How will EULA effect usage?

I think it will improve it.....

On one hand, the new EULA will put a major dent in people rendering out straight texture results and reselling them in texture packs without author permission.....especially at reputable sites who do not want to be operating in violation of any copyright restrictions......
On the other hand, the new EULA will allow authors to feel much better about submitting quality texture filters in knowing that they can restrict and protect straight results from being resold in texture packs.....thereby increasing quality texture submissions and subsequently usage from those who want to use them in a creative manner......

Just my humble opinion.....

I could be wrong.....but I would think that usage stats from the limitted number of resellers that are doing one round of rendering results for texture packs would be negligible in comparison to stats from users who are rendering for creative purposes.....

That's why I think FF should totally ignore what texture resellers want and not cater to them at all.....because they are an insignificant percentage of customers buying the program in comparison to those who are buying the program for the creative use of new filters......and the benefit to FF through author submissions far outweighs any aspect of it......

AUTO-RESPONSE #1A..... LOL.....

What??? No argument??? No mispellings??? LOL..... J/K.....

LOL.....

Hopefully the new EULA will bring an end to this kinda stuff at popular sites like Renderosity.....

It's pretty obvious that texture filter submissions are suffering here because of it.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: It's pretty obvious that texture filter submissions are suffering here because of it..... Confused

Yep I tend to agree Stevie...I know that I am saving mine...

Quote
CFandM wrote: As in you can't download these and put them in your own product and compete with them...However what if you were to render the exact presets and then sell them...Would this person try to sue you or send a take-down notice.....

raises some interesting points, doesnt it. what if 20 different re-sellers all rendered out the same presets for selling? the really interesting part of this is that the author of the filter is the ONLY one that retains the copyright. the re-sellers retain license use, which grants each of them the right to sell those renders without restriction. to me, that means each of the resellers has zero rights to ask or demand that anyone else take down their render. it also means to me that not a single one of the re-sellers has the right to claim copyright. they can claim license use, but not copyright. they dont hold the copyright; the author does. thus, it also means to me that any author can ask anyone to remove any claims to copyright. authors cant demand they remove the renders, but seemingly, they could demand they remove any copyright notices that arent of the author themselves.

and as far as any re-seller wanting to sue me because i claim copyright of my own filters, lol. let em try

I hope that the new EULA is going to allow authors to place copyright restrictions on ALL straight results from their texture filters.....because just restricting the presets will do absolutely nothing towards stopping resellers when they can just do a "quick tweek" on one control to get around it.....and authors certainly won't feel any better about submitting their texture filters......

That would certainly work to protect them.....but I'm just pushing for the EULA to allow authors the ability to "blanket protect" copyrights to all straight texture filter results.....as the simplest way to justify and set up my crazy idea for FF to get into royalty-based texture pack sales (textures sold with restriction-free copyrights).....and create a continuous author incentive program from it.....

I'm convinced that $$$ incentives and the competitive nature of it would surely turn FF into a bustling metropolis of authors and quality filter submissions.....while grabbing a good chunk of the texture pack market.....which is slowly but surely becoming big business.....

Further, getting customers to come here for their texture needs would surely translate into increased program sales from the traffic.....

It would seem that [Mod: No vendor names, please] is determined to sell every texture on FF library! He apparently did the same with alienskin software...

Quote

Kraellin wrote: it also means to me that not a single one of the re-sellers has the right to claim copyright. they can claim license use, but not copyright. they dont hold the copyright; the author does. thus, it also means to me that any author can ask anyone to remove any claims to copyright. authors cant demand they remove the renders, but seemingly, they could demand they remove any copyright notices that arent of the author themselves.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point - license versus copyright. The author has the copyright of the FILTER and licenses it´s use to the user. But to claim copyright of an image that was rendered with their filters?!? That just doesn´t seem accurate... If FF is using lawyers to make the new EULA, it would be extremelly helpful if they could provide 5 minutes of the lawyers time to make that point clear...

I have been following this EULA topic for weeks now, and there are various great points and concerns here.
I have had mixed feelings about the whole thing. I am almost afraid to admit that I sell textures in Second Life. I try to set myself apart in terms of quality by striving for originality and compliance with international copyright laws and all other pertinent rules.
And in addition I do my best to stay not just within the letter of the law but also
within the spirit of the artistic community.

Sure when a texture seller first comes across FF there is certainly a temptation to
pack and sell all of the presets first. However I never felt good about doing that.
This thought btw was way before these issues came up here.
I think there may be one or two of the presets I used in some very early packs just because they were so awesome.

For the most part I approach my works as works of art in themselves that are designed to work as textures.

And while I am confident that I am in full compliance with all the laws and rules
some of the views expressed in these EULA threads seem to demonize anyone that sells
textures.

