Upcoming EULA changes, round two

About the

Vlad, good call!!! ....which I think will continue to payoff over the long run with quality authors and filters as the driving force to the success of this program.....

Quote
ahimsa wrote: I was beginning to feel invisible

I am invisable.....I'm not really here.....I'm retired.....

Quote

ahimsa wrote: Thanks Craig, I was beginning to feel invisible I'm sure there must be some way that the author of the filter could render out the presets while making the presets unrenderable to the user. Since we keep the original filters in our My Filter folder the presets would remain useable while each filter submitted maybe have a little something added so that the presets come up with a watermark, but altered pieces can be rendered. Something that can't be tampered with.

there are several ways to add watermarks and still let the author use their original version in the my filters folder to not have the watermark. but remember, a filter is just a text file. text files are very easily editable. any lock made by man can be picked by another man.

and you've still got the problem of presets versus rendered texture by users. all of these are 'derivative works'.

and, there is another part of one of the Eulas that talks about users not having to display copyright notices. i would think that also implies putting in anything which designates or implies a copyright being held, like a watermark. so, that part of the Eula would have to be amended also.

tricky business, isnt it

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: ...My point was, I don't want to be put in a position to have to defend myself...

That´s exactly what I´m afraid of, as well, but in a different context. I actually made a texture filter of a metal wall, that I haven´t shared in the library, since I plan to sell the renders as stock. Although I did make it myself from scratch (it´s a lot more fun this way), I found that there are at least 2 filters already made that look similar to my own. Now there is nothing stopping people from seeing my textures and saying "Hmmm... that looks a lot like so and so filter. This guy is a thief!" So I am put in a position that I have to defend myself when I really should not have to! Not to mention offended.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: That's exactly why I'm discussing this publicly, instead of doing ninja-updates to the EULA

LOL

Quote
ahimsa wrote: If the presets were watermarked it would solve the problem of people harvesting presets to sell and make them have to actually use the program. Just a thought.

Actually, this sounds like the best solution so far, for the people that are concerned with presets. And I don´t think it should be hard to do (code wise).

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: I have 22 years of graphics experience, and have seen many many copyright related squabbles of various shapes and forms.

I guess I´m lucky then, I have only seen a few. But I was addressing more to this case - filter use.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Perhaps because some people don't consider you or the sign guy etc to be the experts, or to be able to speak on behalf of Filter Forge, or qualified to interpret legal statements?

Actually I was talking more about Kraellin and Rawn´s explanations, that have been right on the money. But I don´t think that at any point any of us claimed to be experts. It´s just that some people here don´t seem to understand the legalese very well, others do. Then again, I´m the kind of guy that reads the manual of a toaster! Even though I know how it works, I still like to read about it. (I know, I know... I´m a total Geek!)

If someone feels that their questions or concerns are not being answered in a satisfactory manner, then the answer is simple: contact FF support and ask. I did! Actually they are really quick about it too.

Perhaps what we need here is indeed an official response by FF, or better yet, to have a thread specifically to answer questions and doubts about the present EULAS and the future changes. Something along the lines - EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO ASK VLADIMIR, BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK. It just really feels that we are going around in circles when it comes to certain points, and imo it delays progress of what it´s been trying to get accomplished. Specially when we get new people joining in and they start reading statements that go both ways.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: If one out of twenty or one out of hundred textures I plan to sell are maybe going to be close to presets, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned. I'd look at it and go, ah, well, I don't use presets, so this doesn't apply to me, and move on.

Quote
ahimsa wrote: My thoughts are, that textures made by the user using our filters should belong to the user, but that the presets that the filter makers make should not be sold by people claiming they made them and hold the copyrights when they did nothing to create the presets except hit "save as".

These two statements go to the heart of another concern I have. There are so many filters that have a very distinct look to them, and no matter how many controls you hit, they are still recognizable!

Ahimsa, let´s say that I use your filter "Vinyl Diamond Tuck" for texture stock. I don´t use your presets, slide the controls until I meet images that I like. Can you honestly say that if I used your preset or not? In the cases mentioned on the "infamous thread" the advertisement images seem rather smallish to tell, and when images are reduced like that, some details become blured. This seems confusing to solve.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i'm no lawyer, but i'm pretty sure you cant make the revised Eula retroactive to the existing filters covered under the original Eula. so, those filters are going to be mixed in with each other in the same library? that would be more confusing, i think, than the current Eula's are.

