"All your filter are belong to someone else!"

Let the parasite watch begin...

A kind person just informed me that one of my filters is being parasitically preyed upon. I guess that's what you get when you make things freely available, and we all know we've had it coming.

So, have a look...

[Removed by moderator]

The following line from that page is particularly indicative:

Quote
NOT FOR RESALE!!! Do not redistribute any of my textures as textures.

[My emphasis added]

That's nothing man. Stop looking for them now, or just get upset etc.

jffe

I'm perfectly at peace with some of the more deplorable - and inevitable - side effects that come with sharing one's work freely, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy this spirit of freely sharing creativity. However, the person probably does not realize that with their act they are harming the very software that they 'created' the texture with, a software they probably plan to use and make profit from in the future.

Now, I have no trouble with someone modifying my work in creative ways, but ripping it off unmodified and selling it as one's own work is at least questionable. Instead the person could have referred people to the FF website, so they could render out these textures themselves, and restrict her profiteering to filter works she created herself.

Well, that's just my take on it.

I like the term "parasite" -- I'll adopt it for further discussions

Literally a minute ago I finished the new additions to the Filter Forge EULA I was working on with our attorneys for some time. I am not a lawyer, so you shouldn't consider anything I post here as a legal advice (consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction for that). Here's what we added:

Quote

You may not distribute, unless otherwise provided herein or expressly permitted by the Licensor, images derived Using the Product or Filters (“Results”), unless such Results constitute a derivative work as provided above and are not a mere non-substantial modification of an image based on existing or slightly modified existing Filter in the Licensor’s Filter Library that you obtained by Using the Product. You hereby agree that the Licensor may, solely and at its own discretion, request that you cease any distribution of images that it may deem not in compliance with this section and such unauthorized distribution constitutes a copyright infringement. For avoidance of doubt, you may distribute, in the manner described above, the Results, provided that (i) such Results are not mere images that are derived based on minor modification of already existing Filters Using the Product (i.e. the Results shall not be solely based on existing Filters, which are included with the Product or obtained from the Filter Library) and your Results constitute substantially new images; or (ii) you are the author and copyright owner of the Filter(s) based on which you developed the Results Using the Product.

If we translate this from Legalese to Human, it goes roughly like this:

1. You can't take someone else's filter, use it to generate some images and sell them as your own work.

2. You can't take someone else's filter, add a couple of controls, claim the filter as your own, use it to generate some images and sell them as your own work.

3. If you're a filter author, you can sell images you made using your filters. Which means we're officially encouraging filter authors to make money off their work.

Any feedback is welcome -- we still have some time before this goes live.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: FF is a tool for artistic creation. I have absolutely no objection to someone using any of my filters in his creative work. In fact, being able to use great filters in one's own creations is the greatest strength of this tool. Seeing someone just copy-catting stuff without inputting their own creativity is what saddens me though.

Yeah, that case is sad, I agree, but then again there is another perspective to this (again think of this in a hypothetical level): you created a filter so good that no further postprocessing in the seller/users view were necessary (though I think his motivations for not adding more creativity here, is totally differently founded).
What I mean to get at, is that there are many different types of filters, some generate more than they "filter" and visaversa, some have many controls, allowing the user to change things, some doesn't. There are many "parameters" in this ethical discussion I think.

Yes, very important. Please clarify. Specifically, this one: You can't take someone else's filter, use it to generate some images and sell them as your own work That's quite a wide-open statement.

So I can't make anything at all using any ff filter (or multiple) on it and then claim it as my own? Or are you saying that I can't use library filters here to create simple textures to call my own? My favorite thing to do is "filter" filters and/or combine several together. Does this constitute a major modification?

How altered do they need to be? What about effect/photo filters? Those are very different and If I use one on an existing photo or image that I own, I can't still claim that image as mine?

I am not a "parasite" but I do use FF for commercial purposes. However, I like to think that using filter forge makes my own original and unique items even more unique but this changes everything.

Edit: As I was posting this, there were some replies but even the legalese is a little fuzzy.

Okay. This is the main and most important statement that raises all of the same questions I had above.

You may not distribute, unless otherwise provided herein or expressly permitted by the Licensor, images derived Using the Product or Filters (“Results”), unless such Results constitute a derivative work as provided above


I'm not trying to be a stitch but this is very important and to avoid any copyright issues, I need it to be extremely clear. I guess I need to know what "derivative work as provided above" means, as well.

Quote
Nikki wrote: How altered do they need to be? What about effect/photo filters? Those are very different and If I use one on an existing photo or image that I own, I can't still claim that image as mine?

