FF StevieJs' Way

I hate to tell ya that I told you so..... .....but I warned that this "stagnation" would happen if the EULA was not changed to create "tangible" author copyright protection on texture filters.....and used towards creating further incentives/reward levels to keep skilled authors actively submitting quality filters here. Without this, authors got sick and tired of having their hard work immediately hijacked and taken advantage of by users cranking out EZ texture packs from their filters and reselling them.....

I think that Vlad was "fear-mongered" into believing that such EULA copyright restrictions would turn-off customers.....when, in fact, they would only affect a negligible percent of users who are cranking out the EZ texture packs by making them actually do some work to come up with their own original textures to sell....or have to pay an author commission to resell them. No matter what these resellers have said here, they would still buy, upgrade, and use this program.....and they are just "wining" because the extra time, work, or author commission is an enfringement upon their "EZ render" profit margin.....

The real hypocracy here is that any weight at all is given to these texture resellers and what they want.....when their "business" is primarily responsible for turning-off skilled authors from submitting quality texture filters here.....

So here we are.....high quality filter submissions have all but totally died (except for a few here and there).....filter submissions are now mostly confined to intro level.....the mean quality of the filter library is on the backslide because of it.....involvement/participation is at an all-time low.....the once "vibrant, thriving community" doesn't exist here anymore.....and V2 has done absolutely nothing to change any of this.....

.....so here are my suggestions (again) to turn this around.....the "StevieJ Way" .....and if you don't like this or don't want to hear it again, go pound sand someplace else.....you don't have to read it!!! I like this program....I want it to succeed and be enhanced....but I don't like what is happing to it and what's not happening to it.....and yes, I'm going to keep saying something about it until my business sense stops being offended so much.....


Here's what I would now do with this program.....

1) Set up satellites (PO Box offices) in different countries to get currency exchange/conversion set up for digi/auto downloads.....so all money transactions can be fully automated from anywhere complying with each country.....

2) New EULA restrictions placed on reselling straight-rendered textures from texture filters without permission and/or compensation to the filter author. Authors would be responsible for protecting their copyrights.....not FF.

3) New reward level of obtaining Author homepage/gallery/storefront (easily set up and server space is cheap)....where authors can sell texture packs from their own texture filters, artwork/graphics, filter creation services, graphic art services, etc on a royalty basis with FF. This would "publically" justify the implementation of the new EULA texture copyright restriction....as well as show FF to be a company that puts priority #1 on rewarding its' filter authors.....kinda in the same "good" light as LL Bean really caring about its' employees)....

4) Additional reward levels could be created with things like the royalty split being lowered so that the author retains a bigger percentage of sales, enhancements to the author's website/storefront, etc.....

5) Another way this could be done with a little more fun and entisement for both authors and customers would be to create something similar to "Second Life" where authors can create their own virtual world, galleries, stores, etc. Maybe FF should go strike some kind of deal/collaboration with Second Life.....

Anywho.....I think that it is now clear that author involvement, quality filter submissions, and a new author/customer "draw" dimension to this would go a hell of alot futher than just "bread-crumb" program enhancements and self-promos.....otherwise, I believe it will end up going the "filtermeister" way and dying a death of mediocrity. Finally, I think this issue is soooooo critical that I would temporarily drop all program enhancements to focus all energy on it.....

Yeah! I vote for Steve!
Right on with all of that above!

I for one, would hate like ##!! to see all of the textures I have, on someone's site, for sale, as any other author would! It seams we have been down this road before!

There must be a way, to reach a mutual agreement for all of the authors, and get the
high end authors to make a comeback! I believe we all know the ones we are all thinking of! Huuuummmm..!

Quote

StevieJ wrote: Anywho.....I think that it is now clear that author involvement, quality filter submissions, and a new author/customer "draw" dimension to this would go a hell of alot futher than just "bread-crumb" program enhancements and self-promos.....otherwise, I believe it will end up going the "filtermeister" way and dying a death of mediocrity. Finally, I think this issue is soooooo critical that I would temporarily drop all program enhancements to focus all energy on it.....

