It Is A Violation Of The Adobe Trademark To Say An Image Was "Photoshopped"(adobe.com)
adobe.com
It Is A Violation Of The Adobe Trademark To Say An Image Was "Photoshopped"
http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#section-4
16 comments
Must be case of trying to avoid genericizing the trademark, as has happened with 'googling' or 'aspirin' etc.? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark)
Anyway, it doesn't seem inappropriate to at least make a show about trying to enforce it.
Anyway, it doesn't seem inappropriate to at least make a show about trying to enforce it.
Exactly.
The only way Adobe can claim that it's not generic is if they actively pursue those using it in a generic sense.
Nobody wants to be the next linoleum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum#Loss_of_trademark_prot...
When I used to read writing magazines, the backs always had a number of paid-for messages saying things like, "You don't xerox a xerox on a xerox".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum#Loss_of_trademark_prot...
When I used to read writing magazines, the backs always had a number of paid-for messages saying things like, "You don't xerox a xerox on a xerox".
I only google with Bing these days. Though I've been hearing good things about this new google called DuckDuckGo.
This is a result of trademark law rather than any particular idiocy on the part of Adobe. Guidelines like this get made fun of on the internet fairly regularly, but it's always the company that's ridiculed rather than the laws. Ultimately, any company that wants to hold on to its trademarks has to do something like this.
Why should the laws be ridiculed? They prevent companies from promoting their trade marks as generic terms and then claiming a monopoly on them - rather like the old days when people would sneak patented technologies into IEEE standards and the like and then demand royalties from everyone who implemented them.
If the cost to society of preventing this is limited to one mildly absurdist press release per company, it seems like a pretty good law.
If the cost to society of preventing this is limited to one mildly absurdist press release per company, it seems like a pretty good law.
My point wasn't so much that the law should be ridiculed as if something is to be ridiculed, it should probably be the law rather than the company.
In practice, I agree with you: I actually think trademark law is completely reasonable--it's just that the most reasonable course of action involves companies doing things which can appear silly. And when people see companies doing silly things, they almost inevitably want to ridicule them, usually with good reason.
In practice, I agree with you: I actually think trademark law is completely reasonable--it's just that the most reasonable course of action involves companies doing things which can appear silly. And when people see companies doing silly things, they almost inevitably want to ridicule them, usually with good reason.
Yep. They want to avoid it becoming generic. They're far too late, though, to stop photoshopping from becoming a verb because these guidelines have been completely ignored by almost everyone for a long time now.
> They want to avoid it becoming generic.
I don't understand why would they do that, though.
I don't understand why would they do that, though.
It kills the trademark. Once something becomes generic, anyone can use it. So a competitor could say "we produce the best photoshop software" because the term is now simply a word for editing photos digitally rather than for a specific product from Adobe.
Because once it become generic, other people can start selling products called Photoshop. Suddenly, there'd be Microsoft Photoshop and Adobe Photoshop and Canon Photoshop and who knows what else, and they are afraid they'd lose their dominance in the market.
Having a generic brand name doesn't mean other companies can do that, as there is no legal term defining generic brand names (i.e. a brand name that became synonymous with a product). What does happen is that people start referring to other products using the brand name, and you might lose the identity of your product.
If people use "to google" for performing an Internet search, it can mean they will automatically use Google.com, which Google want, but it also could mean people will start "google" stuff using bing, or duckduckgo.com and if the term becomes generic enough, it will lose the immediate attachment it has to the actual search engine.
Another issue is that it carries connotation. When you say "This model was photoshopped to look thinner/prettier/etc." you create a negative connotation with the brand. Adobe fears people will hear "photoshop" and immediately think "falsifying images, creating false reality, hiding stuff" etc.
It also causes the brand to be identified with a single product, which in Adobe's case is not such a huge deal, as Photoshop is the product, but in other brands, like Apple, or Google (again), means a whole slew of products across different fields, this is also why the Apple sign was removed from the Macintosh' keyboard.