That depends on the proportion of your content versus the generated content -- for example, consider a case where you use Crapadilla's Sands of Time on your photo, and the parts that stick out of the sand comprise about 3.5% of the image.

The biggest problem with all this is that we can't strictly define what a 'blatant copying' is. What if I generated the texture, sharpened it, adjusted Levels, and saturated it a bit? To the common sense, this is copycatting, but technically it is not, since changes were made to the image. This is why we had to use phrases like 'non-substantial modification'.

Also, for clarification of what the distribution means, I'm considering adding something like this:

Quote

Said distribution includes, without limitation, selling the Results as a part of any clip art, stock image or texture collection; offering the Results for sale on any stock image websites such as istockphoto.com, shutterstock.com, gettyimages.com and corbis.com, whether royalty-free, rights-managed or otherwise; making the Results available, commercially or otherwise, on physical media such as CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, Blue-Ray disks, floppy disks, and hard disks; making the Results available for download on any website as a part of a clip art, image or texture collection or in any other way, whether free or paid; making the Results available for download on peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent, eDonkey or Gnutella.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: NOT FOR RESALE!!! Do not redistribute any of my textures as textures. [My emphasis added]

Dilla, according to our Upload License, YOU are the copyright holder, and the copycat has just blatantly claimed ownership. I am not a lawyer, but I believe you can DMCA the hell out of them.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Sphinxmorpher, key rule -- don't base your conclusions on someone's interpretations, go for the source (legalese). I meant that you can't sell images you 'blatantly generated' using someone else's filter with no creative input on your part. Anyway, check the legalese version of the text.

Sorry, it was the legal text I was referring to, not the human interpretation you made (that one was understood first time )

As you later state,

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote:The biggest problem with all this is that we can't strictly define what a 'blatant copying' is.

- this is what I was trying to get at. The big problem as I see it, is that there are two types of filters, those that are meant (and mostly conceived) as a piece of "dynamic" artwork (in common sense) made by an artist, and then there are filters that aid the user to achieve some goal, and which as such is not conceived (neither by author or user) as a piece of artwork, but rather a tool or filter in more common sense.

As I read the current license (with your new addition), it favours the first type legally, which I think would be very sad (I'd really like to use some of these excellent filters in a commercial production context), but as I stated I'm unsure what it really says, and thats why I'm asking you ('you' as an FF representant).

Its not because I want to defend that parasite guy (there's really no question about his deed, its not right or fair): I'm worried about the legal consequences in a more creative context - Things really become unclear when you have to do aesthetic guesses and originality estimations each time you use an FF filter you didn't make (i.e. non-substantial is somewhat ambiguous as a legal term).

While you could be perfectly satisfied with a result, you might worry that it "looks" to much like the presets or looks to much like the direct filtering result.
Its not healthy for your creativity to think this way, and you might end up ruin something very nice, just because it "looked" too much like the filter (or its presets). And adding to that: is the purpose of FF filters really only to make intermediate states of image processing - unless your FF processing chain involves one of your own filters, all filters can stepwise be said to extend on the previous and thereby in each step a specific filter becomes identifiable.

If you ask me, the filter authour should be given two choices of license type in the submit dialog - one meant for these more art like filters, which limits the end users legal freedom (e.g. he can't just render a given realisation of this piece of art and sell it), and one less restrictive which gives more or less full freedom (not even restrictions in regard to how many percent is original and so on).

Thing is that there *seem* to be 3 types of filter makers in here - those that strictly percieve themselves as artists and their filters as the art, and those that don't really care, and then the third type (like my self), that for some filters would like to prevent people from ripping it off or sell results from it I.e. the restrictive license), but for other filters would like to give nearly full freedom to the enduser (i.e. the non restrictive license).

Sphinx, if I understand you correctly, you're talking about the Effect-type filters, filters that modify existing image -- am I correct?

As a note, the main target for these additions are texture-type filters -- they constitute the vast majority of parasitic sales (actually, 100% of them currently). There's no profit in selling filtered photos of your dog, but there is profit in selling textures.

(Offtopic -- Dilla, please check the email account that you used to talk with me about freepacks, I sent you an email.)

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Sphinx, if I understand you correctly, you're talking about the Effect-type filters, filters that modify existing image -- am I correct?

Right, but essentially for the problem I outline, the filter type doesn't really matter (read on)

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: As a note, the main target for these additions are texture-type filters -- they constitute the vast majority of parasitic sales (actually, 100% of them currently). There's no profit in selling filtered photos of your dog, but there is profit in selling textures.

