Upcoming EULA changes, round 3

We've just finished a revised version of the proposed changes to the Filter Forge End User License Agreement (EULA) designed to prevent non-creative texture selling. For earlier discussion, see Round Two.

Quote

4. Distribution of Results. 4.1. Definitions. "Result" means an image produced Using the Product or Filters. "Insubstantially Modified Image" means an image on which any combination of the following manipulations have been performed, whether selectively on one or more pixels or uniformly across all pixels: (i) upsampling, upsizing, increasing pixel size, downsampling, downsizing, decreasing pixel size, (ii) orthogonal rotation in any direction, 90-degree rotation in any direction, 180-degree rotation in any direction, horizontal flip, vertical flip, horizontal mirroring, vertical mirroring, (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, (iv) hue adjustment, saturation adjustment, color balance adjustment, (v) sharpen, sharpening, unsharp mask, blur, blurring, Gaussian blur, motion blur, box blur, lens blur, smart blur, edge-preserving blur, noise removal, de-noising, scratch removal, blemish removal, dust removal, (vi) any offset operation where pixels that are pushed beyond an image edge are 'wrapped' back on the opposite image edge, (vii) crop, cropping, trim, trimming, (viii) conversion to indexed color mode, conversion to 8-bit channel bit depth, conversion to 16-bit channel bit depth, conversion to 32-bit channel bit depth, conversion to any kind of RGB channel mode, conversion to any kind of RGBA channel mode, conversion to any kind of CMYK channel mode, (ix) saving or re-saving as any image file format, (x) addition of any frame, border or outline. "Insubstantially Modified Filter" means a Filter to which any of the following changes have been made, whether by using any tool(s) for filter editing included with the Product or by changing the source code of the Filter in any other way: (i) changing any textual information within the Filter such as filter name or description, (ii) changing the Filter in any way that does not affect its output image, (iii) changing the Filter in such a way as to make it perform on its output image or any part thereof any combination of manipulations described above in the section "Insubstantially Modified Image", (iv) changing any anti-aliasing settings pertaining to the Filter's output image. "Secondary Result" means a Result which is based on an unmodified or Insubstantially Modified Image originally generated using an unmodified or Insubstantially Modified Filter originally obtained from the Licensor’s Filter Library or included with the Product. 4.2. Distribution Restrictions. Unless otherwise provided herein or expressly permitted by the Licensor, you may not (i) offer Secondary Result(s) for sale on any website, including but not limited to, istockphoto.com, shutterstock.com, gettyimages.com, corbis.com, turbosquid.com and renderosity.com; (ii) offer Secondary Result(s) for sale on any physical media, including but not limited to, CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, Blue-Ray disks, floppy disks, hard drives, flash drives, solid-state drives and memory cards; (iii) make Secondary Result(s) available for free download on any website; (iv) make Secondary Result(s) available for free download on any peer-to-peer file sharing network, including but not limited to, BitTorrent, eDonkey or Gnutella. You hereby agree that the Licensor may, solely and at its own discretion, request that you cease any such distribution of any Secondary Result(s) that it may deem not in compliance with this section. 4.3. Exceptions. The distribution restrictions defined in the section 4.2. shall not apply to you and your Secondary Result(s) if (i) you are the author and copyright owner of the Filter(s) based on which you developed the Secondary Result(s), or (ii) you obtained an express written permission from the author and copyright owner of the Filter(s) based on which you developed the Secondary Result(s) to distribute the Secondary Result(s) in the manner described in the section 4.2 or (iii) all Filters based on which you developed the Secondary Result(s) are so-called "effect filters" which derive their output image from a user-provided input image ("Source Image") as opposed to generating their output image solely by algorithmic means, and a Source Image is recognizable in each such Secondary Result and constitutes a substantial part of the Secondary Result.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: "Secondary Result" means a Result which is based on an unmodified or Insubstantially Modified Image originally generated using an unmodified or Insubstantially Modified Filter originally obtained from the Licensor’s Filter Library or included with the Product.

I think the "Insubstantially Modified" part is going to be the next question.....because "resellers" are going to pursue "quick mods" as the next easiest thing to do.....

lol, 2007 posts

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Steve, did you read 4.1. Definitions?

Yes I did.....and it covers it well.....but I guess as an author, I know how easily someone could get around it.....

Maybe if someone is willing to learn how to get around it.....then they might put that knowledge into creative efforts instead.....

