Upcoming EULA changes, round two

Quote

StevieJ wrote: 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...... Wink Steve

Yeah, it's pretty apparent and that's why I've been confused alot.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: I'm sorry, I got in a hurry and said filters instead of textures made from filters. Textures I remember off the top of my head are Constantin's Chainmail, Dilla's Lounge Lizards (tufted leather), mandala (keep forgetting the author of that one) and couple others which names I don't remember. (I'd give you a vendor name, but we've been asked not to, if I understood it correctly).

Ahhh...thank you....now it's clear to me..I was wondering what the heck you were talking about. No need for vendor name. It's embedded in my brain. lol

The U.S govt. can't even begin to stop kids from "trading" mp3's online, the RIAA sues 1 in 1,000,000 people who steal their copyrighted material and they are the 'bad guys'. There is no "digital rights' protection, get over it, and get paid before you ever let go of anything. *shrug* Vlad can change the Eula all day, doesn't mean squat unless he's gonna get some lawyers to file paperwork and follow through with it when someone breaches the terms, and do ya really think FF is gonna waste their one part-time Eula writing lawyer on that ? Good luck etc. It's really getting about as ridiculous as someone sue-ing Adobe because some kid on myspace cropped their head onto a dog and posted it. Kraellin has said it 100 times now, you want protection ? Stop submitting filters that you think are worth money. I'll go one step further, sell them yourself and/or get paid before you ever let your graphics see the light of day, or yer just giving them away whether you intended to or not.

jffe

Quote
Frank2 wrote: Some graphics guys choose to Open Source their graphics under CCL, whilst others do the same as I. Either way, very few problems.

This i what I do with my music that I have online and have had no problems whatsoever..

Quote
Sphinx. wrote: CFandM wrote: As much as I would like to post my veiws and opinions they would be just that and nothing more. You all seem to have a very clear conception if these fallacy arguments - why don't you "fight back" then with real counter-arguments and exact qoutes Wink Saying that Q is false hardly makes a valid argument - and just because you say it many times won't help Cool Big grin

Why do you quote me when you do not even know what my conception is??

Quote
CFandM wrote: Frank2 wrote: My advice to the rest of you would simply be this - stick with Vlad, you've got one of the good guys there. I will agree with you on this point 100%...

This is the only thing that I responded to.......

Quote

CFandM wrote: Frank2 wrote: Here is the odd part, 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. As much as I would like to post my veiws and opinions they would be just that and nothing more.

This means that I will not post my opinion on any of these matters being discussed because they would not add to the thread nor will they sway opinions to any side of any aurguments..

Quote
Sphinx. wrote: You all seem to have a very clear conception if these fallacy arguments - why don't you "fight back" then with real counter-arguments and exact qoutes Saying that Q is false hardly makes a valid argument - and just because you say it many times won't help

You are presenting here that merely claiming something is false doesn't make it so. At the same time you're saying that several people are wrong by merely making a claim they are wrong, without pointing out any specifics, and commiting a "guilt by association" logical fallacy.

It's a good example of: "How not to present one's argument".

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: You are presenting here that merely claiming something is false doesn't make it so. At the same time you're saying that several people are wrong by merely making a claim they are wrong, without pointing out any specifics, and commiting a "guilt by association" logical fallacy.

No, I am certainly not saying that your conclusions are right or wrong - how can I tell? My point is that you can't really tell, because there are no premises behind, only a postulate (which very well can show up to be true) and a stream of approving replies (repetitions).

We shouldn't waste the discussion with this rethorical hairsplitting really (not my intention at least, but I'm the cause of it, I'll stop here) - all I tried to say is that it sadnes me to see a good discussion dissolve into, as it stands, unsupported conclusions.

Quote

Kraellin wrote: ok, i have a question here on this one and particularly regarding pattern filters which are on the 'effect' side of things. there may also be some other filter types in 'effects' which may apply here as well. pattern filters also have presets. these presets do not alter based on the imported image. certainly, the render of any different image is going to come out differently, but ostensibly, these could be used as textures, also. is it only because someone else, a re-seller for instance, uses a different image to do the renderings that makes these filters exempt? i mean, one of the complaints about the re-selling seems to be that someone can just hit randomization and then do a 'save as' and crank out a ton of textures without any creative input. so, doesnt that apply to some of the effect filters also? yes, the output would be different due to a different image import being used, but in the case of patterns, that pattern would still be quite recognizable as coming from a certain filter. and a lot of times an imported image, different imported images, do not make that significant of a difference that you have all that much of a modified look.

In those cases, someone had to come up with the underlying image. This would constitute a substantial modification. If one left the presets and a lifesaver image in, then it wouldn't be a substantial modification.

Something I've done when experimenting is instead of an image, plugging in a tone curve or another filter into an effect filter, to get a different look. Often you need to do more tweaks then simply copying and pasting filter. I wouldn't dare to claim filters made this way my original work (as in from scratch, but they would fall under pretty substantial modifications to the filter look and it's structure

There are filters that are more susceptable to exploitation then others.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: The crazy part of all this is that these "resellers" can't be bothered with having to put one ounce of creative input into them.....and just want them handed to them so all they have to do is copy and resell them.....