Have a good evening!

Ron

Man, we're all getting so involved in changing the FF business model, we might as well work for them ...I wonder what the FF team thinks when they see us post stuff like this...either that we really care, or that we just want to get paid for our time...probably both...

Good morning everyone,

My comment on the statement above, from Steve:

Well said! Amen!

Have a GREAT day!

Ron

FF is definitely going to do whatever they deem best in their self-interests.....with controlling factors of available resources (money to inmvest/re-invest in the program), posssible international limitations from being based out of Russia (currency conversion, credit cards, etc).....probably several considerations and controlling factors that they have not shared with us.....so all of my business "suggestions" have been made from the outside looking in without full knowledge of FF's complete "circumstances". How's that for a disclaimer???

It's true that some don't mind having their textures resold.....most notably while they are still in the process attaining needed reward levels.....but the lion's share of authors here definitely do not like it at all.....and have chosen not to submit them anymore.....especially skilled veteran authors who have all the rewards that they need and no longer have any incentive\return to do so.....other than getting some brief, short-lived forum accalaids.....and that's about it.....

Here are some other considerations that "I" would give some serious weight to in deciding where to go with this program:

1) Authors are like employees of this program. Authors, who have become very skilled with this program and have submitted the vast majority of all the high quality "customer-draw" filters here, no longer have any incentives to continue producing them here.....on top of not wanting to submit any more texture filters without tangible copyright protection.....and thus has now relegated almost all submissions to intro quality and backsliding the overall mean quality of the library. My point being.....if you have skilled employees that are primarily responsible for progressing your business and selling your product, wouldn't you want to do something to keep them??? The current position of not providing any further incentives and hoping that newcomers will rise to continue quality filtermaking here is obviously not happening.....

2) I don't care how much they beeeotch to the contrary.....texture resellers are taking business away from FF!!! Like why buy the program when you can buy all the FF textures that you need for less money. My point being.....why let the texture resellers "have" that money directly created from this product.....when it could be kept right here to benefit both FF, its's authors, and used towards creating reward incentives to keep skilled authors producing quality filters for this program.....

3) There are many skilled filter authors who are just sitting on quality texture filters and not submitting them to the FF library because of reasons already stated. They aren't going to bother learning website creation to try do do something with them.....and it is hard to get the customer traffic to justify the work even if they did so. My point being.....a growing group of skilled filter authors selling texture packs from here would get the needed traffic.....benefitting both FF and authors in program sales and royalty splits on all other things sold through author storefronts.....creating an ever-growing customer and author "draw" here.....which easily could become like a graphics shopping mall/mecca/hub.....so to say....

Personally, if I owned the program, this is where I would go with it.....but that's just me.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I hate to tell ya that I told you so..... Big grin .....but I warned that this "stagnation" would happen if the EULA was not changed to create "tangible" author copyright protection on texture filters...

Yep, you did and it stood out a mile what was needed a couple of years back!

Hi Steve, don't know if you remember me? Still using FF, still using your great filters and those of other great filter authors....very many sincere thanks to all of you. I confess that I haven't downloaded any new filters for a long time now, and yes, it is frustrating to know that really good new filters are being 'sat on' by authors, but I fully understand why and you guys will always have my full support.

Keep fighting the good fight, mate.

Frank

We all are still waiting for the Filter Forge Team to comment....

Have a GREAT day!

Ron

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Whether a lot or a little, any restrictions they place on licensees of Filter Forge will reduce their sales of the program and drive prospective customers to their main competitor who does not restrict at all.

I know that you and all other texture resellers want Vlad to believe that.....but it's not true at all!!!

Copyright restrictions on reselling FF's textures will not send customers to Genetica.....it won't enen send you or any other texture reseller over to Genetica.....I think you are well aware of that.....and I think you are just fear-mongering Vlad because you don't want to loose the "EZ-Render-Resell" gravytrain. FF's competitor, Genetica, is just easier to use to create filters from scratch and that is it. Genetica doesn't have a filter library like FF.....the photo-realism of Genetica's textures don't even come close to that of FF.....not to mention the "huge" program differences in customization, modification, creativity, and lighting.....