And yes I clearly understand the point being made that the issue is about filter
author rights and the selling of unaltered presets.

And I understand the concerns of those that have already achieved their incentives wanting to be compensated somehow for further submissions.
This is a clear and distinct point that should be separated from those that sell presets. It appears that for those individuals that have gained the max on incentives and pretty much are gaining fame in their awesome filter creation abilities need a path of progression beyond the current incentives.
I think that if this point is handled somehow either with the help of FF or through
some outside website or other then most of the problem will go away.
Simply because if you are being compensated for your work then it is a given that
the presets are going out there with your permission.

On the subject of presets, clearly selling presets is less than worthy and Not in the spirit of the artistic community, however persecuting those who are doing so
legally under the current EULA is a terrible thing to do. Terrible for those who thought they were doing nothing wrong and worse much much worse is the reputation
that it gathers for FF as a business.

I am a believer in Occam's Razor that is the simplest of workable solutions among a variety of solutions generally has the highest probability of success.

The original EULA is a shockingly beautiful thing, here is this fantastic tool
with user created filters that do nothing but empower the vitality and attractiveness of the program and the user.
And the results of the use of the program are yours to distribute as it was your creation. (presets are a different issue from this point)


Ok at this point without going into legalese or anything else to change this fundamental agreement that has been made with this fledgling group of program owners
casts a giant cloud of confusion over what can be done with this program.
Forget about right or wrong at this point it is a fact It creates a Giant cloud of
confusion over what can be done with this program. Regardless of the "actual points"
on the matter, it is a terrible move in a business sense. That was my gut reaction
when I first saw this subject and after waiting this long it still feels the same way.
I think that FF is a truly revolutionary product and that the filter creation authors truly do deserve some sort of ongoing rewards or incentives to encourage ongoing submissions, even if it is just the clearly worded part of the rules that say "you created this filter so you Own it and have the Right to Sell it."

Now as a texture seller who is a student of texture creation it would be great if
I had FF all to myself, that would absolutly rule, and I think that if FF wanted to
sell textures they would have kept the filter creation parts to themselves.

This is the key point in my opinion which defines the business strategy of FF.
In my perception they are selling a fantastic tool which is all the more valuable
with the least encumbrances on output possible.

Just to be clear I am not making my points here out of short term selfish motives.
In that I am capable of creating very complex textures from scratch I dont have to rely on presets to be successful or original. However since FF makes certain complex
textures easy to make if I were arguing selfishly I would not make my points at all.
As from the macro view in my opinion EULA changes at this point to restrict output
no matter how fine a point it is, is a very bad public relations move. And thus
bad for the company.

I do however have some long term selfish motives. I want to see FF be successful!
If they are successful then that means that the user base will expand and that in my
opinion will benefit everyone.
I am slowly learning how to create filters, and am in awe of some of you guys that create such amazing filters. But let me ask you this question.

How much are these filters your creating going to be worth with a shrinking user base?

I am not sure of the saturation point yet but I think we should all be doing everything we can to expand the FF standard in order to be able to have customers
to sell to at all. As I would like the option of selling my future creations as well.

I think that when we see others selling presets at least currently they may deserve
either education or possibly an artistic look down our noses but to name people
and vendors as in the perceived light of being in violation somehow is very premature. And once again terrible PR for FF.

I would suggest that the EULA stay as it is and to find other work arounds than
changing it, just to be as clear and concise to the outside business world as possible as to what FF does and what it offers. Anything other than that makes FF
look bad.

I think that Vladimir is being very kind to consider all of these issues.

I tend to think that if it were me my response would be something more like..
"Thank you for your input but for business consistency the EULA will remain the same
you are welcome to seek compensation for your filters in any other legal venue."

I do not mean the above comment to reflect a lack of empathy in any way. I am simply
trying to introduce a different and in my opinion a very critical point.
And that is that most buyers don't look at the fine points if they look at all complex in terms of rights of use. They will just take a pass.

Imagine if Photoshop suddenly announced that they were coming out with a new EULA.
Any whiff of the terms "restricted use of output" would be a coffin nail in the business sense. Their competitors would be jumping for joy.

In my opinion I would suggest that if there are to be filter author output restrictions they should be very separate from the main library. And not to be considered for inclusion into shipments with future versions of the program.
As that would just muddy the waters even further.

In fact I can see a point where there needs to be a higher bar to be passed before
inclusion to the free library is even considered on submissions.
Look at what filter authors really have here. It is a international stage for your
filter creations. Those with the truly awesome filter talents have this great stage of exposure for their abilities. I think one of the greatest incentive prizes that
could be had is to have your filter included in a shipped version of FF.
As a officially FF recognized high quality filter. I think we should all be rooting
for the best success strategies for FF as a company so that it becomes a bedrock standard in the graphics programs community. Imagine all the companies that buy
"unrestricted output versions of FF" and the filters they will want to create for in house use. Who will they look to for creation of these filters first. Well I would think they would look right here.

