[HN Gopher] This file has Pantone colors that have been removed ...
___________________________________________________________________
This file has Pantone colors that have been removed and replaced
with black
Author : tosh
Score : 351 points
Date : 2022-10-28 11:18 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| kevin_b_er wrote:
| And now we see the asymmetry of a contract with Adobe Inc. Adobe
| has altered the deal, pray they do not alter it any further.
| moolcool wrote:
| The comments here seem to be mostly litigating whether Pantone
| ought to be allowed to license colour names. To me though, the
| scandalous thing about this is that a piece of software which you
| paid for can work fine one day can stop functioning the same way
| the next because of a change in the vendor's license agreements.
| Like imagine if you bought a song which uses samples and one day
| the backing track just disappears because the artist didn't renew
| the sample clearance.
| ehnto wrote:
| It's a complex problem when you start to dig into it, mostly
| because so much software (including Photoshop) is delivered as
| a SaaS product and even more so as they become more and more
| cloud connected. Behaving more like a live-service that you're
| connected to rather than a discrete application on your device.
| You could say that your application should continue to have the
| licensed content, but their live-service couldn't continue to
| provide it through their servers.
|
| I think these are just oversights in the contract in a way. I
| would hope we'd see less of these mishaps as time goes on and
| companies get better at writing long-term outcomes into their
| contracts. It would be a pain in the butt to write software
| that handles legacy licensing per user over a live service
| though.
| moolcool wrote:
| You're right, but that doesn't stop it from sucking. Like
| every defense of Adobe and Pantone here are technically
| correct and rational, but that doesn't stop this from being a
| stupid problem which is deeply unfair to the consumer.
| ehnto wrote:
| Oh I agree wholeheartedly. And we will probably be bringing
| up the Adobe Pantone debacle in ten years when auto owners
| suddenly lose access to their heated seats because their
| licensing ran out, or somthing equally asinine. We seem to
| be very busy applying all these same mistakes but to real
| world products like coffee pod machines, cars and TVs, home
| security and such.
| mindslight wrote:
| We should plainly reject the adoption of Software Augmented
| with Additional Surveillance. If the purpose of some software
| doesn't involve communication, yet a specific piece of
| software arbitrarily requires Internet access (likely for the
| developer's own purposes of control), then don't use it.
| Period. In addition to saving yourself from this type of bait
| and switch, you'll be dodging some surveillance and other
| user-hostile anti-features enabled constant connectivity.
|
| There are plenty of older releases of Photoshop available on
| torrent sites that will install locally, that should have
| long passed into public domain if copyright law were sane. If
| Adobe isn't even willing to sell you a version of Photoshop,
| and insists that you can now only rent it, that's yet another
| reason to not feel bad about piracy.
| AequitasOmnibus wrote:
| This happens all the time in the entertainment industry.
|
| For example: TV show X licenses pop song Y for its initial
| broadcast. The group that owns the syndication rights didn't
| buy the right to use song Y, consequently they have to replace
| the music with generic Muzak in subsequent broadcasts.
|
| You pay for Netflix, start watching show X, and when it gets to
| the big dramatic moment with sweeping music (that you remember
| from when the show originally aired), it's replaced with
| elevator music.
|
| Same goes for a lot of movies.
| pradn wrote:
| Same issue for video games:
| https://www.gamesindustry.biz/alan-wake-to-be-removed-
| from-s...
| LocalH wrote:
| The difference is, those changes don't affect _existing_
| copies, they affect _new_ copies. If you have a VHS or DVD
| copy of the show before the license expired, then you have
| the original music. This is mangling old documents unless you
| pay a fee. Yet another example of modern copyright leading to
| the individuals having the least possible rights, in order to
| be nickled and dimed.
|
| It would make more sense if existing documents could still
| retain their colors, but _new_ documents couldn 't be made
| with the Pantone colors in question. It'd still suck, but
| it'd be more respectful to the end users of the software.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| But with screaming there are no old copies. And if you
| never update Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign Pantone colours
| will continue to work.
| Macha wrote:
| How long is not updating photoshop an option? Will the
| DRM stop supporting old versions eventually? (like it
| already has with some of the CS versions)
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| I'm not sure. I stopped using Adobe CC products as a
| hobbyist because it costs way too damn much (I was only
| able to get three years of a student subscription from 2
| different school email addresses).
| LocalH wrote:
| People are also having issues with face detection
| libraries in the latest perpetually-licensed version of
| Lightroom. So that's not always true.
| moolcool wrote:
| Yes, but that doesn't stop it from sucking. Also, they can do
| it with streaming media, but they can't come to my house and
| replace my DVDs. Just because it's technically correct,
| doesn't mean that it's not a bullshit model which is anti-
| consumer and anti-creativity.
| jakub_g wrote:
| > You pay for Netflix, start watching show X, and when it
| gets to the big dramatic moment with sweeping music (that you
| remember from when the show originally aired), it's replaced
| with elevator music.
|
| > Same goes for a lot of movies.
|
| Wait wat? Do you have some examples / links?
| AequitasOmnibus wrote:
| Dawson's Creek, for one: https://entertainment.ie/on-
| demand/on-demand-news/why-does-d...
| mbg721 wrote:
| WKRP in Cincinnati used a lot of rock/pop music that was
| replaced in syndication. I believe that's also why The Drew
| Carey Show isn't readily available these days.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| Pretty much the entire Scrubs soundtrack is different on
| Netflix.
| xwdv wrote:
| I think people just need to change their way of thinking.
| Software these days isn't really just a program, it's a complex
| collection of business relationships and software is just the
| contract that allows them to operate together, and you're one
| end of it. The software is just a supply chain that allows you
| to create new content, and it can be suddenly broken the same
| way a physical supply chain can be.
| drewbeck wrote:
| Agree. Updating old files with black specifically is egregious.
| Even replacing the color with a CMYK/RGB near equivalent would
| be far far less hostile than this approach. Oh you want to know
| what colors you used on that piece from 15 years ago? Pay up.
| It's basically a shakedown and should be illegal.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| You don't buy Adobe software. You subscribe to the Adobe SaaS.
| This is the consequence of replacing products with
| subscriptions. If people don't like that then they should do
| something about it. Too late to vote with your wallet, the
| industry as a whole has moved to this.
|
| Adam Smith, the guy who came up with capitalism, wrote about
| the evils of rent seeking. You need a regulatory approach.
| xnyan wrote:
| I am not opposed to using regulation, but I can't see what
| could be done with regulation that would lead to, say, non-
| subscription adobe products. Mandate that offline versions be
| available for purchase? There would also have to be some kind
| of price control mechanism or adobe would make it
| unaffordable. That seems very specific and messy, but I'm
| sure there are other ideas.
| afrcnc wrote:
| Pantone did not invent colors... physics did. Who the fuck
| allowed this company to register colors under copy rights?
|
| What's next? Bayer copyrights oxygen and I have to pay a breathe
| tax now?
| fazfq wrote:
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >- in some places masks were mandatory unless you were
| vaccinated, which meant that literally you couldn't breathe
| (well) unless you paid big pharma for the right.
|
| Could you expand on this, especially the "literally you
| couldn't breathe", part. And the rest, too, could do with
| some development.
| lupire wrote:
| Everything is physics. That's not an argument against copyright
| or patents.
|
| Anyway the OP is about Pantome's databases, not the colors or
| their RGB descriptions themselves.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Everything is physics.
|
| Not everything.[1]
|
| [1] https://xkcd.com/435/
| nine_k wrote:
| Pantone colors are not RGB but CMYK, plus there is a number
| of non-CMYK paints and printing inks for spot colors which
| use Pantone color names.
| quitit wrote:
| pantone have a colour mixing system based on 6 primaries called
| hexachrome, they then publish a book of formulas using those
| colours - it's an easy way for printers to mix up the colours.
| This represents the majority of "pantone" colours.