Fred, you want everyone here to believe that you and all other texture resellers will stop using FF and start creating your own "low-quality" textures from scratch with Genetica if any restrictions are imposed.....when it still would be easier for you to creatively modify "high-quality" FF textures??? Give me a break!!! LMAO.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: you would like the Filter Forge team to do for you what you are not willing to do for yourselves.

Nice try again.....but no cigar. First, customer traffic wise, authors would do drastically better united together with FF from here than if authors were on their own.....and second, this is about creating a way to keep skilled authors submitting quality filters here that is mutually beneficial for both FF and its' authors.....period!!!

Steve, thank you for summarizing your thoughts on the matter -- I was afraid that I'd have to do that myself

Fred, very interesting information (which, by the way, is consistent with my intuitions on the subject, and with my microstock experience.)

As for the situation, I'm far from being "fear-mongered" into anything, and I definitely didn't give up on the situation. At the moment, I'm busy finishing the Beta Stage 3. After that we planned to begin opening the filter library for submissions from V2.0 -- and that seems to be a good opportunity to review the situation with re-selling (and our business model in general) again. This is one of the highest-priority items on my list, along with the development of V2.0.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Steve, thank you for summarizing your thoughts on the matter -- I was afraid that I'd have to do that myself

Anytime.....Glad to be of service.....

Fred, sorry for the knee-jerk.....and I would come with the same arguments from your position.....but I'm "purely" coming from what I think would be best for FF and its' success into the future.....

Quote

meyendlesss wrote: If the FF team won't take this seriously and set something up we should get together and set something set up ourselves. I'm sure there would be some other filter artists here who would be interested... I would rather it be something 'Official' though... with support from the FF team. It's something that really would help motivate artist to submit good filters. My filter page, for example, would look A LOT different if it weren't for the EULA. The filter library is suffering right now and will continue to suffer until this issue is taken care of.

Well said!!!

The problem that I see with authors either on their own or uniting to sell texture packs would be that authors would withhold all of their quality texture filters from FF.....thus protecting their sales and hurting FF. This is where the EULA texture copyright restiction would come into play if FF united author storefronts here. Authors could sell their texture packs and have continued incentives (under copyright protection) to submit their texture filters to FF for continuous storefront rewards.....ie: keep greater percentages of royalty split with FF, upped limits like additional server space to sell more, additional sales tools, additional URL/pages to sell other things, greater storefront customization and personalization, etc etc etc. On top of all that, just imagine what the "competitiveness" alone would do to filter and texture pack quality..... .....let's get real.....I'm not going to let Dilla, ThreeDee, CFandM, and all the other filter geniuses here outdo me for $$$..... ..... LOL.....

I see no need to alter the EULA, it's one of the strongest selling points filterforge has: a HUGE, totally royalty-free library. If you start adding asterisks to the free* filters you start muddling up the whole advantage.

Why would FF users would "hoard" filters? If you are making filters for your own personal projects or just for fun, perfect, that's what the software is for, it's not meant to be a way to earn money. Whether you choose to contribute to the library is up to you. Nobody needs to provide you an incentive.

I was proud to submit my filters in the hopes that others could look at them and learn from them. If they fell into texture packs, all the better, I'll be so proud if someday I see one of my textures in someone else's project. Why do I care if they got the texture from filterforge or a texture pack, it's royalty-free either way so it's not like I'd be getting credit even with a modified EULA.

If the authors that claim they have these "awesome" filters waiting in the wings really want to make a few bucks they should just post a thread with some non-tiled watermarked sample pics and a price for the whole pack. If you don't submit the filters to the library, then you can even create your own Licensing agreement informing potential buyers what they may/may not do with the .ffxml files.

As for the "stagnation" of the library, it makes sense given the current scenario: users submit a few quality filters, get a free copy, then leave. Throwing pennies at them to stay (from texture sales) probably wouldn't make much of a difference. (Not to mention how extraordinarily complicated this would be, tax forms, international currency exchange rates and whatnot).