Look at how many companies practically give away the store in the very beginning
to get attention and exposure. They do this in all industries just to get attention.
I think that if FF continues to be successful there will come a time that filter
authors will be clamoring for the chance just to have their filters on this site.
I dont think that was what FF was doing in their business approach as they have this
incredible program and strategy that in my opinion is bound to succeed long term
as long as they do not mess it up.

I think there is mass opportunities awaiting us as long as FF succeeds, we Need
that huge user base in order to get jobs as filter authors or even just to sell
filters in the FF standard format.

I do not think it is a good idea to pressure FF to change the EULA. As I think that
would be one of the worst moves a business can make. Especially when it sounds like.."Look here is this great tool and you can do all these things with it!"
then a little while later..."No wait I changed my mind, here are new rules. And instead of just dealing with us i.e. FF, you will be dealing with many filter
authors to make sure your in legal compliance."

Now I know that this is not the "actual" situation but I can't say the same for the
casual observers that make up the rest of the population.



Consider the tone of this post delivered in a completely calm and reasoned voice.
Just my two cents.

Haha, you have an entertaining way with words jffe. And I agree with most of your points. Just to clarify one point I have no interest in selling presets in SL or anywhere else. I don't agree that a render is worth more than a filter in the right
hands that is, as a filter can create a huge number of variations. Unless your referring to the ones that are already in the free category.

I get notifications on a semi regular basis from my customers of people reselling my textures then we have to take some actions on it. However my views on human nature are not quite as dim and I have been pleasantly surprised at how many people are concerned
with doing things legally. However you are right that if they could that devoted percentage of people who do steal I am sure my computer would be gone if they could take it that way. Something that came to mind after my post above was that if we or those who sell filters start doing so. I would think they would become these big monsters as a filter is sort of a software purchase and I would think a buyer would
want as many controls and options in one filter for the perception of added value.

I doubt anyone needs to "go down with the ship" as that seems to me at least to be
an extreme characterization.
But on the subject of presets I was mildly surprised that no on suggested doing away with presets inclusion altogether. Yeah it seems like a silly option as a picture is worth a thousand words. However on the flip sideI would choose a unlimited filter
without presets everytime over one that had presets that I had to worry about being too close to. I think it is a bit silly to take a position against those that create
textures for sale, honestly that is. For texture sellers come and go but every single one of them will want FF as a tool. And there are many many of them. I think
it is a bad idea to alienate any section of the potential market that wants to honestly use the program. Especially as the full program seems a bit much for your
average or beginning graphics user.

Glad to see you are still lurking about here infiniview

Quote
infiniview wrote: On the subject of presets, clearly selling presets is less than worthy and Not in the spirit of the artistic community, however persecuting those who are doing so legally under the current EULA is a terrible thing to do. Terrible for those who thought they were doing nothing wrong and worse much much worse is the reputation that it gathers for FF as a business.

Like this site
(non-mod removed site link in hopes that others would do the same for the reputation of FF)

Quote

infiniview wrote: I do not think it is a good idea to pressure FF to change the EULA. As I think that would be one of the worst moves a business can make. Especially when it sounds like.."Look here is this great tool and you can do all these things with it!" then a little while later..."No wait I changed my mind, here are new rules. And instead of just dealing with us i.e. FF, you will be dealing with many filter authors to make sure your in legal compliance."

Could also get kinda sticky and confusing if there are two filters that are similar that both get used in the same texture pack...Then you get two people mailing a texture seller rather then one...But then what if the filter author that posted the second filter just changed the first filter slightly and submitted it...

I think alot of authors got "bent" without taking into consideration that there currently are no user restrictions on straight results.....

It all seems to boil down to the following two scenarios.....

1) Have no usage restrictions.....and continue the ongoing author trend to withhold texture filters because they don't want to just give their hard work to the "entreprenuers" who are waiting to make a quick and easy buck off of them.......or.....

2) Implement usage restictions on copying and reselling straight texture results.....end the texture famine.....and move forward upon quality texture filter submissions......

As I've stated a thousand time before.....the new EULA restrictions would set up FF to take future advantage of them that could benefit both FF and authors.....with an incetive program built upon author-created, royalty-based texture pack sales.....which would justify the restrictions to users and put a serious dent in resellers trying to get around the restrictions if those textures are already being sold here.....

No offense to resellers and I empathize with your self-interests in this matter.....but I don't think FF should cater to you at all. The advancement of program sales upon continuous author contributions of quality filters to those who want to use it in a creative capacity totally negates the loss of program sales (if any) to the relatively small percentage of texture resellers in comparison to it.....