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: "Insubstantially Modified Image" means an image on which any combination of the following manipulations have been performed, whether selectively on one or more pixels or uniformly across all pixels: .....

Now we´re getting somewhere! I would suggest two things that immediately come to mind - add "bluring/softening" to the restrictions, since you have "sharpening"; also a more easy display of the restrictions. Something like:

"Insubstantially Modified Image" means an image on which any combination of the following manipulations have been performed, whether selectively on one or more pixels or uniformly across all pixels:

- upsampling, upsizing, increasing pixel size, downsampling, downsizing, decreasing pixel size

- orthogonal rotation, 90-degree rotation horizontal flip, vertical flip, horizontal mirroring, vertical mirroring


I really think that this way you´ll decrease the number of people saying "Well, there are so many, I might have missed that one". Visually, it becomes easier to read imo.

Fixed. Would have caught it anyway during proofreading.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Fixed. Would have caught it anyway during proofreading.

Sometimes I just catch these then they bug me for some reason..Even when its not a final...

Watermarking and/or placing one's own signature or a logo on an image should not constitute a substantial change. Perhaps a simple border too (but I think that one may be a bit hard to quantify)

Just remembered... Photoshop has also a "Texturizer" filter, which is basically adding a bump map to the image...

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: (ii) changing the Filter in any way that does not affect its output image

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: we're trying to target sellers who want to circumvent the EULA with minimal effort while preserving the texture look.

I retract what I was saying.....I think that how you have it is about as far as you can go with it without splitting hairs on 'how much constitutes substantial modifications???'.....

If I was trying to get around these proposed restrictions in the easiest and quickest way possible to acheive an appearance of "substantially modified", I would.....

1) Run presets through another plugin effect beyond the basics mentioned.....

2) modify component control parameters.....

3) add to and/or simplify component structure.....

4) quick-splice another FF effect into it beyond the basics mentioned......

Like I said, I think these things might be going too far with it.....and could be considered to be in the realm of "substantial modifications".....

i give. way too complex.

and, what if we dont mind offering our presets and 'insubstantial textures' or whatever away to re-sellers?

i'm sorry, but this whole thing has gotten down to a nit-picking exercise to exclude a group of folks who are potential buyers of FF. so, i dont quite follow the logic in trying to exclude them here.

the major objection, from what i've read in these forums, to the re-selling, is the fact that some re-sellers were claiming copyrights of another person's derivative works. it doesnt seem to be so much that they were making a profit off of re-selling but that authors were offended, and rightfully so, that someone else was claiming credit. now, the funny point of that is, is that you dont have to change the Eula. the re-seller is already in violation of the law. he/she wasnt in violation for re-selling, but for claiming copyright ownership of a derivative work of someone else. all anyone had to do was point this out to the offending person and/or site and ask that the copyright claim be removed.

i've tried to point this out in earlier posts, that someone using your filter to make or alter an image is NOT the copyright holder. they are the license holder. YOU, the author are still the copyright holder to that derivative work. therefore, they cannot claim copyright to any work derived from any filter UNLESS they made the filter. in the case where they altered another filter, well, that's a gray area to me and it may or may not be the case that the original author still holds the copyright to that derivative work also. that shld be found out per the actual copyright laws.

and, if that is the major objection, then all you have to do with the eula is to add one line saying something like derivative works may not be claimed as copyrightable by end-users. since that is the law already, you wont even have to worry about grandfathering and all that. the library can just keep going on like it is. and do remember that there is a clause stating that users are not required to show copyrights of others. but, if you add that they, the users cant claim copyrights, then that is really nothing more than a reminder of law.

but, if that isnt the major objection or if it is and there are more objections, like, some authors are objecting to the fact that some re-sellers are not 'doing anything creative', then i think that is just silly. i mean, i really cant see amending the Eula to read something like 'oh, and you must do something creative yourself before you can render anything out and sell it.'. that's just an absurdity.

and, if the real bottom line is that someone is making money off your work and you're not, then why did you put it in a public library? ok, i know i've beat that one to death and we're trying to find fixes here, so, let me put it this way. authors are not going to make a nickel more by limiting the re-sellers. they are only knocking out the re-selling. remember, i'm only talking here about the bottom line being money. so, if authors want to make money on their filters where is the fix in the Eula for that? yes, the fixes seem to be directed at some others not making money, but what are the authors gaining monetarily in the current proposed Eula fixes?