With regards to competitiveness I partially agree with StevieJ. My best suggestion would be to create a more competitive environment in the library. Weekly contests to compete for a special "editors choice" spot prominent on the FF page could be cool along with an array of "past winners". Digg style thumb-up and thumb-down for filters would also be great as a way to tell authors when they are heading in the right/wrong direction. These "popularity rankings" could also help keep good filters at the top of results and bad filters at the back.

Quote
Sphinx. wrote: Creative Commons licenses are widely adapted for online repositories of creative content. Why should it be any different here.

Because the issue in question revolves around licensing images produced by filters, not the filters themselves (which would be a lot easier). Say, does licensing a filter under a CC Non-Commercial license prevent anyone from re-selling textures made with your filter given the fact that they don't resell the filter itself?

Quote
StevieJ wrote: straight texture results without any modification/creative input

Say, a reseller generated a texture by applying a preset that came with the filter and then hitting the Randomize button a few times (or just dragging the Variation slider to any value other than what was in the preset). Does this qualify as a "straight texture result"?

Or, more generally, how would you define "straight texture results"?

Quote

I'm suggesting the implementation of a middleground EULA restriction/copyright protection "just" on the reselling of straight texture results without any modification/creative input, permission, or compensation to the author.....and have absolutely no restrictions on the selling of things with "applied" straight texture results..... This EULA copyright restriction would "only" affect a negligible percent of users who are cranking out straight texture filter results and reselling them in texture packs.....and would have absolutely no affect on 99.999999 percent of customers buying this program and how they want to use it.....

Putting this in legalese would be nearly impossible. Additionally, despite how few users it affects 99.9999% is still not 100% and would require that nefarious "some restrictions apply*" to the claim of "free texture library".

Also, how would adding a new EULA provide an incentive to keep "skilled" authors posting new filters? They've already gotten the rewards, how would a new contract (woo, new contract!/s) make them want to suddenly return?

I also want to reiterate my question from a few posts back since everyone seemed to skirt right over it:

Why would FF users would "hoard" filters?

Quote
KGtheway2B wrote: Why would FF users would "hoard" filters?

I don't know if I'd call it 'hoarding filters'.
I like to share my filters, and I want to share more.
I'm happy to see someone use one of my filters in a project, but I don't like seeing renders from my filters end up in a texture pack with me getting nothing.

Quote
KGtheway2B wrote: despite how few users it affects 99.9999% is still not 100% and would require that nefarious "some restrictions apply*" to the claim of "free texture library".

Sometimes, having "some restrictions apply" is a good thing...
Is that not better than having that small percentage ruin things for everyone?
Filter Forge is a great program, and the things that can be done with it are beyond what the competition can produce. In spite of that I'm seeing more people in the art community (3d art especially) turn their noses at the mention of FF because of the texture reselling. It's almost like it's cheapening the art form (yes... making filters is an art...). You have to explain to someone that you make your own filters before they start to take you seriously.

Quote
KGtheway2B wrote: Also, how would adding a new EULA provide an incentive to keep "skilled" authors posting new filters? They've already gotten the rewards, how would a new contract (woo, new contract!/s) make them want to suddenly return?

What's the incentive to keep sharing filters once you've gotten 5 HU's (which I still have not, btw...)? I don't see any really. It's nice to share techniques and ideas, but should we give our filters away to do that? Add to that the fact that your work can be taken and exploited by anyone who buys the program? Texture sellers who do not make their own filters are making a lot of money (money they don't deserve, in my opinion). And what do the filter authors/artists get? The gratification of knowing that someone likes your work enough to sell it and screw you out of the deal?

I'm starting to ramble...
I need some food and coffee.
I hope this conversation continues.

Quote
I don't know if I'd call it 'hoarding filters'. I like to share my filters, and I want to share more. I'm happy to see someone use one of my filters in a project, but I don't like seeing renders from my filters end up in a texture pack with me getting nothing.

I think hoarding is a perfect term.
If you like to share your filters, want to share more and are happyto see someone use the filters in a project then why not submit then? "Because you're getting nothing"... wow, sounds like you don't want to SHARE; you want to SELL.