|
| Anyone is still able to mix and use a colour through other
| means, but no one can put out a book with pantone's same
| formulas.
|
| The real problems however arise with trademarked colours (think
| tiffany's blue, whiskas purple, kinder orange, etc.) That's
| where you literally can't use a colour in a particular
| copyright category.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| "The real problems however arise with trademarked colours
| (think tiffany's blue, whiskas purple, kinder orange, etc.) "
|
| Is it a problem, though? The only limitation is that you
| can't use these colors to misrepresent a product a product in
| a commercial setting. You can't sell an item wrapped in
| Tiffany's Blue.
|
| " That's where you literally can't use a colour in a
| particular copyright category. "
|
| No, these colors are not protected under copyright, only
| trademarks. The limits on using them only apply to particular
| context of trade. You can use trademarks freely as long as
| they're not misrepresenting the trade item. You can paint
| with them. They can appear in your photographs.
|
| What you can't do is brand a product with them.
| quitit wrote:
| Sorry, yes I mistyped "copyright" for trademark, however
| the earlier reference to trademarks should have clued to
| the correct word.
|
| However contrary to your assumption; trademark protection
| is proactive or the owner risks losing their trademark to
| general use. This requires that even similar usage in other
| branding/trademarks is opposed.
|
| For the Tiffany & Cp example, it means any kind of medium
| blue can't be used in their registered trademark categories
| regardless if it obvious that it's not Tiffany & Co. The
| benchmark for litigation is not misrepresentation.
|
| This is a problem as there is currently a land grab for
| colours, and since each must be protected broadly, and each
| trademark owner files the broadest number of categories
| possible this becomes a minefield.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Sure, and I think we probably agree that some reform is
| needed around trademarking colors. So I'll correct myself
| as well and agree that it is a problem -- though somewhat
| limited in scope.
|
| My point was only that it isn't a broad limitation such
| as Copyright creates that spills over into say, letting a
| camera take pictures with a shade of blue or using blue
| in a piece of software. I believe the scope of the
| trademark's application is fairly narrow, so it's not
| something most people in other fields need to worry
| about.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| I thought it was well established that recipes (incl -
| formulas, compounds, and prescriptions) can't be covered with
| copyright - so I'm assuming this only applies specifically to
| the pantone names, as listed in a compendium with other
| copyright material?
| ilyt wrote:
| Sooo what would stop someone from just producing say
| "mantone-123" color that's same as "pantone-123" color ?
|
| Did they patent every single proportion of paint mixture or
| what ?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Pantone did invent their names for colours. You can use the
| colours, but not their names. These files are using their names
| is the issue. If the file used their own names or raw CMYK
| values it's be fine.
| Maursault wrote:
| This is true. And you can also drag a Pantone color into a
| swatch and rename the color. Problem solved.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Note that not all Pantone colors can be matched exactly in a
| 4-color CMYK process.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| Does that matter if the thing being designed is gonna
| printed by a cmyk printer or displayed on a screen? And
| more: does it matter if the color is 1/3 of a lumen off
| from whatever was shown on a screen that was possibly not
| even properly calibrated?
| jon-wood wrote:
| Generally no, it doesn't matter if you're just displaying
| on (mostly uncalibrated) screens, or printing in CMYK on
| normal paper stock. It gets more interesting if you're
| producing things like brochures, in which you care about
| the texture and technique used to apply particular areas
| as well as the colour itself. Thing about things like the
| glossy lettering on a brochure which can't be represented
| as a set of four colours.
| ghaff wrote:
| And the fact is that a lot of designers can get
| incredibly anal about tiny details of color/texture/etc.
| I remember back in undergrad when I was doing some press
| work, there was one poster that the designers had
| specified two different (Pantone) shades of dark neutral
| ink and I doubt anyone looking at the poster saw anything
| other than "black" for both of them.
|
| And before any developers throw shade on this sort of
| obsessiveness, remember stones and glass houses.
| jon-wood wrote:
| I picked up a love of design obsession from the years I
| spent working as a developer in design agencies. A lot of
| it is very much focused on how a thing feels to whoever
| receives it, even they don't consciously notice that
| happening. Stuff like the paper stock or binding is only
| ever going to _excite_ a professional designer, but even
| people with no education on this at all can tell the
| difference between a glossy brochure with thick textured
| pages and a cheap flyer printed for as little money as
| possible. Some companies even target the latter because
| they don 't want to give the impression of being a luxury
| retailer.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| If you're printing CMYK you wouldn't really use a Pantone
| color anyway. The value of Pantone is that you can get a
| specific color with just one printing pass. If what
| you're printing only has black, and forest green, then
| instead of doing a cyan pass, a magenta pass, a yellow
| pass, and a black pass, you can do a black pass and a
| Pantone 17-0230 TCX pass.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If you pick up a pantone book and flip through it, they
| put their colors opposite CMYK equivalents. Sometimes
| they barely resemble each other. CMYK is optimally
| expressive, not maximally expressive. To make all the
| pantone colors requires a wall full of sloppy cans of
| paint to be mixed through a book of arcane formulas. To
| make a CMYK color, you need four cans of paint and four
| percentage values.
|
| edit: anybody who thinks the gamut of CMYK is anything
| like the gamut of Pantone, try printing out something
| purple on your printer. I worked prepress, and trying to
| get a good CMYK purple is my idea of hell.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I think it's physical properties like coating, which yeah
| do have a large impact.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| People use Pantone because they want to get colors that
| don't exist in CMYK. It's what makes Pantone worth paying
| for.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Pantone did not invent colors... physics did. Who the fuck
| allowed this company to register colors under copy rights?
|
| The point is communication, usability, and reproduction.
|
| Communication because "Pantone 123" is easier to convey
| throughout the chain than "C:11,Y:22,M:33,K:44".
|
| Usability because Pantone swatches are easier to use in a
| design environment, and also easier to choose the swatch number
| in Adobe than to mess around choosing "C:11,Y:22,M:33,K:44".
| You can also give your client a Pantone swatch book and let
| them loose without them having to know about CMYK, substrates
| etc. etc.
|
| Reproduction because you can ensure you consistently achieve
| the same output irrespective of substrate
| (uncoated,coated,glossy, paper, fabric yada yada yada ...). It
| also gives printers a well defined reference for ink mixing,
| quality checks etc.
|
| TL;DR: It makes everyone's life easier, clients, designers,
| printers etc.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Why don't we have a public domain standard to discuss colors
| the same way?
| dangerface wrote:
| Pantone is an ink the public domain standard would be cmyk.
|
| If you get five printers and ask them all to print
| C:11,Y:22,M:33,K:44 you get five different colours as each
| will have to mix their cmyk inks to get that colour.
|
| Pantone is a spot colour that means you can buy a pot of
| ink thats Pantone 123 there is no mixing so the colour is
| always the same. If you want to print on glossy paper thats
| going to change the look of the colour so Pantone also do
| inks for each surface you want to print on, they also do
| dyes for plastics and clothes etc.
|
| Edit: The difference between the five printers would be
| insignificant but if you are a designer or want your logo
| to look exactly the same on stand ups, pamphlet, business
| cards etc you would use a spot colour.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Part of the utility of Pantone is not just the color spec
| but the physical samples they produce that are the actual
| specifications and standards. They make color swatches and
| cards so that you can see for sure what everyone else will
| (try) to produce when you say "make this accent piece
| Pantone 13459 with a matte finish and this bit over here
| Pantone 9329 with a glossy finish." The utility isn't 100%
| just in the standard but also in producing those physical
| instantiations so designers and artists can KNOW what color
| they're actually specifying and can see it in different
| lights not just on a screen that might not fully replicate
| the color.
|
| Making all those samples is tougher to do with an open
| standard, you'd need some certification body/process for a
| company to make for people to use to satisfy a similar
| niche as Pantone.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Because somebody hasn't done all the work. Why would they?
