Calumet files Chapter 7

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Usenet Account, Mar 13, 2014.

  1. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Eric was poking fun at your usage. You may just be catching on that
    it was intended as a humorous reference, but we're all not that slow.

    I have not made fun of "instances" of inappropriate use of the word in
    question. There has been just the one clanger, not a plural of uses.
    That's rather the point: no one else would use it that way.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I have a Tamron 18-270, but I don't feel it's as sharp in the upper
    numbers. The reviews say it is, but that's not my impression with the
    lens I own. With the ability to crop down, I can do OK with the
    55-200 except for not being able to blur the background. f/5 just
    doesn't blur the background the way I'd like.

    I almost bought a Nikon 70-200 2.8 that was for sale for $1,200 on one
    of the camera forums, but I got my offer in too late.

    Other than the baseball season, my need for a 300mm reach isn't there.
    I'm not going to be a bird photographer no matter what lens I own.
    Airshow shots aren't my thing, either.

    I haven't researched it, but I'm not convinced that the AF-S lenses
    are a good investment when the body has the focusing motor as in the
    D300. I'm using AF-S lenses, but I'm not sure I would buy another
    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 2014
  4. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Good choice not to respond. Not exactly a gracious retreat, but it is
    a sensible one.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 2014
  5. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    And how do they enforce it?
    Infringements according to whom?
    According to what law?
    On what do you base this theory? What if I were to post a "Photoshop
    tutorial", or hold a "Photoshop class"? Same thing, according to you?

    What about other instances where a manufacturer encourages third party
    solutions for their products, say.. Apple? So Apple owns the trademark
    "iPad", right, so the only "iPad dock" would be one made by Apple - no one
    other than Apple "can" say "iPad dock"?

    For the record - I am totally with your line of thought, what I am
    questioning is the entire "can". Anyone can call a plugin a "Photoshop
    plugin" and Adobe can do nothing about it. And it is my position that they
    don't want to do anything about it.
    Indeed - but that was in order to enforce the brand where "Coke" could
    refer to a competing brand. It would be applicable here if "plugin" was a
    common word that people usually connected with Photoshop but used it for
    other cases as well.
    Again, not towards their third party developers who they very much
    encourage to refer to the App Store as... the App Store.

    In fact, you make quite the opposite case here. If third party developers
    were to only call their software "plugins", then Adobe would probably want
    to encourage them to include their trademarked name in the moniker as well
    - to ensure branding. In short, a developer that calls his software
    "Photoshop plugin" strengthes the brand.
    Indeed. "Photoshop plugin" is not such a case, however, since it does not
    encourage a generic usage of the brand name. Quite the opposite.
    But we're not discussing the "errroneous" usage of "Photoshop" to refer to
    "image processing software".
    I see you forgot to append any substantiation for your position in this
    post as well. So you're firmly set with a big fat zero for your claim.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  6. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Andreas said - working as Eric's spokesperson. Don't you think Eric has
    brains enough to answer for himself?
    You may not have caught on that in response I used the humor (if intended)
    to poke fun at you.
    ....illiterate Andreas says, without any support.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  7. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    I know you think so, since you've yet to muster any courage to respond to
    any of the salient points I've posted.

    Now run away, little boy. And keep "not responding" to things you can't
    handle in an adult manner.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  8. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    which is why anyone can call it a photoshop plug-in if they want and
    many do exactly that. adobe doesn't need to approve and they may not
    even know that the plug-in exists.
    if someone assumes that, they'd be wrong.

    there is no implication whatsoever that a 'photoshop plug-in' is
    authored by adobe. it's nothing more than saying what type of plug-in
    it is. it's very simple, but apparently much too complex for you.
    it's not a wrong use.

    nowhere in the photoshop sdk does it say what it must or must not be

    the only thing that's wrong is your belief and insistence.
    it was last month.
    then you won't admit you're wrong. no surprise there.
    Guest, Apr 5, 2014
  9. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    they do.
    it's not an infringement.