Vladimir as already said that the new changes probably won´t be retroactive. I never thought they would be because of the grandfather clause. But to have new filters that fall under the new EULA mixed with the previous filters would in fact be very confusing, and would probably cause unnecessary trouble to the unsuspecting user. This is one of the reasons why I agree with a dual library.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: but remember, a filter is just a text file. text files are very easily editable.

This is also very true.

Quote
ahimsa wrote: If your result comes out 100% like my preset then you would have had to choose all the exact colors as me...not an easy thing to do

I see your point! LOL That would have to be a LOT of unlikely coincidence! I honestly don´t recall the advertisement images, only that I could not tell if they were changed from presets. And they were quite a few cds full of different renders...

Quote
ahimsa wrote: I give my presets away so if people are paying someone for them then they are the ones being harmed, not me.

I get your reasoning behind this, yet I see things differently on this one. A person that would need only your "Vinyl Diamond Tuck" look, is more likely to buy a collection of these images, or just one render, rather than spending more on FF. Of course there is the fully working evaluation of FF, but using that evaluation to render out textures for sale is illegal. And there are many consumers out there that cannot afford a software like FF.

Quote
Genie wrote: Something along the lines - EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO ASK VLADIMIR, BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK.

Feel free to ask here, in this thread and its sequels -- I'm following them closely. To make sure that I reply, make the question clear and ask for the answer directly, like "Question to Vladimir: ... ... ...".

However, it's a bit too early to ask anything. The EULA additions are far from being finalized.

Sphinx, currently we have no plans of doing this. As I stated before, we'd like to keep the library uniform. And please note that the Licensor, according to the EULA, is Filter Forge Inc., not the filter author -- this has been also discussed in this thread and the previous one. Don't confuse the EULA and the Upload License.

Ok, a second go..

Vlad, I know that you think what I am going to say here has been outdebated, and that you don't fancy the idea of giving the individual filter authors control over legal aspects of their individual filters published in your online library - but nonetheless I am going to revisit some themes from previous debates, as the source of the dispute seem even more clear now.

1. In the current EULA "there are NO RESTRICTIONS regarding selling textures", which is:

- Disadvantage for one segment of FF customers, the filter creators that wishes to maintain a certain level of ownership over their work (Group A)

- Advantage for another segment of FF customers, the texture selling business(etc), as it eases their work greatly (Group B)

- Advantage/Freedom for a third mixed segment: the filter creators and users who don't care much about all this, but want as much freedom as possible, both regarding the possibility to use others filters, but also regarding the possibility for others to use their filters - regardless of the circumstances of how filters are used (Group C)


The activity of Group A and C are the main reason why Group B has interest in FF as product. Wether Group A, B or C are the main income sources for the FF business, is none of my business - but the HU reward scheme should give a good clue. However I think the larger segment in regards to individual users is A and C together.

An interesting, but dangerous subject is the question of differences btwn Group A and C regarding "FF selling potential" of the filters they produce (which of the groups filters draws most attention from Group B). I will not take that into the open nor give any opinions on it.

As the EULA is, you can't satisfy all groups at once. The proposed EULA changes will to some extent reverse the picture, as you introduce restrictions that is advantage for A, but disadvantage for B and C.

And you will never get to a all-satisfactory solution if you keep sticking to uniform generic one size fits all solution. What fits one segment doesn't fit the other, and if you keep trying to impose a biased solution, you will loose the other segment(s).

Is there a solution then? Yes - leave the EULA as open/unrestricted as possible, and give the filter authors a few predefined choices when they upload their filters (a basic set of options that represents the opposed opinions, worked out legally by FF, validated by a lawyer).

Group A and C can then respectively select their legal preferences regarding publishing circumstances.
Group B and C will still have access to a large base of unrestricted filters, and will moreover be given specific information about the legal aspects of a given filter. Should the author have chosen restrictions that prevents them reaching their goal (e.g. selling preset results), they can always contact the author and work it out from there on.

