"All your filter are belong to someone else!"

Quote
Kraellin wrote: will you marry me?

LMAO.....

Quote
ahimsa wrote: Of course when you added new controls I stopped getting credit for usage here, but that's ok, it wasn't a popular filter anyway. Big grin

Huh? Really, I don't believe that! I is a wonderful filter hon. And I don't care about the credit cause you are the rightful owner of the filter in the first place.

Quote
ahimsa wrote: Thank you for adding my FF name and Filter Forge to your shop page. Hope you do really well with it. Smile

Not a problem, now I just have to add it to the read me files.
And thank you.

Quote
ahimsa wrote: BTW...my name over there is ManonDumay.

I'll look you up and add you to my friends list.

And once again thank you.

Quote
Hey! No dilly-dallying in this thread!!!

What about pink slidering?

Quote
Huh? Really, I don't believe that! I is a wonderful filter hon. And I don't care about the credit cause you are the rightful owner of the filter in the first place

Serious, that one wasn't getting much usage.

The credit I'm talking about is when people use your filters it shows up here as usage and that is how we earn the program. When someone tinkers inside the filter and then saves the filter, the filter author no longer gets the usage stats. Doesn't matter on that one as I said, it was getting very little use...you may well have been the only one other than myself using that one.

The tapestry is one of my favorite. I can see a lot of use for it in Poser. The drapes are good too, but they wouldn't exist if Kraelin and Steve hadn't encouraged me to combine my tapestry filter with Kraelin's drapes filter. You might want to check out his drapes too for even more variety. The draping effect is from him.

Sounds good to me. Feel free to email it to me. I can handle 16 mb email attachments with AOL.

Digress? How? It has to do with FF filters being sold, but you, Artress, and I are showing how the person that the original poster was referring to should have gone about it. So we are on topic.


It's not like we're discussing the proper use of pink sliders...

Conniekat8 wrote:

Quote
I dunno, maybe a guy here and there could use some instruction on how to use pink sliders >:]

Actually the guys here are great at it and could give us the instruction.

Quote

Yea, okay, you're right about being an example here I have two things I can send you for texturing... one is a mat grouped OBJ (with all the rigging junk removed for simplicity of use. This is if you use applications like Deep Paint, or hexagon or zbrush or any of the texturers that work directly on a 3D object. The other is a flat UV map template, for three different size maps.. 1024x1024, 2048x2048 or 3096x3096... actually, if your email handles 16 meg, I should send you both. I think they're about 5-6 meg put together.

Sounds good to me.

you men must be hating that I'm back

Quote
The men can eat their hearts out wondering what we're doing where they can't watch

men are ALWAYS wondering that

Quote
Oh, pink slidering is great! Just stop the dilly-dallying...

Looks like The Great World Dispute is over

Love & Peace everywhere...

(Till moderators see all this)

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Soneone needs to make atexture and title it pink slidering Big grin

I don't think the editors would approve of that.

C'mon guys, stop fooling around....."pink sliders" and "awesome sexual fantasies" should be discussed in the OffTopic section.....

We must form a united front against the barbarian horde of "heathen infidel copyright defiers" that threaten to quickly copy our presets and re-sell them as their own without any creative input to them.....or any royalties to us!!!

If users want to re-sell straight texture presets, then they'll have to buy the copyrights from the author!!!

We need those EULA changes.....STAT!!!

How was that???

Quote
We must form a united front against the barbarian horde of "heathen infidel copyright defiers" that threaten to quickly copy our presets and re-sell them as their own without any creative input to them.....or any royalties to us!!! If users want to re-sell straight texture presets, then they'll have to buy the copyrights from the author!!! We need those EULA changes.....STAT!!!

I give my presets away for free and add my FF link so people would look pretty stupid selling my presets as is. Maybe we could all do that until the new PinkSlideryNonDillyDallying EULA can be made.

Quote
ahimsa wrote: I give my presets away for free

I thought you needed the program to create textures for fabric to make money??? Why give them away when you could make some money on holding the copyrights???

I don't have any "texture" filters submitted yet.....but I think FF is giving everyone a golden oportunity to make some money by letting authors keep their preset copyrights.....which is also good incentive to submit good texture filters here.....where FF is doing the marketing and promotions for you

Quote
ahimsa wrote: FaerieWylde

What's that???