Another issue is that it carries connotation. When you say "This model was photoshopped to look thinner/prettier/etc." you create a negative connotation with the brand. Adobe fears people will hear "photoshop" and immediately think "falsifying images, creating false reality, hiding stuff" etc.
It also causes the brand to be identified with a single product, which in Adobe's case is not such a huge deal, as Photoshop is the product, but in other brands, like Apple, or Google (again), means a whole slew of products across different fields, this is also why the Apple sign was removed from the Macintosh' keyboard.
Having a generic brand name doesn't mean other companies can do that, as there is no legal term defining generic brand names (i.e. a brand name that became synonymous with a product).
Actually, it means exactly that-- as you can tell by the number of companies selling "aspirin" or "cellophane" or "linoleum".
Trademark is precisely the protection that prevents others from selling a product with your name (or one so similar as to be easily confused.)
Actually, it means exactly that-- as you can tell by the number of companies selling "aspirin" or "cellophane" or "linoleum".
Trademark is precisely the protection that prevents others from selling a product with your name (or one so similar as to be easily confused.)
Correct: New features in Adobe® Photoshop® have added bloat since Adobe® Photoshop® 5.5.
Incorrect: Photoshop's new features are impressive.
OK, think I've got it!
Incorrect: Photoshop's new features are impressive.
OK, think I've got it!
Okay. I'll say "Gimped" from now on. Let's see how that actually help Adobe squeeze more money out of Photoshop™.
In their dreams.
My lexicographer and lawyer colleagues have faced this one many times. As I understand it once a trademark enters common usage as a verb it is safe for inclusion in the dictionary, as a noun it isn't.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Hoover#m_en_gb03861... http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photoshop
My lexicographer and lawyer colleagues have faced this one many times. As I understand it once a trademark enters common usage as a verb it is safe for inclusion in the dictionary, as a noun it isn't.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Hoover#m_en_gb03861... http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photoshop
Trademarks must never be abbreviated.
Correct: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software. Incorrect: Take a look at the new features in PS.
Adobe.... :/
Correct: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software. Incorrect: Take a look at the new features in PS.
Adobe.... :/
Google has similar guidelines:
http://developer.googleapps.com/branding-guidelines
http://developer.googleapps.com/branding-guidelines
* Use the trademark only as an adjective, never as a noun or verb, and never in the plural or possessive form.
[... the very next line ...]
* Use only Google-approved artwork when using Google's logos.
[... the very next line ...]
* Use only Google-approved artwork when using Google's logos.
>This includes modifying a Google trademark through hyphenation...
Hey Adobe, you might want to revise your icons then…
http://i.imgur.com/9xoAI.png
http://i.imgur.com/9xoAI.png
I never figured how to pronounce the ®
I work for a company that deals mainly in brand identity and believe me, these guidelines are not obscure compared to some of the guidelines we have to follow when doing artwork.
Although you could argue that people using the term "photoshopped" has actually increased Adobes revenue over the years due to the exposure they are only trying to protect the brand they have built.
There have been a few cases of this over the years, some other comments cover one of them, "Google it", "I have just bought a Hoover (instead of vacuum)". Photoshopped gets used as a generic term but I think Adobe should be embracing this slang usage as they are part of a collective where their branding has become so important that it has replaced the original term.
Adobe won't see it this way though obviously.
I do take brand identity seriously but I couldn't begin to imagine having a conversation with someone where I would say, "Have you used Adobe Photoshop software to edit that image".
Although you could argue that people using the term "photoshopped" has actually increased Adobes revenue over the years due to the exposure they are only trying to protect the brand they have built.
There have been a few cases of this over the years, some other comments cover one of them, "Google it", "I have just bought a Hoover (instead of vacuum)". Photoshopped gets used as a generic term but I think Adobe should be embracing this slang usage as they are part of a collective where their branding has become so important that it has replaced the original term.
Adobe won't see it this way though obviously.
I do take brand identity seriously but I couldn't begin to imagine having a conversation with someone where I would say, "Have you used Adobe Photoshop software to edit that image".
That's cute. They think people will listen.
Don't most new companies aim for product names that are easily verb'ed? "Google it", "Xerox it", "Reddit", etc.