Yep.
Then it limits the creatives from sharing things with one another, here in the library ,and forces people to share things behind the scenes, if they don't want their things used for commercial purposes in their unaltered, or very slightly altered state AND claiming it was their work (which is a real cherry)

Heck, I'd be inclined to give filters to most people even for commercial use, just for the asking, and likely without asking to be credited. Having someone else claim it's their own work really takes the cake. Darn, it ticks me off, and it didn't even happen to me.

And it's not the peer to peer guerilla that's doing it. You kind of expect that kind of a thing to happen. It's people whom are trying to have legitimate companies and stores that are doing it. People whom insist on their own work being protected, and doing business in places which claim to be conscious of author's rights.

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? 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?

1. Yes. See the last clause in Exceptions, in the current version of proposed changes (page 1 of this thread).

2. Yes, you're absolutely free to do that. You won't be bound by our Upload License, and by the proposed Restrictions, since they're limited to library filters.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: pattern filters also have presets. these presets do not alter based on the imported image. certainly, the render of any different image is going to come out differently, but ostensibly, these could be used as textures, also.

Pattern effect filters don´t seem to be that big of a deal to me. Currently there are several non-FF filters to that effect. It would be hard to say if FF was used or not. Still there are some effect filters in the library that I would call very recognizable...

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: we'll display a plain-language explanation on the filter pages

This will be greatly appreciated by everyone.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: 2. Yes, you're absolutely free to do that. You won't be bound by our Upload License, and by the proposed Restrictions, since they're limited to library filters.

Vladimir, what I actually meant was - will there be a place in the library for such filters? Is it a scenario that is being considered?

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: As for their misleading effect, I came up with what I call a 'broken record'

I got a feeling you´ll be playing that record a lot!

From what I´ve seen throughout this all discussion (in both threads), there are certainly hints to what I might call "sub-plots" - people that seem more interested in following their own agendas. Personally, I don´t find them relevant at all for this thread or for FF, and will only serve to delay a most desired conclusion.

From the start, I´ve admired your position to share with us the proposed changes and welcoming people´s input. But were are people, there is conflict, and it´s a given that some won´t be happy with the outcome, no matter how it turns out to be.

What about the ones who already own the program? Do they have to use the new EULA or does the old one continue to apply to them?

I've posted a new revision of the changes, let's move the discussion there:
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...5&TID=4542

Ahimsa, no, after the filter is saved to My Filters, it becomes detached from the Filter Library and doesn't collect or send any Usage Stats.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I need to read entire threads before I post asking stupid questions that have already been covered

lol, jffe. i was thinking pretty much the same thing, only maybe with a little more tact

Quote
jffe wrote: And now it's here, and it's failing more or less.

Where'd you get that impression from?

Quote
jffe wrote: [...] what do you have to google-search-for to find FF

'Filter Forge', I guess!

Kidding aside, I've just searched google.com for 'seamless texture' and gave up finding FF on the list after 20 pages!!! Apparently there is much need for improvement...

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: I've joined and added links on two of my sites. How about you?

If I had a webpage currently, I'd have done so too!

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: I don't know why a professional would want to buy a tool if they can't sell their results. For example, let's say someone wanted to use my filter to modify some of their photos, and then offer them for download.

That is not what is being discussed here.

Let me give you a more accurate example than your one above.

For example, let's say someone wanted to use my filter to render out the existing presets without modifying them whatsoever and then offer them for sale, as their own work.

Can you see why that would irritate some of the filter authors here? A true professional graphics guy would never do that, because their own professional reputation and standards would not allow them to.

However, some others would, and have, done just that.

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: When I buy any tool, I expect to be able to use or sell the results of my work.

As you can see by my example above, the proposed EULA will relate to that specific area of usage and thus your expectations of being able to sell the results of your own work will not be effected. You will be completely free, and indeed encouraged, to do precisely that.

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: OTOH, maybe there is a category of filter that doesn't fit what I described. And maybe I just don't know which ones they are.

Yes, my fault. I assumed you knew the various filter types here. The proposed EULA is aiming directly at Texture filters, i.e. ones where no underlying image is required.

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: I went to a lot of trouble with my presets. I tested them on several images, trying to nail down specific looks. If someone uses one of my presets, I would feel proud that I did a good job. It's not as if they are stealing one of my images. They are using a tool that I uploaded for inclusion with FilterForge.

Your filter would fall into the category of an effects filter, i.e. the same idea as many Photoshop filters, where an effect is applied to an existing image. That, as I understand it, is not a problem for filter authors. In other words, an existing image has had an effect applied to it and normally some further creative effort is then required to achieve a worthwhile, and sellable, end result.

This compares directly to what most existing Photoshop filters do, which is to enhance existing images. Except that FilterForge filters make a much better job of it. None of this is a problem, we all use filters like that and we all end up with very different results, don't we?

Where the problem lies is in this much more recent phenomenon that FilterForge has created. That is, to be able to produce texture effects that are so damn good that various guys on the Net are simply pressing one button, claiming copyright on the preset and selling the result. The result being a totally unaltered texture, that was actually created by the filter writer themselves. The filter authors feel that they are being taken advantage of, especially on the copyright side, and so are feeling much less inclined to produce texture filters at all.

Does that make the position a little clearer?

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Could you please get busy and make more cool texture filters? I'm running out of other people's filters to render and sell.

That's one way to put it..... LOL....