|
| As an individual crafter/designer I could see myself
| developing specifications for a small number of colors I
| use in a project. Doing 1000s of colors would be a huge
| project that would need some way to pay for it.
| joezydeco wrote:
| Don't use Pantone 123 in your product because that's Fluke
| trade dress. =)
| jeremy151 wrote:
| Pantone, a division of X-Rite, is owned by Danaher. Fluke
| is also owned by Danaher. I have no particular point, other
| than I found it interesting that the two brands of shared
| parentage collided spontaneously in conversation.
| joezydeco wrote:
| Fluke and the sister measurement companies (like Tek)
| were spun out of Danaher in 2016 and are now called
| Fortive. More corporate shenanigans.
| jeremy151 wrote:
| Ahh, interesting, good to know, thank you. I've been
| outside of that world for a while.
| ilyt wrote:
| Also HP had big test equipment business, then the HP went
| with computers and the measurement stuff was spun into
| Agilent.
|
| Then the electronic measurement stuff was spun into
| Keysight and the Agilent was left with every other
| instrument stuff. So the soul of HP changed name twice
|
| The HP also spun into HPE for servers/switches/storage
| and other datacenter stuff.
|
| All to shed business units that are "just steadily making
| money" from ones that see bigger growth.
| ilyt wrote:
| https://www.redbubble.com/i/skirt/Pantone-123C-by-
| palmea1/21...
|
| That dress seems to be doing just fine
| [deleted]
| greatgib wrote:
| Another clear proof that you are easily fucked when you use
| proprietary softwares! The worse for users is to remember that
| they paid to be screwed like this.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Doubly so when it's a subscription model w/ forced updates. At
| least in the old days, when you paid to "own" a copy, you could
| keep it running as long as all of its dependencies worked.
| CharlesW wrote:
| I think you mean "proprietary color systems". Open source
| software has never supported PANTONE.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > I think you mean "proprietary color systems".
|
| No, "proprietary software" is correct.
|
| > Open source software has never supported PANTONE.
|
| The point is that with open source software, once you get
| something it can't be unilaterally revoked, and this doesn't
| make that false.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Let's get specific here: what does "replaced with black" mean? Is
| the swatch itself remapped to the "black" swatch, or is my
| Pantone color name the same, and only the values change? If the
| swatches are still named the same thing, at least I can recreate
| the colors, but if that information is lost, we've got chaos on
| our hands.
| eithed wrote:
| So, if I pay for license to Adobe, using the colours provided is
| not covered by license?
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Not any longer.
| pfoof wrote:
| Reminds me of times when Facebook wanted to patent the word
| "face" and King wanted to patent the word "candy"
| alberth wrote:
| Pantone for those not aware is like DNS to IPs.
|
| It's a lot easier for designers to discern the Pantone name
| "Mahogany" than its RGB value (205,74,74).
|
| The rub here is that X-Rite (like a Registrar) owns the rights to
| the Pantone names. Now they want to collect a fee for it's
| Pantone names (similarly to how Registrars collects fee for
| Domain Names)
| mellonaut wrote:
| I am in no way affiliated with them, but if you want a great
| alternative for the creative suite that HAS pantone support1,
| definitely try out the Affinity counterparts:
| https://affinity.serif.com/
|
| 1.
| https://twitter.com/affinitybyserif/status/15859336521015992...
| brudgers wrote:
| Also Corel Graphics Suite. Still available on physical media
| with a perpetual license.
| samwillis wrote:
| I decided to go cold turkey a few months ago, cancelled my
| Adobe CC subscription, uninstalled and went with Affinity
| Designer+Photo (they had a 50% off offer on).
|
| To be honest, it's hard! Every time I open the apps the muscle
| memory isn't there, everything takes longer.
|
| I didn't used CC often enough any more to justify the
| subscription. But 20 years of knowledge and experience (at
| times I was using it every day) doesn't translate as quickly to
| another app when you are only using it once a month.
|
| The Affinity products are good, they just aren't exactly the
| same as the Adobe equivalents.
|
| I'm committed to not going back though.
| WickyNilliams wrote:
| I have Affinity Photo and suffer the same problems. I was
| never a Photoshop expert, nor a designer (I know its fallen
| out of fashion for web design), but I had been using it for
| 20 years.
|
| I struggle and get frustrated with affinity photo (why are
| there multiple types of pixel layer??), even if it is good
| software, because to me - wrongly, of course - photoshop is
| de facto _how_ a photo editor should work. I'm sure I'll
| adjust with time. But I use photo editors less than ever, so
| it's very slow going.
|
| But, I can't really complain for the price I paid, and no
| subscription necessary. A lot of respect for Affinity in that
| regard. It's a business model that is becoming increasingly
| rare.
| mellonaut wrote:
| This is true. They are a rival creative suite, and not a
| clone. For some things you will need to adjust your mental
| model, for which their in-house video tutorial series1 are
| quite nice. For other things such as studio layout and
| keybindings you can either try to make them as close to Adobe
| as possible, or invest some time adapting to the new
| situation.
|
| 1. https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/learn/
| fmajid wrote:
| If you are still using Adobe software, you have demonstrated a
| willingness to bend over backwards and pay subscriptions. Is it
| any wonder Pantone wants to get in on the action of fleecing
| sheep?
| alar44 wrote:
| The $15/mo I pay for the Adobe suite is well worth it.
| Baaaaaaa.
| asciimov wrote:
| Just wait till next year when Adobe will go free 2 play on their
| big names like Photoshop.
|
| Wanna open files from other people? Just get the $15/month "Fun
| with Friends" DLC.
|
| Oh need to save a file, better grab the "Sharing is Caring" Extra
| content pack, it's a steal at $20 a month.
|
| But wait, don't forget about your magic lasso, it's part of the
| "western costumes and accessorizes pack". Not only do you get
| your magic lasso but you get a fancy cowboy hat for your desktop
| icon, and some chaps for your menu bar, just to show off your
| western side. It's a real bargain at $44.95 a month! We'll even
| include some real life six-shooter sounds to make it feel even
| more authentic.
|
| ---
|
| All this rent seeking needs to die.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > All this rent seeking needs to die.
|
| What, people charging money for software? How is that "rent
| seeking" and why does it need to die?
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| > What, people charging money for software? How is that "rent
| seeking" and why does it need to die?
|
| There's a difference between buying and renting.
| umanwizard wrote:
| "Rent seeking" is a term of art that means a specific
| thing, it doesn't just mean "whenever you offer to let
| people rent something".
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| > "Rent seeking" is a term of art that means a specific
| thing
|
| Right, and specifically in this context, it refers to the
| act of charging money from software in small continuing
| installments as opposed to charging money in one up-front
| installment (which might be called "buying").
|
| In your earlier message you equated "rent-seeking" with
| "charging money for software". My point is that not all
| ways of charging money for software are rent-seeking.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| Arguably, that model is already dying in favor of what Adobe
| already does: Maximum extraction from everyone who doesn't have
| price sensitivity and scraps for everyone else.
|
| Magic The Gathering for is releasing a set with 60 random non-
| tournament legal cards for $1000, while thinning supply for
| their previously most popular product (Draft boosters) in favor
| of more "premium" products with eye-watering prices.
|
| Overwatch 2 has moved on to charging $20+ for their skins and
| limits essentially all progression to a non-randomized
| Battlepass that requires you to turn the game into your second
| job to complete. In OW1, loot boxes were awarded regularly and
| contained enough currency that a few hours of play could get
| you any of the now $20 skins.
|
| Mobile games figured out that the top 1% of consumers of
| entertainment media can pay for the bulk of it if you just ask
| for prices asinine enough. I guess we'll see if barring the
| other 99% from all optional content will lead to dives in
| player populations.
| DemocracyFTW2 wrote:
| In a way, this isn't new, people have been using toxic colors for
| quite a while. The innovation here is really that Pantone managed
| to get toxic color without using heavy metals or any other
| chemical ingredient.