Carl would love that!!! .....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I don't have any "texture" filters submitted yet.....but I think FF is giving everyone a golden oportunity to make some money by letting authors keep their preset copyrights.....which is also good incentive to submit good texture filters here.....where FF is doing the marketing and promotions for you

That would be ridiculous!
It would be impossible to police and it would discourage interest in FF. To show someone what a filter can do, but then disallow them to do that (ie. Presets) is a ridiculous notion. Most times people download a particular filter because they look at the presets and like a certain effect. Sure its pretty simple to make a variation on it, but if they like a particular effect, then they should be able to use it, or whats the point of putting in presets at all?
And if someone tries to police it you get into that mightmare/headache area of "how close is close?" If someone can argue "but I changed the saturation 5% less than the preset" though no one can tell, is it still under copyright?
That whole notion is opening up to nothing but headaches, and FF would be caught right in the middle. I wouldn't wish that on them.

Rawn

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: Most times people download a particular filter because they look at the presets and like a certain effect. Sure its pretty simple to make a variation on it, but if they like a particular effect, then they should be able to use it, or whats the point of putting in presets at all?

You're exaggerating aand twisting what is being proposed here.
Artists and FF users would be allowed to use defaults in derivative works as they are now.

If it was the case of textures reselling, there would have to be some sort of an greement. Some filter authors may want acknowledgement and publicity, other may want a small percentage of sales.

Just makes it a bit harder for default texture render-and-resellers to make a quick buck on what was 90% someone else's work.

Something being hard to police isn't a very good argument for not making it against EULA.

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: That would be ridiculous!

Ouch!!! LOL....

Rawn, what I'm saying is already in place.....FF is currently editting the EULA to make it clearer.....and I don't think it's going to deter anyone.....except for those who want to make a quick buck on the coat-tails of authors here by quickly copying and re-selling straight texture presets without a stitch of creative input on them.....

From FF's perspective, I think it is a very smart business move for two reasons:

1) If users were given the copyrights to texture presets when they buy the program, then every Tom Dick and Harry could quickly copy all the texture presets and open online texture stores with them.....which would surely cut into the sales of this program and deter authors from submitting them......

2) Not many authors (besides Dilla) have come to realize it yet, but giving the copyrights to authors provides some real tangible incentives for authors to create quality texture filters to build the filter library and help sell the program.....while FF is providing a promotional vehicle for authors to sell their texture preset copyrights.....

I'm guessing that this is why Dilla produces some excellent filters for FF.....why FF loves him for it.....and why FF hates me LOL....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: But assuming that some filter authors would like to benefit from the publication of texture collections or, in fact, create a commercial level marketplace for selling licenses to their filters to Filter Forge owners, I still submit that this is not being discussed and sorely needs to be.

True, but I don't see any filter makers jumping on this opportunity yet. I don't have a really good feel as to why. Perhaps they're not sufficiently aware of it. Seems like people whom are vocal on the forums here don't represent the majority of filter makers.

I can speak only for myself on this point. Should I decide to upload any filters I make, and provided that I can retain some control of how they are going to be used per revised EULA, I'd prefer to handle commercial use on case by case basis at the moment.

Perhaps that reasoning comes from working in fields where I deal with a lot of custom and exclusive work.

i'm seeing an awful lot of assumptions here that may or may not be correct, and i'm not even going to go over them point by point. some are exaggerating for the sake of winning an arguement or protecting their rights. rawn and sign guy want to protect their rights under the current EULA to re-sell textures as-is. that IS their current right. connie and steve want to protect their rights as authors on their works. both sides make valid points, but both sides are skewing things a bit. let's stay within the actual points.

the actual points are:

1. under the current EULA if an author submits his filter to the library, it is 'fair game' to those that want to re-sell or use that filter. period.

2. vladimir has only discussed the possibility of altering the EULA and there is nothing set in concrete on that and the EULA has NOT changed yet.

3. legally, you do NOT have to submit your filters to the library.

4. you retain your copyright regardless of submitting it to the library.

5. if you submit your filter to the library you grant FF the right to license your filter for use by ANYONE who has a legally obtained copy of FF and to use it ANY WAY THEY, THE END USER SEES FIT. period! (that one bears repeating. sorry )

6. there is nothing preventing an author from NOT submitting his filter(s) to the library and then making and selling his/her own textures either directly or through a re-seller. and this one seems to be forgotten every time this whole EULA arguement comes up.

7. Fred, Sign Guy, has offered to BUY filters/textures from filter authors and i'm sure there are others out there that would do the same.

8. whether you ethically choose not to re-sell textures made by other authors is irrelevant as far as the legality of the issue. the EULA makes this possible and if you dont like it, then dont submit your filters to the library! and boy is that one forgotten by authors a LOT!!!

9. not allowing textures to be re-sold, without restrictions, does hurt FF. but it also helps. it's a matter here of WHO gets hurt.

10. allowing textures to be re-sold hurts FF, but this too also helps, and again, it's who it hurts that is the issue.

11. authors ARE compensated for good filters delivered to the library where that filter reaches a HIGH USE rank.