A predominant percentage of users and potential customers most certainly would want this program advancing upon continuous submissions of new quality filters to be made available for creative use.....and not stagnating under a cloud where authors are not submitting any new quality texture filters because they don't want resellers to get their hands on them.....

To me, this should all be a "no-brainer" for FF......

Quote
Carl wrote: it does appear texture resellers are the one calling foul mostly

Yeah, the "restrictions will turn customers away" rationale seems to be a common thread with reseller opinion on this matter.....

I don't think resellers are getting the big picture here.....because without the restrictions of the new EULA, they aren't going to get very many new texture filters to use.....and that's not going to help FF either.....

The new Eula restrictions still aren't going to bring out the quality texture filters that FF wants.....because the incentives don't outweigh the pain of being vigilant and protecting them at reseller sites.....especially with many existing authors who no longer have any incentive to submit them at all..... I think this is what FF really needs to address by taking further advantage of these new EULA restrictions.....creating an incentive program that brings authors in, keeps them here, rejuvinates existing authors, diffuses the reseller problem, and justifies implementing the new EULA restrictions to the graphics market all at the same time.....and IMHO, there's only one "obvious" way to do that..... ***cough*** $$$ ***cough*** texture pack sales ***cough*** .....

Finally, in justifying the new EULA restrictions with a royalty-based texture pack program, I think it would play very well in the graphics market by portraying FF as a company who is putting their priorities on fostering and protecting their authors first.....as opposed to just being another typical company that acts in its' own self-interests with eyes just foussed on the $$$ bottom line. I think this would be much more beneficial to FF as a long-run approach as opposed to a "hand-to-mouth" short-run approach.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Spiral Graphics and Alien Skin could care less if anyone produces artwork and then sells it for their own gain.

No comparison to the symbiotic Author/FF relationship here.....and the potential of what FF can do with it.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: You should be screaming at FF instead of demonizing sellers of ready-to-use textures.

I'm not "demonizing" resellers.....I want FF to compete with them.....put an end to resellers using FF texture filters.....and take advantage of it to keep the $$$ and authors here.....

I don't think I could "scream" any louder at FF for this, eh???

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: You miss the point completely.

Oh, I do get your point and understand your pespective just fine, Fred.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: "High-End Plugin for Adobe Photoshop"

Exactly.....and having no restrictions on reselling straight texture results is clearly hurting the "High-End" part of it with an almost complete stagnation of quality texture filter submissions.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Nowhere does it say "some limitations may apply". Nowhere does it say that we really consider ourselves a specialized product for professional use only.

C'mon Fred, you know the new EULA restrictions haven't been implemented yet.....and will be changed to that affect.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: The point is that FF profits by having a big number of filters to give free access to in order to induce prospects to license the program.

That's not going to mean anything if FF doesn't put an end to this ongoing texture filter famine.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: They should have paid you for your work.

No, I think FF has done this right to get it off the ground from beta.....but with resellers now negatively affecting submissions, I think it's now time for a few changes.....and thinking a little bigger.....

Good day, Fred.....what have you got for me to argue against this morning??? LOL....

I don't think allowing authors to put restrictions on reselling straight texture results is going to negatively affect sales of this program at all.....in fact, I think it will improve sales with better quality texture submissions.....

I think FF can totally ignore any possible fear of "hindering" or "turning off" texture resellers because they are such a minuscule fraction of the customer base in comparison to the creative use customers.....who clearly want this program to come along with a continuous flow of new "high-end" quality texture filters.....which they are currently not getting because almost all of the skilled authors here are now withholding them to keep them out of the hands of resellers.....

I don't know if FF will ever expand into texture pack sales and create a royalty-based incentive program from it.....but I think they couln't be in a better position to take full advantage of it here.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I do not think they will provide any options for authors to allow or disallow within the program.

That's exactly what they plan to do.....I can't remember where, but Vlad clearly stated that the new EULA is going to allow authors the "option" of placing straight result copyright restictions in the filter description.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: It's very easy to point out one small group of which I am a member and say that we are the problem. Get rid of us and everything will be just fine.

One small group, of which are a member, are the problem. Get rid of you and everything will be just fine.

Hot damn, Fred, you were right - it was very easy and indeed, an accurate summation.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: My recollection is that FF will seek to narrowly define what can and cannot be done with their program. I do not think they will provide any options for authors to allow or disallow within the program. The question in my mind is whether or not they will forbid rendering and selling presets only or have it apply to the use of the entire program.

Still working the old disinformation trail, I see.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: My concern, and yes I do care also about the future of Filter Forge,

Yes, but not quite as much concern as for the future of Fred, I am thinking, haha.