|
| Another proof that too much money destroys everything at some
| point, much as you need water but too much water will kill you.
|
| In Germany, Deutsche Telekom has long tried to own the letter
| U+0054 Latin Capital Letter T and the color magenta. Use any of
| those and you risk being sued.
| superchroma wrote:
| That's a real piece of shit move. Why not make a lookup table to
| convert to regular colors?
| beardyw wrote:
| Probably a legal issue. A converted pantone colour might still
| be interpreted as being a pantone colour. Madness I know.
| [deleted]
| fxtentacle wrote:
| You need multiple LUT for different profiles black 100% with
| Fogra39 will come out differently than black 100% on a desktop
| inkjet.
|
| And this collection of look up tables to make color
| reproduction more predictable, that's precisely what Pantone
| licenses... So that's probably why Adobe wasn't allowed to add
| it for free.
| superchroma wrote:
| It doesn't have to be accurate. Anything close is better than
| black.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > It doesn't have to be accurate. Anything close is better
| than black.
|
| No. Because that breaks design intent.
|
| If the client and designer agree on "Pantone XYZ", then you
| can't just go replacing that with "something that looks
| vaguely like Pantone XYZ".
|
| That would be a breach of the agreement between client and
| designer. It would also, as explained further up this
| thread, "its not that easy". "Pantone XYZ" is not "just
| another name for C:1,M:2,Y:3,K:4", its all about ensuring
| consistent reproduction of that colour across all desired
| substrates.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| How about letting the user choose? Because if Adobe
| stopped acting like they know better they could solve
| this with one click:
|
| > _You are using Pantone colors, but you don 't have a
| license for them._
|
| > _[X] Replace with a similar CMYK value, obtained from
| printing the color in Bob 's old home printer._
|
| > _[ ] Purchase rights to the Pantone library._
|
| Now the x% of designers who _really_ need Pantone colors
| can pay for them and the remaining (100-x)% users can use
| their files in peace. This is similar to what Inkscape
| does when converting a PDF with unknown fonts, and it 's
| (IMO) a much better solution.
| kuschku wrote:
| Exactly that lookup table is the entirety of Pantone's
| business. They've got a list of colors (which are just indices
| into this table) mapping these color names to a specific CMYK
| combination as well as chemical formulas for _exactly_ that
| color in printing, plastic, in all kinds of materials.
|
| That ensures that any two people naming the same pantone color
| will always know exactly which color is meant.
|
| And this lookup table is what's copyrighted under database
| rights.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Selling spot color inks is a non-trivial portion of Pantone's
| business. There's no such thing as a hexachrome flexo or
| offset press.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Not all Pantone colors can be expressed in CMYK colorspace.
| mlindner wrote:
| This is what happens when you rent your software instead of
| buying it. Don't support rental software. If you want your
| software to keep working for when you need to use it again far in
| the future, don't rent it.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| This is not about the colors, FYI. This is about someone
| referencing a specific Pantone product as a spot color. And the
| automatic conversion from that spot color name to the regular RGB
| / CMYK color values is now gone. But if you embedded the actual
| RGB/CMYK values into your file, then it'll still open just fine
| and display those colors just fine.
|
| Edit: Also, converting from Pantone to regular RGB/CMYK is a lot
| more lossy than one would think. If I reference a Pantone
| product, that pretty much covers all properties of the printed
| surface, including things like reflectivity angles, fluorescence
| and phosphorescence. A cheap xRite will already measure
| reflectivity in 13 wavelength bands. And then it'll average those
| 13 characteristics into 3 RGB numbers. Professional color
| measurement tools can have hundreds of properties per ink type,
| thereby making reduction to 3 values even more lossy.
|
| If I give you RGB, that merely specifies the color at direct
| reflection under normal light. If I give you a Pantone ID, you
| also now how it'll look from the side or under UV light. RGB
| specifies an averaged wavelength mixture, Pantone specifies a
| chemical ink mixture.
|
| Edit2: You know these car paints that have fresnel reflections,
| meaning they appear to have a different color of you look at them
| from a different angle? That's an excellent example of a case
| where you need to specify a specific ink type like Pantone,
| because the RGB value changes based on the viewing angle.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Thanks for the explanation, of course the internet likes to
| simplify things to generate nerd outrage.
| [deleted]
| mindslight wrote:
| > _If I give you RGB, that merely specifies the color at direct
| reflection under normal light_
|
| Not exactly. What primaries? What gamma? What max intensity?
|
| Sure, many of these things have generally accepted defaults.
| But point being it's still not that simple. But really, RGB
| only seems exact because it produces one specific color on the
| monitor in front of you. And it's nowhere close to being able
| to represent the full _gamut_ of possible colors. For example,
| it 's missing all violets!
| technogeek00 wrote:
| Having worked with colors and system conversions a lot, deeply
| appreciate the technical detail here. Cheers!
| FridgeSeal wrote:
| This is so fascinating to learn.
|
| Here is was just thinking Pantone colours were some fancy
| standardised names...
|
| Also, TIL "fresnel" is the name for that colour/pattern!
| laserlight wrote:
| I'm not sure fresnel is the right term. What GP referred to
| is probably iridescence [0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridescence
| mcdonje wrote:
| Yeah, he didn't call the color effect fresnel. He called
| the _reflections_ fresnel. You 're right that the color
| effect is called iridescence.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens
| RHSeeger wrote:
| The fresnel lens/effect is used in a number of places
|
| - Those "invisibility shields" you see videos of
|
| - In (vision) glasses, to correct for double vision (you can
| get prism in the glasses or, if the double vision is too much
| for that, a sticky "fresnel" lens that gets attached to the
| glass. I have one setting on my desk that I was using before
| my corrective surgery, actually... woo, tangents)
| fortran77 wrote:
| This is the real story behind Pantone colors. I've blocked /
| downvoted all those "experts" on twitter who are saying "here's
| a chart of hex equivalents."
| pavlov wrote:
| Is there a downvote button on Twitter nowadays? (Serious
| question, I've given up on the platform -- just curious to
| know if they've changed it)
| lillywastaken wrote:
| Yes, but only for replies.
| acomms wrote:
| I don't understand - in lieu of paying for a Pantone
| subscription, isn't the next best option to use RGB and just
| separately log what the final printed spot Pantone will be?
| Maybe I misunderstand why you dislike the hex equivalents
| chart.
| dangerface wrote:
| RGB is used for describing the colour of light if you are a
| web developer like me you will never need anything else.
| CMYK is used for printed colours that reflect light and as
| such there isn't a direct correlation between them.
|
| For example RGB blue #0000ff is so bright it can not be
| printed, if you tried it would look a lot darker blue than
| the screen shows. This issue with printed colours looking
| different from screen space colours is that printed colours
| will also look different depending on the surface they are
| printed onto and a variety of other variable.
|
| Your work around is fine for me as I work in RGB and would
| really only need the Pantone when im printing once every 5
| years? If you are a print designer then you will be using
| the colours all day every day and having to switch or a
| reference that isn't exact results in expensive printing
| mistakes.
| mceachen wrote:
| People saying "just convert to RGB" are kinda missing the
| point. RGB can't be used for printing-typically you'll send
| CMYK separations.
|
| Unfortunately, the color gamut of CMYK is quite limited. If
| you have a print job that requires a very specific color,
| say, for your logo, it can be cheaper to order a black and
| spot color print run. If the color is out of gamut, you
| have to provide a spot color.
|
| That spot color, at least in the US, was always specified
| in PANTONE.
| dzdt wrote:
| Is there any more open standard than Pantone that expresses
| color properties across viewing angles/lighting conditions?
| Like in the 3d digital modelling space maybe?
| brudgers wrote:
| I don't know if one exists.
|
| But if it does, I am not sure how useful it would be because
| the effort to get an ink/paint that met all those
| requirements would be at least as complex as the Pantone
| factory.
