I understand your hesitation. I was looking for something to make textures but the proposed change in the EULA put me off too and I purchased Genetica instead. I have never been interested in reselling textures but I wanted something to create textures for 3D modelling. The proposed changes made me afraid of investing so much money in something that had lots of restrictions and not being certain where those restrictions would end in the future

But you can 'create textures for 3D modelling' right now, create means to make somethin which is what the apps for.

Quote

My demo is running out soon and consequentially will not even be able to use the filters I have created and shared with others. Although I have enjoyed my time with Filter Forge and have become an addict in the process, I am still very hesitant about purchasing Filter Forge due to threads like this and wild accusations flying around almost daily. I will miss it but I guess one has to go with one's gut instinct in the end

Wild accusations flying around almost daily? like what. I thought you wanted to 'create textures for 3D modelling' which is what FF is all about, you like the app, i don't get it sorry. Things would be fine with the new EULA changes and right now for anyone creating textures, the only problem is when directly re-selling someone elses work which has been said lots of time now.

Quote

It is a list of freebie and in the list is a link to the filter forge library here. However, the link heading is "Filter Forge Textures" with no mention that they need to use the filter to create the textures and the gallery looks like it is an integral part of their site. It seemed to imply that visitors to this site could just come here and download the preview images. Is this allowed and is it permissible for a webmaster to integrate the library here into their own site the way it has been done at this site?

Probably not, from what im guessing the filter listings are to see what it will look like but without having to render it, maybe they are under the wrong impression about the program possibly by the fact theres library stuff posted all over the web now. I guess the only ones that can say about the usage of the websites images would be the devs.

Quote

Amethyst wrote: Sorry to double post but I was surfing around a day or two ago and was surprised to see this site. It is a list of freebie and in the list is a link to the filter forge library here. However, the link heading is "Filter Forge Textures" with no mention that they need to use the filter to create the textures and the gallery looks like it is an integral part of their site. It seemed to imply that visitors to this site could just come here and download the preview images. Is this allowed and is it permissible for a webmaster to integrate the library here into their own site the way it has been done at this site?

Oh! Had a look at this they label FF filters as Free textures. Which probably is the case if you never purchase FF at any time and just use Demo after Demo account.

Bah Humbug! Why didn't I think of doing that!! Doh!

Wonder if the new EULA will be released when the new version of FF is released?