I don't see the big fuzz really.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

LOL, thats exactly the principle behind my suggestion: why complicate matters by changing the EULA, when the real source of the problem is that some filter authors want to be able to control the legal matters of their filters - you're changing the legal aspects for everyone - but I have a feeling thats not what you meant.. you know, razors can be harmful - sometimes people cut themselves or shave too much off of those 70's sideburns

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Again, as I stated before, this is not what we're trying to do. Our task is very specific. I'll re-word it using your terms: we're trying to put a specific, narrow subset of Group B (sellers) at a disadvantage while keeping Groups A and C unaffected.

Again, as I stated before, Group B is not your only problem - you have the same fundamental conflict of interest between A and C as btwn A and B - and while that haven't stirred up as much, it has certainly been discussed (in particular regarding [Mod: no offensive terms please] that publish ripoff filters).

"All generalizations are dangerous, even this one."

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: yes, by adding legal options you suggest, we definitely can 'cut entities' on our side and on the filter author's side. However, this very addition will 'multiply entities' on the filter user side -- which we are always trying to avoid.

I can understand that - the bigger picture is indeed very important to keep in mind. I am a bit in doubt here:
-On one hand the complex all embracing license solutions reduce 'entities' of legal [time traveller mod: removed bad word before it even got published] that users have to think about by uniting it in one "paper" (that anyways will be read less than half through by most users).
-On the other hand, short and clear legal notices for a given filter wipes out all doubt and serves as a reminder about relevant legal matters for the user (perhaps not a general tendency, but I find it very easy to forget such stuff - I've read the MPL several times now, and its still fading away shortly after).

I think that these per filter explicit legal notices on long sight will have a good effect on reducing bad copy/ripoff/preset selling practices. If it were enough to tell people about rules and laws one single time, we wouldn't need the police etc.; People forget and/or get careless if not reminded.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: As for the conflict between A and C (namely, filter ripoffs), I have another latinism for that Divide et impera -- I'd like to resolve the conflict between the authors and sellers first.

LOL, well ofcourse the nerd has one for ya then .. perhaps a little memoization could serve as an alternative (though we're on a more abstract level here) - The conflict of A and C is in essense the same as A and B - it is the way it is exploited/carried out in practice that differs. So if there is a generic solution for the first case, it should be easy to adapt that for the second.

Quote
Genie wrote: there are many consumers out there that cannot afford a software like FF.

I had 700 of most likely textures I wanted to use in derivative works rendered out and saved on my hard drive before I decided to purchase FF.
It's more textures then I'll be able to use up in a year or two of making 3D content. Anyone with a computer can do this.

However, I get really picky about specific look, so I decided to purchase the software so I have the liberty to tweak things as needed, AND to come up with different then the run of the mill look. Also, I realized that more distinct looking images will lose their appeal not too long after a lot of people start using them.

I did have several of the FF filters in my shopping cart at renderosity, ready for purchase, when I discovered they were from Filter Forge. I felt very cheated. omething that can be obtained for free, with a demo of a software, someone was trying to sell to me. I'd be REALLY ticked off had I actually purchased the textures!!!

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Divide et impera

I´m a little rusty on my latin, but is that something along the lines of "Divide and conquer"?

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I consider FF to be reasonably priced

So do I! What I meant was that for a lot of people, it´s not on their budget. Just because I can afford it, and find the price to be quite acceptable, I don´t forget that a lot of people out there cannot.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Yes, like Chainmail, or Lounge Lizards. So if I were to ever sell textures, I'd make sure I create something different looking, and definately wouldn't use those filters.

Wouldn´t that defeat the purpose of creating them and sharing them for free so all people can use them? They are awsome and I wouldn´t change a thing! Though my filters don´t reach the standards of those two, I hope some people will find them useful and actually use them! It they can make a buck or two out of them, good for them! I really don´t have a problem with it whatsoever.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Regardless of whether EULA allows it or not. Often EULA's and laws are minimum acceptable standards of use. In life and in business I tend to shoot a little bit above the 'minimum acceptable'. At least, I try.

In a perfect world, I would agree. But in today´s business world, EULA´s and laws (basically the same thing) are accepted, binding and people move on. No time to waste, otherwise another one will take your place - We do live in a world with over 6 Billion people, and everything is getting more and more competitive. To me, the law is the law. I don´t always agree with it, but they exist and people far more intelligent than me (most of the time) made them for a reason.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Also, I realized that more distinct looking images will lose their appeal not too long after a lot of people start using them.

Very true, but this happens with everything really. It seems to be a result of our development as a human race, but a sociologist or psychologist would explain it better than I could. (I actually saw some documentaries about this.)