|
| Probably more complex since Pantone designs colors for the
| production facilities they have in existence (or can
| procure).
|
| Basically the problem is who will make the color you
| specified?
|
| There are problems with Pantone, but availability is not
| ordinarily among them.
| ilyt wrote:
| There is no "open source" because it is a shitton of work
| someone has to pay for it and actively manage, and open
| source means anyone else could just take your income source
| (selling the paint catalogs) and re-make it cheaper.
|
| If you're buying a lot you can just design the color, get a
| bunch of samples mixed and pick one.
|
| Hell, you could go to good paint shop and get anything you
| want matched and get a recipe for it, that's how car can be
| painted to match the paint that changed the color with age.
|
| Just costly for anything not mass market.
| brudgers wrote:
| A paint shop does not perform the testing required to
| confirm a paint meets the classes of specifications the
| GP of your comment describes.
|
| Achieving that level of known properties requires
| equipment, personnel, and materials beyond what would
| make commercial sense outside of the market segment in
| which the cost of Pantone systems make sense.
|
| To put it another way, cost of entry is Pantone's moat
| and why it has been filling the same market segment for
| many decades...where $21/month is pretty much no
| different than free.
| twic wrote:
| An attempt was made: http://adaptstudio.ca/ocs/
| [deleted]
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| In Europe everyone uses RAL, not Pantone, for selecting paint
| colours, though I'm not sure about exact differences between
| those colour systems.
| exmadscientist wrote:
| RAL has some serious coverage gaps. Classic RAL has crummy
| oranges and pinks, for example (though they did recently
| fill a major gap with HN-orange-ish, it's not in my deck,
| so it may as well not exist!). Design D2 is much, much
| better, but still not really adequate in many areas that
| Pantone does cover.
|
| But RAL is definitely the better choice for anything but
| printing... if it has your color (colour?).
| account42 wrote:
| The term for that is a bidirectional reflectance distribution
| function (BRDF). No idea about libraries of BRDFs for common
| materials but considering how even games have moved to
| physically-based rendering there must be.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidirectional_reflectance_dist.
| ..
| bogwog wrote:
| The original PBR paper cites a materials database made by
| one of those big Japanese companies many years ago (I think
| it was Mitsubishi?)
|
| EDIT: found it! It's called MERL (https://merl.com/brdf)
|
| Modern PBR specifically doesn't really rely on artists
| choosing a BRDF though. The idea is to pick one that's
| accurate, and expose a handful of variables to control it
| (roughness and metalness mostly)
| code_duck wrote:
| But how does the chemical ink mixture and angle viewing
| translate into colors on a monitor?
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| By having a mapping to RGB values and a calibrated monitor.
|
| This of course then only gives an approximation. However this
| isn't typically used for digital output, but the pantone ID
| is carried along so that when printing (or otherwise
| producing) the physical object the correct color and material
| is being used.
|
| (And some 3D rendering/CAD tool might also deal with
| reflections etc. in digital space)
| ilyt wrote:
| The answer is not very well.
|
| You get best estimate, make your pics, get it printed and
| then actually see it.
| mavhc wrote:
| Is there a more advanced standard colourspace that we could be
| using?
| acomms wrote:
| This is about "printing" isn't it? I guess 3D modelling
| should have spectral qualities - but Pantone is made for spot
| colouring in print and paint.
| mavhc wrote:
| Except the parent talked about reflections and other
| frequencies of light. Do we need a next gen colourspace
| (materialspace?)
| BashiBazouk wrote:
| It use to be and still is to a certain degree but Pantone
| has been trying to move digital and make consistent colors
| when printing 4 color. All the old books have ink formulas
| for spot colors which have limited uses these days. The new
| books ditch the formulas and give RGB, CMYK and html for
| each swatch.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| I think it's less about 'color space' and more about modeling
| material properties.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| There are wide color gamut RGB spaces such as
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB_color_space
|
| that do a better job of modelling many forms of color vision
| than conventional RGB spaces.
|
| The response of the eye under ordinary situations is modeled
| well with three stimulus values, but real colors are on a
| spectrum. Consider
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D
|
| which uses a total of six colors and high precision filters
| such that there is a red that passes the left filter and a
| red that passes the right filter. The two reds look almost
| the same without the filters, but with the filters one
| becomes completely invisible. In situations where light is
| interacting with something other than your eye (filters, a
| prism) the physics become vastly more complex.
|
| Speaking of 3D images lately I've been frustrated with wide
| gamut displays because I make images that are viewed through
| these glasses
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D
|
| Namely the red channel goes to the left eye and the green and
| blue go to the left eye. (0, 180, 0) in sRGB is converted by
| the application (Photoshop, Web Browser) to something like
| (16, 176, 15) before sending to a wide gamut model. Adding a
| little bit of red and blue to the wide gamut green makes it
| look less saturated and more like the sRGB green, but it's
| bad for anaglyph stereograms because the extra red light
| causes an unwanted ghost image to appear in the wrong
| channel.
| exo762 wrote:
| Just guessing, but that seems to imply two possibilities. One
| containing colors that can't be implemented - no such
| pigments / ink / chemicals exist. And other one describing
| actual inks and their behavior - which sounds like what
| Pantone is doing.
| brudgers wrote:
| Yes, Pantone describes inks using samples of actual
| products because it is in the business of selling ink.
|
| Familiarity is the big design advantage of Pantone color. I
| look at the samples, pick a color, and that's what I will
| get. Whether or not my monitor is calibrated or whether or
| not I am using a computer at all.
|
| From a business perspective, if you're logo is Reflex Blue,
| then any reputable print shop can print your leave-behinds
| and any decent sign shop can make your tradeshow display.
| mavhc wrote:
| I think I'd start with: a list of how much of each range of
| frequencies of light are reflected, a list of light that's
| emitted, how matte/mirrored the surface is
| UncleSlacky wrote:
| Relevant commentary from Cory Doctorow:
|
| https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/28/fade-to-black/
| pessimizer wrote:
| Without spots, Photoshop/Illustrator are bordering on worthless.
| This is just a covert price bump.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Without spots, Photoshop /Illustrator are bordering on
| worthless._
|
| This doesn't mean that spot color support is going away.
|
| Other color systems supported by Photoshop's spot color
| support: ANPA-COLOR, DIC Color Guide, FOCOLTONE, HKS swatches,
| TRUMATCH.
| pessimizer wrote:
| But there are Pantone colors in the spec, and by "the spec" I
| mean "every spec." The logo for the company you work for is
| probably defined as a specific Pantone spot. And if I have to
| pay separately for Pantone in Photoshop, there's no reason
| for me not to move to another tool other than if Pantone
| intentionally refused to sell spot support to me on another
| piece of software.
|
| Which leads me to think that they (Adobe, not Pantone)
| endlessly tested and researched the maximum they could add to
| the price if they blamed it on Pantone (who are happy to take
| the blame because they're so entrenched that it won't affect
| their business in the slightest.) They did it, and Pantone
| and Adobe are going to split the proceeds. Or, rather, you're
| going to "subscribe to a Pantone license" and "subscribe to a
| Adobe plugin for Pantone management" as a pretense.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Definitely a price bump, mid contract too. If I actually relied
| on Pantone I'd be pretty mad that it's suddenly 21 more dollars
| a month.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Good opportunity for someone to make a pantone -> non pantone
| converter. Pop in your file, convert all the Pantone colors to
| similar free colors. Profit.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I don't think Pantone will give you a license to their database
| if you make a product to compete with them. If they do, you can
| probably expect a lawsuit anyway.
| fy20 wrote:
| I wonder if that is considered a copyright violation. The
| customer is giving you X and you are giving back Y. But Y is
| not copyright. It could be considered a derivative work, but
| what if you change Y, so it's a couple of degrees off on the
| HSV scale?
| kuschku wrote:
| It's exactly this mapping which is what pantone owns and
| licenses, reproducing it is very likely going to be
| illegal.