"The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software." "This writer has a stick up his butt".
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Because so many people are using Apple's Photoshop, Google Photoshop and NeXT's Photoshop. Shouldn't they be glad that their product name is SO ubiquitous that they don't NEED stuff like this?
Oh lawyers. You so crazy.
Don't most new companies aim for product names that are easily verb'ed? "Google it", "Xerox it", "Reddit", etc.
"The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software." "This writer has a stick up his butt".
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Because so many people are using Apple's Photoshop, Google Photoshop and NeXT's Photoshop. Shouldn't they be glad that their product name is SO ubiquitous that they don't NEED stuff like this?
Oh lawyers. You so crazy.
People are giving us free advertising? Let's sue them!
Excuse me while I photochop someone photoshopping themselves giving two fingers to adobe.
Can't they just be happy with all the free advertising they're getting?!
I'm so glad they've payed someone to write this important guide.
Can't believe that there is someone actually working at Adobe and thinking about these use cases. In my opinion, they should feel proud of the fact that the software is so popular that it is being used as a common verb. And here they, explicitly mentioning that this is incorrect. Sometimes, I just can't understand organizations.
They are basically required to do this by law or they loose the trademark.
So now you understand organizations just a bit better.
Always remember: People are rational. If you don't understand them it's usually because you don't know something. (OK, not always :)
So now you understand organizations just a bit better.
Always remember: People are rational. If you don't understand them it's usually because you don't know something. (OK, not always :)
The headline of this link is misleading. An action doesn't 'violate a trade mark'. An action can infringe the rights that a trade mark owner has (the scope of those rights will be dependent on the location in which the right has been granted and where the action takes place). In common law countries, trade mark rights can refer to statutory rights (which are granted in accordance with a piece of legislation and typically require registration with a government office) and common law rights.
This document is Adobe's guidelines for use of its trade marks. Adobe is saying that, if you follow the guidelines in these documents, then you can be sure that you have not infringed any of Adobe's rights in its trade marks (or at least that Adobe won't sue you alleging that you have).
Whether a failure to follow these guidelines constitutes trade mark infringement is a separate matter. Generally speaking, a trade mark owner has the right to use a trade mark exclusively in the course of trade in respect of a class of products. What does it mean to use a trade mark in the course of trade? This means, for instance, using a particular word or phrase to identify your product. Consumers will then use your trade mark to identify your product in the course of trade (eg. 'Could I please buy a copy of Photoshop?'). An obvious rationale for trade mark rights is to protect consumers from unscrupulous merchants who might call their product Photoshop in order to take advantage of the goodwill Adobe has built up in its product.
However, not every use of a term is in the course of trade. It is not in the course of trade for me to write a Wikipedia article about Photoshop. I would argue it is also not in the course of trade to use photoshop as a verb to refer to the act of digital manipulating an image (such as by using the Photoshop product).
Why does Adobe want to prevent people from doing this? As others have pointed out, if a trade mark falls into common usage, a trade mark owner can lose the ability to register it as a trade mark (trade marks are usually registered for a period of time and must be renewed after that period) and so lose, at the very least, the statutory rights associated with that registration. This then enables competitors to use that term in their products. Good examples of trade marks that have fallen into common usage are elevator, xerox and hoover. Obviously Adobe spends a great deal of money developing and marketing the Photoshop brand. They do not want to see it become a generic term that competitors can use.
That said, usually both trade mark owners and their competitors have little interest in a term becoming generic. You don't see Microsoft going around saying that you should 'google' something. While a trade mark falling into common usage can be a bad thing from an intellectual property perspective, it can of course be a good thing from a marketing perspective. This is why the only people like to cause a trade mark to fall into common usage is the general public (and possibly journalists). So, people like Adobe pay lawyers to draft up these kind of documents to help make sure that doesn't happen.
While I practice law, I must give one of those annoying disclaimers that are part of the reason people hate us: I am not your lawyer and the above should not be treated as legal advice. If you are concerned as to whether you are infringing a trade mark, I recommend speaking to a lawyer in your local area.