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: I did have several of the FF filters in my shopping cart at renderosity, ready for purchase, when I discovered they were from Filter Forge. I felt very cheated. omething that can be obtained for free, with a demo of a software, someone was trying to sell to me. I'd be REALLY ticked off had I actually purchased the textures!!!

This is what I discussed with Ahimsa, it´s not really free. The filters are free, but you still would have to pay at least $99 to be able to use them commercially.

Quote
Sphinx. wrote: Is there a solution then? Yes - leave the EULA as open/unrestricted as possible, and give the filter authors a few predefined choices when they upload their filters (a basic set of options that represents the opposed opinions, worked out legally by FF, validated by a lawyer).

sphix, that sounds all nice and neat when said here, but the logistics to the FF team is rather messy, and to the library itself. i, for one, dont want to have to go the library each time i use a filter and figure out the individual licensing on THAT filter... let's see, john doe licenses this filter to be used by those wishing to produce the effect as part of a greater whole, but doesnt want his filter used as a stand-alone texture, but jill doe will let me use her filter for stand-alone but not incorporated works. and it could even get worse.

it would be a nightmare to FF and to end-users. and i think that's one of the things vlad doesnt want to do and why he wants to maintain one, unified library. it would add a significant complexity.

so, how are you going to organize all that in the library? do you put up separate listings for the various filter license types? how many? or do you simply mix them in with the normal library and let the users have to sort through the licenses? and, if you let the users sort through all this, then somewhere within the filter itself you'd have to include the license agreement for that filter. just sounds very messy and complex to me.

what is wanted is a simple, non-messy agreement that all involved parties can live with and work with.

and let's also not forget that authors DO have complete control over their filters. this seems to keep being missed. it's only when you put them in the FF library that the author has been giving up that control.

vlad wants to keep the library unified. but, i'm afraid he cant. it's just not possible once you modify the agreements. you are creating a whole new class of filters. and that means a whole new class of filters within the library. so, i'm curious how that's going to be handled.

Quote
Genie wrote: So do I! What I meant was that for a lot of people, it´s not on their budget. Just because I can afford it, and find the price to be quite acceptable, I don´t forget that a lot of people out there cannot.

Sorry, I think that I misread what you wrote.....maybe I should slow down and actually comprehend what I read.....

I'm not Vlad, but I think......

Quote
Genie wrote: About effect filters under the new Eula - If I use my own images and apply an effect filter, will that be considered derivative enough?

.....no, because you are not rendering the preset as-is.....and your addition of an external image constitutes creative input. This issue really only applies to texture presets that don't use an external image.....and no one would have any use for effect presets rendered with the lifesaver.....

Quote
Genie wrote: If I want my future filters to be free and to be used for unrestricted commercial use, would I need to upload them to a personal site instead of the library?

......I don't know why anyone would want to do that.....but yes......you can do anything you want with your own filter creations.....

genie, the answer to your first question has been already answered by vlad. i think it's back on page 1 of thir thread in vlad's first post, and in that proposed revision. 'effect' filters are exempt from all the proposed changes.

and on your second part, i think that's a very good question. it also applies to those who dont want to see things like watermarks and encryption of filters and that sort of thing. i dont want them on my filters, but some do.

i'm perfectly happy with the current agreements, upload and end user. authors can simply not upload their filters and maintain complete control over their works. those filters that do go into the library are fair game. but, at the same time, i also wouldnt mind being compensated for filters of mine in the FF library that do get used by users. that would be a nice thing. but, i also acknowledge that if i really wanted to pursue compensation and protection, i could easily set up my own site and sell my own textures and effects using FF and maintain complete control over my own works. so, i'm all in favor of being rewarded for a job well done, but when i put the filter in the library, i also know i cant really expect anything from that... currently.

i think what most authors want, before even a physical, substantial reward, is the reward of being credited with having done the work. and my guess is, had those re-sellers credited the various authors of the filters with some mention of their names, we wouldnt even be discussing all this now. no one would really have raised much fuss. like ahimsa, i do find that the most obnoxious part of the re-seller issue isnt that they're making money from the various textures in question, but that they're claiming that they made them when they didnt. and let's not niggle about moving sliders a little here and there. the author made the filter and made it in such a way that a finite number of effects are produced. for anyone else to really claim that they made a given texture using someone else's texture, no matter how many silders they moved or colors they changed, is really pretty ludicrous. the author set up all the conditions and set up all the presets (in most cases) and therefore a user claiming ownership over a work so rendered is pretty silly and offensive. had they just said, 'here's a piece i rendered using crapadilla's xxx filter', i doubt there'd be much of an issue here. dilla would get a bit of free advertising, a little admiration and the re-seller could go on rendering and selling without any offense.