| nine_k wrote:
| I immediately remember encrypted, region-locked DVDs and
| the oppressed but often open-source tools to counteract
| it, like DeCSS. Early 2000s were fun!
| zinekeller wrote:
| > But Y is not copyright.
|
| In a similar vein, phonebooks. The answer... is
| complicated. There is a thing called "database rights",
| which as you might guess is a mess. The US argues that
| there is no right as you've simply compiled information
| (see _Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service
| Co._ , and that's why I used phonebooks as an analogy)
| while Europe (not just EU, even UK and Russia) _do_
| recognize database rights.
|
| Even skipping about it, Pantone _named_ them, which could
| give them copyright protection in the US (and other
| countries without specific database rights).
|
| Wikipedia about it:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right
| [deleted]
| fxtentacle wrote:
| The correct RGB values heavily depend on your printing process.
| And your ICC profile. So conversion is not trivial. You could
| license it, though, because that's precisely what Pantone has
| been selling for 20 years.
| [deleted]
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| The greed is unlimited.
|
| I can imagine some MBA whose job is to spend the day thinking:
| how can I suck more money out of this without adding any real
| value? This MBA is at every company now.
| nine_k wrote:
| It's not even an Adobe fault likely. It's Pantone's market
| segmentation, AFAICT. "We don't want cheapskates who would ever
| mind paying mere $21/mo for access to Pantone(tm) colors", they
| could say. They want to deal with larger print shops / agencies,
| and better monetize their chokehold on the industry-accepted
| color-matching system.
|
| This makes a niche for a more open, non-commercial color-matching
| system for print. Which has few incentives to happen: print color
| is hard, buy-in from paint producers is likely even harder.
|
| For Web and other screen-only work, I suppose you don't need
| Pantone.
| [deleted]
| fxtentacle wrote:
| That niche is filled pretty nicely by Heidelberg. Their
| printers come with their own color correction and matching
| system. Plus they ship ICC profiles for accurate screen
| preview.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > This makes a niche for a more open, non-commercial color-
| matching system for print.
|
| Wikipedia tells me Pantone has been around since 1950, TL;DR if
| open non-commercial was going to happen, it would have happened
| already.
|
| As you say, few incentives. Its harder than it looks, its not
| just a case of someone randomly declaring FOO 123=CMYK XYZ.
| Further, the whole supply chain is already well established
| with Pantone.
| quitit wrote:
| We have CIELAB for expressing colour in absolute form. This
| could always be used to express an intended colour.
|
| However you are correct Pantone is entrenched as it is based
| on a simple set of formulas for easy mixing by print shops,
| this is also cemented into various systems that take premixed
| pantones directly (eg HP Indigo). Pantone also extends into
| neon and metallics where LAB of course doesn't exist.
|
| Declaring arbitrary CMYK or RGB values without including a
| corresponding colour profile will produce inaccurate results
| across different devices/output methods due to variation
| (hence why we have colour profiles.)
|
| This change will just likely lead to more colours being
| specified as arbitrary rgb and cmyk values with accuracy be
| damned, which is a trend of new style guides for the last few
| years (also due the rise of trademarking colours).
| ilyt wrote:
| How you even define metallic paint in numbers ? Both shape
| and type of particles can differ
| cypress66 wrote:
| Bit of a cheeky response but you could always encode the
| BRDF with numbers.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I know of at least one color lab that spent years and had
| multiple really smart people trying to come up with a
| closed-form solution for the color (both diffuse and
| specular) given a {ink, illuminant, substrate} combination
| and last I heard never succeeded. Without that, you are
| limited to making giant tables, which is what PMS does and
| it's only useful if everyone is using the same tables.
| quitit wrote:
| I think part of the reason is that beyond a certain scope
| there is limited commercial desire for such levels of
| exactness.
|
| While companies will talk the talk about always needing
| their brand colour represented perfectly. I've found very
| few walk the talk. Presenting printing quotations with
| PMS versus standard CMYK, they often compromise.
| Presenting premiums or other production which isn't
| print-based, suddenly they're happy to compromise rather
| than organise a custom dip.
|
| So while we have CIE as our solid reference, for cosmetic
| representations, we probably don't need more beyond than
| that commercially for the bulk of clients.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| Theres really no reason these days not to get affinity products.
| They are top quality and the price is really cheap for what you
| get!
| hairofadog wrote:
| If Shakespeare had better lawyers we'd all be paying $7.99 per
| user per month just to talk, or $9.99 for the pro version
| jfengel wrote:
| Shakespeare had no lawyers, and that's kinda why we ended up
| with this system. Shakespeare's work was regularly published
| without him getting a penny in royalties. He himself never got
| anything for his plays except what his theater paid him.
|
| The official Folio edition was published after he was dead. The
| quarto editions made during his lifetime are riddled with
| errors because they were made from people's memories of his
| plays, not the manuscripts. The manuscripts were kept carefully
| guarded, and the actors given only "sides" containing their own
| lines to prevent them from running off and selling them.
|
| Actually, Shakespeare did have lawyers; much of what we know
| about him comes from legal documents. (Including lawsuits. He
| was kind of a litigious bugger.) But he didn't have lawyers to
| protect his works because there wasn't any such thing. And it
| was precisely that which caused the copyright system to be
| created.
| burkaman wrote:
| And yet despite the complete lack of copyright protections,
| he was able to make quite a comfortable living and died with
| a sizable estate, and his work survives to this day.
| [deleted]
| jfengel wrote:
| Most of it. Several Shakespeare plays are lost. And many
| more playwrights, without wealthy friends, are completely
| lost. It would be fascinating to have Thomas Kyd's version
| of Hamlet (likely Shakespeare's immediate source), or for
| that matter Kyd's precursor to The Spanish Tragedy. Kyd
| was, at the time, more popular than Shakespeare.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >Shakespeare had no lawyers, and that's kinda why we ended up
| with this system.
|
| lol, no. Copyright was invented primarily as a censorship
| tool, and secondly to enrich _publishers_ rather than
| authors.
| such12 wrote:
| In Europe maybe, but not in the US.
| such12 wrote:
| Is there some historical evidence of this?
| saurik wrote:
| FWIW, the most obvious Google search found this within a
| few seconds:
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/11/the-cycle-of-
| copyright-o...
|
| Which references this:
|
| http://web.archive.org/web/20110616151937/http://www.tele
| rea...
|
| As its source for this:
|
| https://open-spaces.com/articles/the-purpose-of-
| copyright/
|
| Where we find an explanation:
|
| > In 1557, the desires of the booksellers and the desires
| of the crown coincided. The crown perceived the need to
| gain greater control over "the dangerous possibilities of
| the printed word" and so granted a royal charter to the
| Stationers' Company that limited most printing to only
| members of the company. This charter also empowered the
| company to search out and destroy "unlawful" books, which
| gave the guild the public enforcement mechanism for its
| private law. If a nonmember was printing a work that had
| been registered with the company by a member, the
| nonmember could now be stopped. It also meant that if a
| work which was disagreeable to the crown was being
| published, it too could be stopped. This arrangement
| provided the crown with added policemen to enforce its
| goal to control printed works. Censorship was born.
|
| But like, once I found that, I immediately realized that
| we can just look at Wikipedia.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright
|
| > The origin of copyright law in most European countries
| lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate
| and control the output of printers.[9] Before the
| invention of the printing press, a writing, once created,
| could only be physically multiplied by the highly
| laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by
| scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control
| over scribes did not exist, as scribes were scattered and
| worked on single manuscripts.[10] Printing allowed for
| multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid
| and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see
| print culture).[9] In 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or
| List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first
| time.[10]
|
| Which cites:
|
| [9]: MacQueen, Hector L; Charlotte Waelde; Graeme T
| Laurie (2007). Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law
| and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN
| 978-0-19-926339-4.
|
| https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contempor
| ary...