12. one tends to get what one rewards and one tends to not get what one penalizes. thus, if you penalize the re-sellers you lose some business because some re-sellers are also buyers of FF and some do advertise FF and the authors. if you penalize the authors, you tend to get less filters and that hurts FF, the authors and the re-sellers.

13. what the system needs is a way for everyone to win and no one needs to be penalized, FF, the authors, and the re-sellers and end users. and THAT, to me, shld be the real discussion here! we know the problem. what we NEED is a good solution. how do you reward everyone and that on one is or feels penalized? to me, the current EULA is fair and needs no revision. but, i seem to be in a minority here. i KNOW that if i submit a filter to the library that any end user may take it and use it to their own benefit. i have no problem with that. that's what i AGREED to when i submitted it. therefore, i dont submit all my filters. i know others operate that way as well because they've said so in these forums. so, the current EULA works. however, there are some drawbacks to this...

14. authors upon reaching a certain number of high use rank points have no further incentive (at least in real world exchange value) of submitting any further filters.

15. authors give up ALL control over their filters once submitted to the library. and that seems to be the crux of the issue here... control. most artists i know are generous to a fault. but, there can and seems to be a limit. some authors now want to have some control over how their filters are used. i'm not sure this is a good idea, but that seems to be the case. and the control that some authors are argueing for is the part of the re-selling of unadulterated textures by someone other than the author. ok, so i'm stating the obvious. so, the question to me here is, who gets hurt by doing this and who gets rewarded? the authors dont necessarily get rewarded one iota unless they, the author is selling his/her textures themselves. and if they are doing that, then under the current EULA, why in the world did they ever submit the filter to the library? that just seems odd and a bit hypocritical. and if they arent re-selling their own textures of filters submitted to the library, then what's the beef? you're not losing a cent. and in fact, you are gaining a possibility at a free program and lifetime upgrades.

so, i see this whole discussion as a bit of a non-issue and frankly, i'd advise vladimir to NOT revise the EULA. or, at least work something better out per point #13. as a new author, i'd just take this submit to the library as an incentive program and an exchange. you submit, you earn an HU or three or eight and you're good to go. dont submit after that and sell your own stuff as you see fit. and, if you're feeling magnanimous, throw a bone to the library once in while. and, if FF wants to provide further incentives to authors to submit, why, offer reward points that can be cashed in at Wal-Mart or Sears or something. lol. "yeah, just got my new toaster with my 9 HU"s at FF' ok, maybe not a toaster, but to me, that would satisfy at least some of the grousing here. i mean, if vlad offered an all expenses trip to russia to meet Bella, i'd be throwing filters at the library on an hourly basis!

Quote

Kraellin wrote: 13. what the system needs is a way for everyone to win and no one needs to be penalized, FF, the authors, and the re-sellers and end users. and THAT, to me, shld be the real discussion here! we know the problem. what we NEED is a good solution. how do you reward everyone and that on one is or feels penalized? to me, the current EULA is fair and needs no revision. but, i seem to be in a minority here. i KNOW that if i submit a filter to the library that any end user may take it and use it to their own benefit. i have no problem with that. that's what i AGREED to when i submitted it. therefore, i dont submit all my filters. i know others operate that way as well because they've said so in these forums. so, the current EULA works. however, there are some drawbacks to this...

So if 1) a new class of filters was created, those that have appeal for commercial distribution in their own library, and 2) they were offered at separate fees for licenses to use them, and 3) Filter Forge handles the presentation, marketing, setting of licensing terms of use, sale and royalty payments to filter authors, and 4) publishers can acquire the legal rights they seek ...

Is that not a win-win-win-win for all concerned?

•Filter authors have the clear choice to submit to the "pro library" or not and are compensated if their filters sell. Filters in the free library could be moved or left there for restricted or non-commercial use and also made available under separate license in the pro library.
•Filter Forge gets, perhaps, some better filters than they would otherwise, eliminates the conflict put forth in this thread, serves all its customers better, and even makes a few extra bucks.
•Publishers have a clear, approved path to acquire rights to publish.
•End users get a larger selection of filters to meet their needs.

Hey Craig.....we meet on the battlefield of opposing opions yet again

Quote
Kraellin wrote: 1. under the current EULA if an author submits his filter to the library, it is 'fair game' to those that want to re-sell or use that filter. period.

I think you are mistaken about this..... Please correct me if I read the EULA wrong, but I believe it already states that all presets are the copyrighted property of the filter author.....so they are by no means "fair game" at all. This whole thread is about making the EULA much more clear about it. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the EULA did not intend this.....and the people who put up Dilla's texture presets would not have ripped them off their site as fast as they put them up, eh???

Still friends???