but, as it works out, a re-seller (some, anyways) feel that it is to their advantage to hide their sources, in this case the product, the filters and the authors, from public view because then someone else finds out how easy and economical it is to do this and starts doing the same. so, it's to the re-seller's advantage to not mention any other sources but himself. and that's what tends to make him look like a slimeball in the eyes of the authors. it's the lie that screws it all up.

lol. god, aint politics fun

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Sorry, I think that I misread what you wrote

No worries! I do it all the time!

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I don't know why anyone would want to do that.....but yes......you can do anything you want with your own filter creations.....

What I meant was,if there will be a place in the online library for such "anything-goes-filters". I can understand that some filter authors want to restrict the use of their filters. But you know that the internet is filled with such free and unrestricted resources? I´ve used a few, and I think of this as my way to give back...

right now, under the current eulas, i know i can open, use and modify any filter i want... if it came from the library. i LIKE that! it's simple and i dont have to worry about infringements. that's as simple as it gets. and, to not be hypocritical, that's the freedom i want others to have as well. it doesnt get more simple than that.

what i see with the proposed changes is a messiness that is going to grow. each and every little change made is going to complicate things by an X to the Nth degree. if you've ever studied the copyright laws of the united states, you'll have some idea of what i'm talking about. it's an involuted mess. and, if you need further proof, just look at how much time and web space this whole discussion has taken up. i like simple

Quote
Kraellin wrote: but it's sort of like putting a carrot in front a horse and telling him not to eat it. at least it would be if the licensing were objectionable to the user

LOL, yeah, could be, but then again showing the EULA once and then hiding it away in the install dir, is like telling the horse once "you can't just eat these carrots", put an endless row of carrots in front of him and then walk away.. no wonder he starts to eat at some point

Quote
Kraellin wrote: it still adds a complexity i'd rather not have annoying me every time i want to use a filter.

Yeah well, it is an extra "burden" - but a good and respectful one - I can live with this microscopic overhead of decision making, specially when it allows me to actually have control over legal aspects of my own filters (published through the FF Lib).

Quote

Sphinx. wrote: Well, besides the filter making and using, one of the really strong and great features about FF is the online library and the build-in publishing functionality - and the community that very much is based on this. To say that people, that don't want to submit to a rather tough compromise, should just go away is somewhat crude I think. There should and can be room for everyone (as a way of speaking.. ofcourse there are limits..)

yes, and it's good business. a steady stream of good filters going into the library keeps the library fresh and even more attractive, which is why i do like the idea of dual libraries. and not only dual libraries on the web site, but that would also display this way in the GUI filter folder tree. it would keep it all separate and if you'd had to pay for those filters which had additional licenses, or amended licenses or pay-for licenses, you wouldnt need to worry about the temptation of having filters in your GUI that were licensed differently. if they were in your GUI, it would mean you'd bought them, so no worries.

What I'm saying is crude.....but it draws clear and simplified lines.....and I think what Vlad's trying to do is the best compromise between allowing authors the means to protect their submitted work from being copied and user restrictions that only impact people who want to copy texture presets and resell them for an easy buck.....

I think the reality of all this is that FF is not going to ever waste a dime trying to protect anything except for their program code. This new EULA just gives authors the means by which to protect their own submitted filters....and feel better about submitting them knowing that they can protect them. As it stands with no user restrictions, it means absolutely nothing to make authors the licensors of their submitted filters.....and this will change that so authors will actually have some copyrights.....

Frank, I think you and I would get along just fine.....

Quote

Frank2 wrote: I'm also seeing a few people who are, and have been throughout, deliberately complicating things and pretending not to understand things. Painting nightmarish pictures of the future of chaos and endless problems. Trying to lead people up irrelevant blind legal alleys. Throwing up one 'red herring' objection after another and contradicting themselves all over the place. I have no idea why. Odd.

You noticed that, eh??? Me too......