|
| [10]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of
| freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN
| 978-0-674-87233-2.
|
| https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagi
| tic...
|
| There is another, much more detailed paragraph, which
| starts a bit later with:
|
| > As the "menace" of printing spread, governments
| established centralized control mechanisms,[16] and in
| 1557 the English Crown thought to stem the flow of
| seditious and heretical books by chartering the
| Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to
| the members of that guild, and thirty years later the
| Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate
| enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and
| disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of
| pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was
| restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing
| printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing
| presses. The French crown also repressed printing, and
| printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546.
|
| Citing a different page of the same source as 10:
|
| [16]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of
| freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 15. ISBN
| 978-0-674-87233-2.
|
| https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/1
| 5
| such12 wrote:
| Very helpful. So it's reasonable to concede that in
| Europe, and only in Europe, the origin of copyright was
| in censorship and the protection of profits for
| publishers.
|
| However, the US is an entirely different story. Turning
| the page on your preferred source:
|
| [16]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of
| freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 15. ISBN
| 978-0-674-87233-2. https://archive.org/details/technologi
| esoffr00ithi/page/15
|
| We see the following:
|
| American legislators and courts rejected these three
| abuses which publishing had suffered in their country of
| origin: licensing of the press, special taxes on the
| press, and prosecution for criminal libel.
|
| The unconstitutionality of licensing, which the American
| courts referred to as "previous" or "prior restraint,"
| was decided as early as 1825. The tradition against
| special taxes on the press, which British protestors such
| as Richard Cobden called "taxes on knowledge," was
| reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1936 And the
| prohibition against criminal libel suits became an
| American tradition in the 1735 trial of Peter Zenger,
| accused of libeling the governor of New York.
|
| The colonial jury, disregarding the judge's instructions
| on the law, acquitted Zenger and thus made the law. Since
| 1964, libel suits brought by public officials or public
| figures against their critics, even when brought in their
| own capacity and not by the state, have been greatly
| restricted by the courts.
|
| The colonists' rejection of the various British attempts
| to impose government authority over the press were
| incorporated into the American Constitution by the First
| Amendment. This amendment creates a domain- of speech,
| religion, and press in which the activities of private
| citizens shall be unregulated by government. "Con-gress,"
| it says, "shall make no law ... abridging freedom of
| speech or of the press."
|
| But the First Amendment is just one of three clauses in
| the Constitution that deal specifically with
| communications. Another is the copyright provision in
| Article 1, Section 8: "Congress shall have the power ...
| _To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
| securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
| exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
| Discoveries._ " In Britain the practice of copyright,
| though not the word, began at the founding of the
| Stationers' Company when, for enforcement, the company
| was given the right to search for and seize anything
| printed contrary to statute or proclamation. Eight years
| later the company, under this power, created a system of
| copyright for its members. In 1709 the first copyright
| act for authors was passed by Parliament. The new notion
| of intellectual property represented by copyright was
| rooted in the technology of print. The printing press was
| a bottleneck where copies could be examined and
| controlled. In the passage from the author's pen to the
| reader's hand, the press was the logical place to apply
| controls, be it to censor sacrilege or sedition or to
| protect the author's intellectual property.
|
| For modes of reproduction where such an easy locus of
| control as the printing press did not exist, the concept
| of copyright was not ap-plied. It was not applied to
| conversation, or to speeches, or to the singing of songs
| whether in private or in public. Copyright was a specific
| adaption to a specific technology. The common law
| recognized this fact. The landmark case in the United
| States denied copyright protection to piano rolls because
| they were not "writings" in a tangible form readable by a
| human being.
|
| This concept of copyright excluded from protection many
| new technologies of communi-cation. But the motion
| picture industry, the recording industry, and more
| recently the broadcasting industry have all persuaded
| Congress to give them the protection that the courts
| proved unwilling to give.
|
| The third provision in the Constitution dealing with
| communications gives Congress the power "To establish
| Post Offices and post Roads. 23 This provision put the
| federal government into the common carrier business. Only
| one of today's carrier systems then ex-isted, the mails.
| A post office had been permanently established in Britain
| in 1656 and in the colonies in 1711.
|
| Before that, the crown had farmed out grants and patents
| to private entrepreneurs to carry government
| correspondence. To make these franchises attractive, the
| franchisees were also allowed to carry letters for the
| general public for a fee, and others were forbidden to
| compete with the chosen carriers in doing so. This scheme
| for providing government with cheap communication was the
| origin of the postal monopoly. When governments started
| carrying the mails themselves, the monopoly principle was
| further reinforced.
|
| After American independence, the fiscal tradition of the
| post as a source of revenue was retained, and so was the
| practice of monop-oly. In the 1820s the balance of public
| policy shifted from one of subordinating the post office
| to the treasury department as a producer of revenue, to
| promoting it to a full-fledged department of government,
| consecrated above all to extending the benefits of
| development to remote parts of the country at a rapid
| pace. _Still another important as well as expensive
| social goal pursued through the post office in the
| nineteenth century was the diffusion of knowledge._
|
| Newspapers, and later books and magazines, were given
| large subsidies in mail rates. The constitutional
| injunctions to the federal government with regard to
| communications were thus in appearance somewhat contra-
| dictory, though in fact their goals were quite
| consistent. In one clause the government was told to keep
| its legislative hands off of speech and press, while in
| two others it was told to promote the conveyance of
| knowledge by means of copyright and postal service. _But
| both the injunctions to restraint and the injunction to
| governmental activism had the common goal of facilitating
| autonomous communication by private individuals._
| nashashmi wrote:
| Take every rant with lots of salt (unless it is labeled
| as a rant).
|
| (Edit: Jest removed in favor of discussion)
| such12 wrote:
| It seems like your goal here is to deliberately prevent
| curious inquiry.
| jfengel wrote:
| [Ignore this post; not who I intended it to address.
| Leaving it for context.]
|
| No, his goal is to point out that you've failed to engage
| in any.
| such12 wrote:
| You honestly don't believe there could be historical
| information about how _a law_ came into being?
| nashashmi wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
| ?wp...
|
| "Modern copyright law has been influenced by an array of
| older legal rights that have been recognized throughout
| history, including the moral rights of the author who
| created a work, the economic rights of a benefactor who
| paid to have a copy made, the property rights of the
| individual owner of a copy, and a sovereign's right to
| censor and to regulate the printing industry. The origins
| of some of these rights can be traced back to ancient
| Greek culture, ancient Jewish law, and ancient Roman law.
| In Greek society, during the sixth century B.C.E., there
| emerged the notion of the individual self, including
| personal ideals, ambition, and creativity. The individual
| self is important in copyright because it distinguishes
| the creativity produced by an individual from the rest of
| society.[citation needed] In ancient Jewish Talmudic law
| there can be found recognition of the moral rights of the
| author and the economic or property rights of an author."
| such12 wrote:
| Very helpful - also contradicts the claim of the person I
| originally asked the question of.
| jfengel wrote:
| Whoops; I apologize. I thought you were the OP. I was
| replying to the wrong person.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| The Licensing of the Press Act 1662, entitled "An Act for
| preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious
| treasonable and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for
| regulating of Printing and Printing Presses",[0] gave the
| Stationers' Company a monopoly on printing - only people
| licensed by the Company could operate printing presses,
| and similarly nobody was allowed to _sell_ books unless
| licensed. The Company also had the power, under its royal
| charter, to make regulations about printing, effectively
| creating a private system of copyright controlled by the
| Company.
|
| The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 had to be continually
| renewed, but eventually it lapsed in 1692. Publishers
| lobbied hard for the act to be reinstated but all
| attempts failed to pass through the House of Commons.
|
| It wasn't until 1710 that authors gained a time-limited
| exclusive statutory right to control the printing of
| their books (and only books), with what would be the
| first "modern" public copyright law in the Copyright Act
| 1710 (also known as the Statute of Anne), and naturally
| this right was exploited by publishers (just as it is
| today) who refused to publish without acquiring the
| rights along with the manuscript.