see, all this doesnt really add up to me. FF is trying to shoot itself in the foot by knocking out some re-sellers, but authors arent going to gain anything from it, not monetarily and not even in credit or fame or acknowledgement. so, the whole current scheme of changes makes little sense to me. authors can already stop re-sellers from claiming copyrights. that is the law in the U.S. go read the copyright laws on 'derivative works', and authors arent going to gain anything by stopping re-sellers from selling textures. so, why are authors grousing on this?

folks, if you made a filter, ANYTHING that comes out of that filter is covered by copyright laws as a derivative work. period!; the presets, the renderings, everything! and FF in no way is trying to cheat you out of your copyrights. heck, had FF wanted to, they could have claimed copyright of ALL filters, since those are derivative of the product/program. and trust me, we went through some of those arguements back in beta testing and vlad was VERY clear about making sure we, the authors, had those rights.

so, i'm at a loss here. what do authors feel like they are losing here that they are trying to protect or get back? control? money? fame? what is it? define what it is the current Eula is keeping you from having when you upload a filter to the FF library. and from there, you can then define your new Eula if you really think you need one.

you folks shld also know that there is such a thing as a 'plain english contract'. they do exist and they do stand up in a court of law. i know; i've signed one and sued before and won my case. it was little more than a simple, plain contract on a ratty piece of paper.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: folks, if you made a filter, ANYTHING that comes out of that filter is covered by copyright laws as a derivative work. period!;

Uhmmm... If I make a photo camera and sell it to people, I own copyrights for any photo they make? And these photos are 'derivative works' based on my camera?

Quote
Kraellin wrote: FF in no way is trying to cheat you out of your copyrights. heck, had FF wanted to, they could have claimed copyright of ALL filters

Youtube and the majority of MMOGs (except Second Life) do exactly that. I specifically made sure that FF doesn't claim copyrights in filters.

Also the ones who buy textures from these people end up hurt when they find out that they never needed to pay for the presets and that the seller did nothing more than right click and save.

http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?...c3e25f1070

He has a package with my Vinyl Upholstry and Crapidilla's Lounge lizard. Looks like he only used our presets. Still waiting for Renderosity to accept my presets to the freebie area, but I somehow doubt they want to lose that money they are making off of them.

With author installed controls [ which could be on any component ] but say the brick component as an example [ as it is not covered ] it could have a one increment movement to a slider control which visualy would not change the final result but is outside of the restricted alterations for insubstantial modifications, so what I'm suggesting is to add a clause in reference to a need of at least 2% or 5% [ or whatever percentage ] deviation on any given author supplied control on any factory set preset.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Kraellin, Copyright is a collective term for a bundle of rights to a product, information or intellectual property. Theese rights include, and are not limited to: Transfer, licensing, distribution, yes, creating derivative works can also be restricted under copyright bundle of rights etc.

sorry, but that statement is incorrect. copyright is copyright. licensing is an entirely different animal. you can license a copyright. you can transfer a copyright, but they are NOT the same things.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Quote Kraellin wrote: authors can already stop re-sellers from claiming copyrights. Actually, that is not the case. Authors have attempted, but the response was that the current EULA licensing (you kow, the part of bundle of rights collectively called Copyrights), allows this.

no, actually that is not true. but, i'll amend my statement to be more clear. authors can already request that re-sellers, or anyone else, stop claiming copyrights on presets and filters. and no, the eula does not authorize others from claiming the copyrights of others. it simply says that others dont have to display the copyright notices of authors. authors do still hold the copyrights to their filters. and, from what i can read of 'derivitive works' in the u.s. copyright law, they also hold copyrights to any presets within the filters an author creates, since said preset exists in a tangible form already. thus, anyone claiming copyright of someone else's preset is in violation of u.s. copyright law. but, they are NOT in violation of using those presets freely, just so long as they dont claim the copyright.

what is in question, at least in my mind, is if ALL works created by a filter are 'derivative works' of a given filter and thus also entitled to copyright claim by the original author of a filter.