Right, but there is also other commercial contexts - I'm talking about doing artwork for cd's, posters, websites or whatever, i.e. involving things produced via FF in a normal commercial creative context.

If I don't postprocess Crapadilla's "Swiss Cheese" beyond recognition in my next hypothetical poster order, I can't use it, because I get paid to make it and it will be selled as "my creation"; it could be a swiss cheese skin for some bulletin board - the filter will be easily recognizable, and could potentially run on several sites.
It could be a themed collection of photographies sold on IStock or similar sites, where the theme is based on some FF filter I didn't write etc.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the consequences of the license, but I don't see the difference (in the license) in selling "FF results" as texture packages or sell it to clients in an artwork context (be it online or in real world), which I'd very much like to be able to do. Currently it all comes down to what is a non-sustantial modification or derivate and what is not, so I'd constantly have to worry about the result being original enough, and not what really should be in my mind "Am I satisified with this, does it complete my task etc".

Quote
Nikki wrote: Would this be considered unacceptable for sale?

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: I personally think that the example you showed is definitely a 'substantial modification' and therefore is fully acceptable for sale. I think everyone here will agree with me.

I concur with Vlad's assessment. In my book, the work clearly is an example of creative use of FF, as it should be.

well, when you state it like that, it "seems" clear, but what if my job were to provide something for a larger production - lets stick to the cheese - I sell them something that only slightly vary from the presets, because this is what they want, which then will be used creatively.. In that case I think we're getting close to the present case.

So what does this tell us? - The better a filter is at getting the job done, the less chance there is its legal for you to use it in commercial contexts like the above.

Now there is on clear difference in my example here and the parasite - he is obviously not selling the textures because of a specific request.. he is just trying to make money - shooting in the dark and hoping to hit.

Yeah, probably.. but it seems its all in the detail, here's a quote from the wikipedia page (second block qoute):

Quote
Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself

If I am hired to make portions for a larger production, could very well be textures, and I find good filters and presets in the lib (of which there are alot), which I'd like to use, and moreover if these are extremely good at doing what I need to do, I might not need to tweak anything (heck there might even be a preset that does it exactly), but I am forced to change it substantially (and conceptually..because it would be too easy just hitting randomize with low randomization) in order not to violate the license..

Take my Fiber Image filter.. the output will always have its distinct look no matter which image you run through it.. would it be substantial enough just to run your own image through it? I'd say yes, but its very clear that this filter is used no matter what image you give it - here the problem is that it is the filter that creates substantial change

Quote
Sphinxmorpher wrote: If I am hired to make portions for a larger production, could very well be textures,

If I'm working as a sound designer, and my job is to make a soundscape for a game, using sounds from stock libraries doesn't make me their author. It can be said that in this case I'm paid for selecting the sounds and mixing them when necessary, which I think is perfectly fine.

Quote

Sphinxmorpher wrote: If I am hired to make portions for a larger production, could very well be textures, and I find good filters and presets in the lib (of which there are alot), which I'd like to use, and moreover if these are extremely good at doing what I need to do, I might not need to tweak anything (heck there might even be a preset that does it exactly), but I am forced to change it substantially (and conceptually..because it would be too easy just hitting randomize with low randomization) in order not to violate the license..

See, using filters as a part of other work is their intended use.

Rendering out an image from a filter and then reselling it as your own image is not exactly the intended use.

I bet it would be a lot less upsetting if the vendors presented the images in this fashion: Images are created with Filter Forge, filters (fill in the blanks). I rendered out a dozen variations of them, and packaged them up for your convenience (people whom don't want to mess with FF or don't have time or whatever reason), and are asking 5 bucks per package of textures to cover my expenses of purchasing the program and taking the time to render images (as opposed to rendering a bunch with the demo). Something to that effect.

----It doesn't matter about EULA's or copyrights. Unless FF is providing a lawyer on retainer for each filter maker, then it's up to that person to take action if they see there work being used in a way they don't like it. In other words, get paid before the world gets it's hands on your (creation), or yer screwed and it's too late to make anything off of it. You can have all the gibberish in the world written in a software installer, or on a webpage, but that doesn't do anything to stop anyone. Heck that doesn't even stop the few people who actually buy the software, do ya really think some warez user or someone with the demo for 60 days is gonna respect something that limits their ability to leech ?
----Ya'll can have discussions about it all day, but someone needs to just tell ya, that unless 1) someone gets your filter unaltered in a Coke ad or some major national thing, an album cover for Justin Timberlake, something BIG like one of those or 2) you are a retired millionaire who just likes starting lawsuits every week, then you will not ever need to worry about the legal aspect of the filter graphics. Do whatever you want, and just know, you are being ripped off by 1,000 others just like yourself only lazier. It's really just a moot point because you can't afford a lawyer to chase down some moron who maybe made $2,000 last year selling your filter renders.
----As far as anything less than a simple preset render, that'd be up to your client as to how "custom" it needed to be, but like someone said, as nice as some of the filters are, once they've been used and seen in the magazines or on tv, then they are pretty much devalued and useless in that sense.