|
| [0] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-
| realm/vol5/pp428-...
| such12 wrote:
| Very helpful history, thank you, however it contradicts
| your claim.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Later, when Oracle acquires Shakespeare, you'd be billed not by
| how many words you use, but how many people hear or read your
| words. If they mishear your words, you're double billed because
| otherwise they're getting words for free.
| D13Fd wrote:
| I agree completely. But don't blame the lawyers -- that's like
| blaming guns for the war in Ukraine. Blame the companies that
| lobby for the laws and treaties that set these kinds of IP
| protection, and then use those laws to come after people who
| actually try to create something.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Sir, lawyers identify the possibly loopholes to lobby into,
| write the laws that are lobbied, and work the loopholes that
| exist.
|
| They are 100% culpable at every step. They do it for money,
| and the broad culture is one of scoffing at ethics or
| honesty, which are seen as weaknesses.
|
| Guns aren't conscious. Lawyers are (at least on some level).
| bawolff wrote:
| You could probably say the same thing about computer
| programmers. They write algorithms with questionable
| outcomes. There is a culture that generally scoffs at
| ethical questions (at least in some segments).
|
| But i dont think you will see that here, because we are
| programmers and lawyers are the other.
| D13Fd wrote:
| There are lawyers on both sides, fighting each other.
| That's how the system works. The winner is largely
| determined by the laws. The laws are set by legislators,
| and those legislators are heavily influenced by
| corporations.
|
| The lawyers aren't the ones deciding what the laws are.
| mandmandam wrote:
| > The lawyers aren't the ones deciding what the laws are.
|
| Lol. As you say, the wealthy decide the laws, and the
| lawyers write them. The vast majority of lawyers work for
| whoever pays them the most.
|
| In today's world, in today's system, that's generally
| whoever can fuck over the most people, or extract the
| most from nature while externalizing the cost, and get
| away with it. Almost by definition, the wealthiest are
| the literal worst. Public defenders get paid beans, and
| are overworked with no respect, while fossil fuel and
| banker's lawyers live in mansions with a fraction of the
| effort.
|
| Damn near every aspect of our society and the world we
| live in has been tainted by this.
|
| Environmental groups don't have the funds that Exxon do,
| and the response to oil spills and climate change
| reflects this. Look at Donziger. Look at Deepwater
| Horizon.
|
| Peace groups don't have the funds Raytheon do, and the
| response to people like Assange and Snowden reflects
| that.
|
| Poor people and groups who advocate for them don't have
| the funds available that the .01% do. Our tax code and
| social supports reflect this fact in ten thousand ways,
| each grotesque.
|
| And in all of this, the lawyers are culpable. They work
| to attack the peaceniks, the whistleblowers, the tax
| reformists, the journalists seeking accountability. They
| sue for libel, they make shit up and make it stick, they
| find the obscure laws and loopholes, they stack the
| court, stack the deck, all for a tiny portion of the
| wealth 'saved' for the yacht class.
|
| Lawyers enable a rather unimaginable amount of evil by
| doing these things. I don't understand how the fact
| they're told to do this by the evil corporations paying
| them obscene amounts to enable their evil acts absolves
| them of anything - can you explain it to me?
| bawolff wrote:
| > The vast majority of lawyers work for whoever pays them
| the most.
|
| Unlike the rest of us?
|
| Seems like the real issue you have is capitalism not
| lawyers. Capitalism allows rich people to hire skilled
| workers to do their bidding. I don't see what lawyers as
| a class of people, have to do with that. Some work for
| ethically questionable rich people, some dont. How does
| that set them apart from say accountants, corporate
| strategists, etc?
| pc86 wrote:
| Not everyone has the right software for pro.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I learned recently that if this were actually how language
| worked, Chomsky would be living off of "counterintuitive."
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| One of the first things he did was kill all the lawyers.
| nayuki wrote:
| Some additional info linked in the Twitter thread:
| https://www.printweek.com/features/article/colour-confusion
| User23 wrote:
| It's interesting that they mangle the file. I can see how pantone
| might be able to control licensing the interpreting and display
| of the colors, but surely they can't legally prevent the storage
| of a simple numeric code.
| philjohn wrote:
| Sounds like Adobe decided they could save some $$$ and make a
| bigger profit not renewing the Pantone license, and instead force
| people to pay extra, and cream a % off the top of those monthly
| fees.
| moolcool wrote:
| The future promised by the Windows XP era was so optimistic.
| Multimedia editing was truly becoming mainstream and
| democratized, and the future for independently created media
| was bright. "If this is what iMovie and Windows Movie Maker can
| do, what does the future hold?"
|
| Now we're talking about making colours DLC for Photoshop.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'd say it's pretty amazing. You can shoot very credible
| video and pics on a phone. And basically pro-level stuff
| using gear that's incredibly cheap by historical standards.
| Lots of good inexpensive editors out there. You can even use
| Gimp and Blender which are IMO a bit rough relative to
| commercial options but I have colleagues who create amazing
| work with them.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Taking a different side on that, Adobe decided that the small
| number of professional users who really need Pantone colours
| shouldn't be subsidised by those who do not.
| torstenvl wrote:
| If this decision was driven by concern about the median
| customer paying more than their fair share, there would be a
| corresponding reduction in price. Has there been?
| cpach wrote:
| That's not how market works.
|
| The price of Adobe Creative Suite isn't based on cost, it's
| an attempt to reflect the _value_ of the product.
|
| For me, an amateur with very basic image editing needs, it
| would be silly to pay $250+/year for using Photoshop. So
| instead, I use Acorn, which is $40. One-time fee.
|
| And if you want a FOSS alternative, there's always Gimp
| and/or Krita. No payment required at all.
|
| It's not as if people are forced to buy Adobe. I'd say the
| market works just fine here.
| tough wrote:
| Is not like you were not able to pirate photoshop 20y
| ago, or just now.
| [deleted]
| torstenvl wrote:
| I think you're confused about the conversation that's
| being had.
|
| Nobody is suggesting (reduction in production costs) -
| (reduction in median consumer price)
|
| We are only suggesting (reduction in production costs _as
| a way to reduce median consumer price_ ) - (reduction in
| median consumer price)
|
| If there was no reduction in median consumer price, then,
| contrary to GGP's position, it is fair to conclude that
| it's not part of Adobe's intent.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Classic shrinkflation. Normally Adobe would raise prices
| due to inflation, but they decided that cutting costly
| features and keeping the price the same is received better
| by the market.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > If this decision was driven by concern about the median
| customer paying more than their fair share, there would be
| a corresponding reduction in price
|
| That's not a logically sound. Adobe may have decided they
| can only continue to support the current price-point by
| reducing costs, for example.
| [deleted]
| richbell wrote:
| I'm sure Adobe will announce price reductions any day now.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc
| madsbuch wrote:
| Do you have a source for this price reduction after november?
| petesergeant wrote:
| Why do you think there will be a price reduction?
| pxx wrote:
| Why is everybody insisting that the lookup table isn't 1:1? Can't
| you do a reverse mapping of "closest Pantone color to this CMYK"?
| There are only thousands of Pantone colors and as many CMYKs as
| you have bit resolution. So if you know your file previously used
| Pantone colors, you can have it in a "preview" mode with CMYK and
| then a "production" mode where you convert it back.
|
| I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how the process of reverse-
| engineering a map is copyrightable. Sure, I might not sell a tool
| to convert to/from Pantone colors in Illustrator files as Adobe
| (who might want continuous business and/or a bite at the revenue
| apple), but somebody else can certainly fill this space. The only
| problem is that the names of the colors themselves are probably
| trademarked, but that's not a copyright problem, and the
| utilization of another's trademark to identify a good seems
| within typical fair use.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-28 23:02 UTC)