Quote
In spite of that I'm seeing more people in the art community (3d art especially) turn their noses at the mention of FF because of the texture reselling.

What?? This doesn't even make sense. It's like saying critics won't like a movie if it has been pirated a lot!

Quote
What's the incentive to keep sharing filters once you've gotten 5 HU's (which I still have not, btw...)? I don't see any really. It's nice to share techniques and ideas, but should we give our filters away to do that?

There is no incentive, you're right! Why did I submit more? Because I think it's awesome to share. Some people don't need a reward, which is why you see dedicated authors like ronjonnie, steviej and sphinx. What might help are ideas that focus on things other than monetary rewards. (See my earlier post)

Quote
Texture sellers who do not make their own filters are making a lot of money

What I've been trying to explain (and what is so far the only substantiated side I've seen regarding this from someone who DOES sell tiles) is that this isn't true. The majority of users here would make more money collecting pennies off the street then they would "selling" filters/results on this proposed "FF market". If it really pisses you off to see texture resellers use your filters, it's simple, don't submit and be quiet about it (as I'm sure a bunch of professional users who use FF in the industry do), don't whine and complain hoping that someone is going to hand-feed you a marketplace.

Basically: if you want to share, do it. Don't complain if you see legitimate owners of filterforge using the program to sell tiles, THEY did the work of setting up the site, rendering the ROYALTY-FREE results and creating a market.

Quote
My thinking (texture resellers won't like this...) is that since a filter author/artist defines the parameters of the filter that define what's made from it then all textures generated with it would be "straight texture results". Now, that works better for texture filters, and may not work for effect filters.

Could you rephrase this? I don't understand what you were trying to say here.

Quote
KGtheway2B wrote: Also, how would adding a new EULA provide an incentive to keep "skilled" authors posting new filters? They've already gotten the rewards, how would a new contract (woo, new contract!/s) make them want to suddenly return?

Incentive for authors and blocking easy reselling are two separate problems. Blocking reselling, however, is something we'll need to do sooner -- because opening the library for submissions of V2.0 filters is a good opportunity to roll out a new licensing for these new filters. Incentives for authors can be added later.

SJ:

Quote
First, texture resellers only want the results that will sell.....and authors most always cover those within the filter's 20 presets.

No we don't... I only create 8 or 9 presets so the previews don't all look horrible, I hope that the users of my filters use the presets only as guides to help teach them how the controls work. And I'd certainly hope that the usefulness of filter aren't exhausted after 20 presets, that's what's great about FF- you can change the controls to create exactly what you want. If you start focusing on just the boring bitmap outputs of the program you lose sight of the power inherent in procedurally generated textures.

SJ:

Quote
Second, authors can easily spot and prove when results came "straight" from one of their unmodified filters.....irregardless of the variation. And third, authors would be the ones responsible for DMA removal.....not FF.....

You're right, most authors, I'm sure, have a pretty sharp eyes when it comes to seeing their work. But, hey, what if they're wrong? I'm sure someone would be pretty pissed off to find a DMCA removal notice on something they made themselves. Or even something that they, in good faith, thought they had a right to do (if they did use unaltered filters). Perhaps they even changed a few things, how could the author be a fair judge of this? It just doesn't make any sense. There are too many eventualities and loopholes that trying to make a coherent legal argument for what 'you guys' want is practically impossible.

Listen, I understand how you can get pissed off at resellers. If you keep getting riled up by threads like these (Yeah! I vote for Steve! Right on with all of that above! ) of course it's easy to see the resellers as "the bad guys". They're out there STEALING your work and MAKING MONEY! GASP! But the reality of it is: they are not breaking any rules, are using your filters (giving you HU!), and probably spent a lot of time creating those renders, setting up the site and putting them out there for sale. If it's really such a goldmine to sell textures like they are doing, stop complaining about them and go do it yourself. If not, then share your filters on the library because you want to share, not because you expect someone to pay you for them.