Quote

Conniekat8 wrote: Merely saying "I claim copyright" is more of a slang term, and it can really mean a number of different things, as I mentioned earlier. In this thread when people mentioned that certain merchants are 'claiming copyright' they referred to the statement that merchants signed that the submitted product was their own work. It is important that one doesn't take that statememnt out of context.

well, it may be a 'slang term' to you, but i'm fairly certain a lawyer and a court of law won't see it as slang. and the problem is that some few merchants were claiming actual, legal copyright of copies of presets of filters not authored by that merchant. see, let's make this very, very clear. a 'license agreement' is not a 'copyright' and some folks seem to be confusing the two. if a merchant is claiming copyright on something that he didnt author, then he is in violation of law. if he is claiming right to publish under licensing, that's a different matter. if a merchant is claiming copyright for something someone else created, he is violation of copyright and the true author has the right to require that merchant to remove the claim of copyright, implied (as in the case where a merchant posts on a site that requires images to be posted ONLY if said poster is the author and copyright holder) or stated. the author, depending on the licensing, may or may not require said merchant to remove the acutal copy of the preset. it's a very big difference and folks shld understand this.

also, i'd be very, very careful about quoting law from a wiki page. wiki pages are highly editable by just about anyone in some cases. and do you really want to trust 'john doe', wiki writer, to your legal advice? i'd MUCH prefer to cite law off the copyright site. and, it's the same with anyone trusting ME as their legal authority. you shldnt do it. i'm stating how i think things are, but i could well be wrong.

If I am correct and please someone correct me if I am wrong..I know you will
There are different things that you can copyright not only bundled things..But also individual copyrights...Just like music...You can copyright a song, the lyrics or the entire album that it is on.......

So if I have a song and someone else wrote the lyrics..I have to include their name on the copyright for that song..Unless their was an agreement between myself and the person whom wrote the lyrics...Or unless it was a group collective under which the copyright was assigned...

If you have a picture CD that you want to make and sell..You cannot put images on that cd that belong to someone else without first securing the rights to be able to distribute those images...

Just a couple of senerios...

Quote
Kraellin wrote: also, i'd be very, very careful about quoting law from a wiki page. wiki pages are highly editable by just about anyone in some cases. and do you really want to trust 'john doe', wiki writer, to your legal advice?

Actually what I read there matches what I have to deal with at work a lot more then what you are saying here, so you'll have to forgive me if I take that write-up as closer to the truth then what you're explaining.

See, I have to deal with copyrights at work, so I know a tad about them. Enough to know whether to buy into your opinions or not. Contrary to what you're trying to make it look like, I didn't just learn basics about copyrights yesterday, from wikipedia.

What exactly are your qualifications to be offering legal interpretations on copyrights anyway?

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: See, I have to deal with copyrights at work, so I know a tad about them. Enough to know whether to buy into your opinions or not.

connie, dont buy my opinions at all, but you might want to look at the actual law as opposed to a wiki page, which at best, is also just an opinion.

as for my legal credentials, nada, nothing, zip and i've pointed that out several times. do NOT take anything i post as legal and binding. and this is part of the rather extensive copyright problem i see in a number of places on the internet; folks are reading other's opinions and taking that for the law. the only law is the law. but, DO go to the u.s. government copyright site and read what's there. that IS the law. i can read... sometimes even correctly and what i posted in that last post in the first quotes was directly off the u.s. copyright site. so, read it yourself and you decide what it means to you. do not take my opinions as gospel, but for that same reason you might want to consult the actual law as opposed to a wiki page.

and steve, yes, i've noticed. i'm also not submitting much till this is all sorted out. i'm not a big texture contributor, so no big loss there, but it seems to me that we're getting mostly new folk's filters and not a lot of vet filters since this all started.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Has anyone else, besides me, noticed the negetive effects that the current unrestricted EULA has been having on quality texture authors and their submissions since this recent wave of "resellers" has been discovered to be taking advantage of it???

I've noticed that too! Strange, isn't it?

Craig, welcome to the "Dark Side" of the force.....

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: I've noticed that too! Strange, isn't it?

Yes it is.....I can't understand it..... ......

Quote
CFandM wrote: Not me, this is the time to submit all 300 of my texture filters....I can catch up with vold.... j/k

Well, hurry it up, I need some new textures I can sell, and I don't feel like making them myself!

here, you can go comparing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...yright_law
and
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

more specifically this part:
Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and

In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Proposed EULA Formula:

+ New texture filters submitted AFTER proposed EULA in place.....
+ Authors use FF to market themselves and their filters.....
+ Authors and their filters get exposure.....
+ Authors get hired by employers like Fred (Sign Guy).....
+ People buy author's copyrights to copy and resell texture preset paks.....
+ Quality of submitted texture filters increases.....
_________________________________________________

= Increased profits for both FF and its' authors.....