jffe

ok, i dont get it. this sounds like you're going to be shooting yourself in the foot here, vladimir. the reason someone downloads a given filter is because they CAN (or used to) be able to create/produce the exact effect they saw in the library, which was the inspiration for downloading in the first place. now, (from what i can read and understand so far), they wouldnt be able to use that exact look without some sort of permission. that seems quite odd to me. if i want a texture like that peeled paint panel texture and i want that exact look for my 3d model or game model or whatever, i would now either have to 'substantially' mod it or get a permission from someone.

and, since WE, the filter authors hold the copyrights, and not FF, how are they going to contact john doe filter author to get his permission? or, do you, FF, act for the filter author in these cases?

frankly, i think you're going to get so tangled up in legal crap as to, as i said before, shoot yourself in the foot here.

the way i read the present EULA was that we author a filter. if we submit it to the library we are licensing this filter for essentially free use through the facilities of FF with no restrictions to the end user thereof. but, we, the authors still hold the coypright and that we can, at our discretion, ask to have the filter pulled from the library and that FF would do this, but maintain an archival copy, if FF wished to.

you have two BIG problems if you now change this to according to the above. 1. you will get tangled in the courts and disputes and all sorts of headaches, i would think. and two, you have 4,000 filters that are grandfathered under the earlier licensing. that earlier licensing will still obtain to those filters regardless of changes made in the present or future.

one of the incredible strengths of FF is the ability to not have to go around asking permissions any time one produces something with it. and one of the incredible weaknesses is that same thing as we're now starting to see. in other words, i LOVE that i dont have to ask permission every time i create a derivative work from someone else's filter! and, i HATE that some parasite would blatantly just take someone's filter and copy off all the presets and derivations and sell them without a single word of credit to the author or to FF.

somewhere in there is a difference. how you word that difference in legalese is beyond my ken. how do you differentiate someone using an FF texture in a 3d model and selling that model from someone just blatantly ripping off the texture and selling it as their own?

ah, i think it's beginning to dawn on me... the difference i just cited is that the model maker is using the texture ON something. the copycat is simply selling the texture. that legalese statement you posted doesnt take that into consideration... that i can currently see, anyways. i wouldnt mind anyone USING MY TEXTURE AS APPLIED ON SOMETHING, but just selling the texture itself, outright, without any permission, seems to be the real crime here. but, i dont see that in the proposed license change. but then, i'm horrible at reading legalese.

and i'm sorry if i've mis-read something again. i do hate pissing you off with my stupid questions and assumptions and other inanities. so, if i've mis-read this either in the technicality or the intent, please, let me know.

I think "Applying the texture to something" (3D model, or a layer in a photoshop or similar layout) in order to create something else with it, would be derivative work, or a significant modification.

Think about it in terms ow work involved to create the finished product.
If someone is using your textuyre as one of 25 others in an ewlaborate 3d project that took months to make, then most of the work was done by the author of the model, or the final product. The filter would deserve a mention in production credits, I suppose. Something to that effect.

Similar if someone used it in making a graphics piece of some sort. Artwork, illustration or similar... most of the work is done by the author of the illustration, and minor amount of the work in that particular illustration would belong to the filter. Again, mention in production credits type of thing.

Now consider this scenario: Someone takes a demo version of Filter Forge, downloads 25 filters, renders them out, puts them up for sale as their own copyrighted work without any additional modification or their own creativity (asside from trying to sell them). In this case, it's the filter creator and Filter Forge that did most of the work. (Transfer of copyrights by attrition... LOL, I don't think so!)

I think it's this last case that would be good to make against terms of use... or make them purchase filters at a higher price (reseller type use license) if they want to redistribute images created in this manners.

If they make their own filters, and render out the images and put them up for sale, they should certainly be able do do that.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: you can't sell images you 'blatantly generated' using someone else's filter with no creative input on your part

That about sums it up.....

Dilla, did you do something??? .....because they yanked that pretty quick today.....