Vlad:

Quote
Incentive for authors and blocking easy reselling are two separate problems. Blocking reselling, however, is something we'll need to do sooner -- because opening the library for submissions of V2.0 filters is a good opportunity to roll out a new licensing for these new filters. Incentives for authors can be added later.

I hope that I never implied that author-incentives should be placed above any other development. The idea that FF inc should halt development of V2.0 to address any of the issues raised in this thread is simply absurd. (See last paragraph of OP)

As for "blocking reselling": I simply don't think reselling is a problem. I have long felt, and Sign Guy only confirmed my presumption, that pre-rendered procedural tiled textures are pretty poor selling. Undercutting the prices, as proposed by StevieJ, would make these profit margins thinner to the point of irrelevancy. Certainly not enough of a problem to jeopardize one of the great features of a program we all enjoy.

Call me a fear monger if you like. If anything, I'd claim the "fear mongering" lies solely with authors stating they won't post new filters unless new copyright rules a passed. To me, this sounds only like a pathetic attempt to blackmail someone into creating a platform for you to make a quick buck because you're too uninspired to do it yourself.

Quote

KGtheway2B wrote: If it really pisses you off to see texture resellers use your filters, it's simple, don't submit and be quiet about it (as I'm sure a bunch of professional users who use FF in the industry do), don't whine and complain hoping that someone is going to hand-feed you a marketplace. Basically: if you want to share, do it. Don't complain if you see legitimate owners of filterforge using the program to sell tiles, THEY did the work of setting up the site, rendering the ROYALTY-FREE results and creating a market.

Heh... if I had seen that I may not have been as nice as I was in my last post...
You just seem like you're trying to take this somewhere it doesn't need to go...
Well... I guess that's up to you...

I don't want to bother right now... it's too early.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: On an otherwise active ecommerce art site, 669 seamless tiles by jffe in 21 months has sold two images total. 225 seamless tiles by Redcap has had no sales.

It's no surprise that didn't work out too well.
After a quick look at those I see that prices are quite high...
$4.95 for 1 900x900 tile...?
You can get a pack of 10 or more tiles for that money on some texture sites.
That may be why sales were so poor.
Selection is kind of lacking as well.
Not to mention it's slow to browse and the site looks a bit boring.

This tile, , this tile and this tile are our three top sellers. The fire was generated from a photo using ImageSynth, the diamond plate was created in several steps using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop and the currency as created using a Filter Forge random bomber filter written for me under a contract with RedCap.

Reasonably good sales of procedurally generated tiles have been experienced with modified renderings using Vlad's Electricity filter and various wood renderings where I adjusted grain and knots extensively and then took color readings directly from photos of specific woods and applied them to the filter.

Open source, and free sharing of filters and textures sounds like a great idea...
Does that mean the FF team should make their program free for all?
Should all 'texture resellers' become 'texture givers'?
Ect...

I realize that FF has given away many copies through the current reward system.
I got my copy for free back in the v1 beta days, and I'm very greatful.
This software has changed my artwork, as I'm sure it's done for many others.
I just keep thinking that something is not right with the way things are set up here.

It's not just the artists who would benefit from some changes.
Filter Forge would make a percentage on all texture sales and that could very well make up for any lost program sales.
Check out a site like Renderosity for texture packs...
FF could offer packs here in different resolutions at different prices and be able to appeal to many different markets.

Or, they could license filters they want to offer as 'royalty-free' in the library directly from artists/authors. That may work fairly well also.

Quote
tigerAspect wrote: 2: "Open Source" style community features for collaborative filter development.

ahhh..You can that already..Just start a thread..There are many who have done just this within the threads..Even me..Sometimes to make something better or to solve a problem....Unless you are talking about a whole new web interface or site for just this purpose.....
Like the latest filter I submitted I set it up so people can change things..

Quote
tigerAspect wrote: Seriously, it sounds like Sign Guy knows what he's talking about.

Yes he does....Hes been at this a long time..

However one thing came to mind about this and other discussions about this..When talking about texture re-sellers one has to distinguish between the difference in those sellers and their target marketplaces.....