    obviously you *must* use the word photoshop in describing a plug-in
    that adds functionality to photoshop.

    whether you call it a 'photoshop plug-in', as do the vast majority of
    users and most developers, or a 'plug-in for photoshop' which a few
    developers do, makes no difference whatsoever.

    the terms are *interchangeable* and both have the word photoshop in it.
    if one is not infringing, then neither is the other.
    Guest, Apr 5, 2014
  10. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    it's very clear you haven't researched it, because af-s lenses are a
    better choice in almost every case. af-s lenses focus faster and do so
    more quietly than non-afs. it also keeps your options open for choice
    of cameras in the future.
    Guest, Apr 5, 2014
  11. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    It usually handled by a series of actions. The first is simply a
    letter to an alleged violator from the firm's attorney telling that
    person to cease and desist an action that is considered to be a
    violation. That's usually enough.

    From there, the next action would be to ask for an injunction or court
    order for the violator to cease and desist. If this is granted, and
    the violator persists, it goes to court as a civil action.

    Adobe, of course. As the holder of the trademark, they decide who is
    infringing on their rights. From there, it's up to the courts to
    decide whether or not Adobe's case has merit.

    In some cases of trademark infringement, where the holder of the
    trademark does not pursue infringement, the courts have ruled that by
    allowing infringement to go unchecked, the holder has abandoned their
    right to later enforce the infringement. That's why it's a "ticking
    bomb" when it isn't pursued. See Bayer and "aspirin".
    The Lanham Act is the primary federal trademark statute in the US. You
    can find out more about it at:, but specific information
    should be gained by reading the actual statutes.

    Anytime you use a trademark of some company without their permission,
    you are taking a chance of having that company take some action. If
    you post a tutorial you'd be flying under the radar, but that chance
    is there. Part of what brings your action to the attention of the
    trademark holder is how extensively you've promoted the misuse.
    Posting a tutorial would not be an extensive misuse.

    The sensible thing to do is just what I've brought up: use language
    that states that the product - plug-in, tutorial, or class - is a
    product *about* the trademarked item and not a product *of* the
    trademark holder.

    Just grabbing a book off my bookshelf, Martin Evening's "The Adobe®
    Photoshop® Lightroom® Book" used the ® symbol to designate that these
    are Adobe trademarks and contains a notice that these are trademarks
    of Adobe and the sentence "product names and services identified
    throughout this book are used in editorial fashion only and for the
    benefit of such companies with no intention of infringement of the
    trademark. No such use, or the use of any trade name, is intended to
    convey endorsement or other affiliation with this book."

    It's a lawyerly statement, but the short form is "we are not
    affiliated with Adobe but we are here to teach you how to use an Adobe

    It's a good supposition that Peachpit Press has a letter on file from
    Adobe granting permission to use Adobe's names and trademarks. That's
    pretty standard operating practice for publishers.

    I did a very cursory search, and the only instance I saw of such a
    product that is not offered by Apple is Amazon's. In that case, the
    descriptions are "IPEGA Speaker and Charger 2 in 1 Stand Mount Cradle
    Multi-Function Docking Station for iPhone 5/4/4S, iPad 2/3" and others
    like this. Note "for".

    However, it doesn't have to be "made by" Apple. If Apple distributes
    it, the actual maker is immaterial.
    You have a good point. I mistakenly used "can" when I should have
    used "could". "Can" has the meaning of "it's possible", and that's
    not the meaning that I wanted to impart.

    The creator of a plug-in *should* call it a "plug-in for Photoshop" to
    eliminate any ambiguity.

    No, the actual case was to protect the brand name, or trademark. The
    basis of the action was that "Coca Cola" and "Coke" are not a generic
    term for "soft drink". This kind of action is a "use it or lose it"
    prompted action. They sent people into Orlando restaurants (Church
    Street Station was a very publicized example) to see if the waitstaff
    stated that the product served was not Coca Cola. The action so
    angered Bob Snow, the owner, that he banned Coca Cola products from
    all of his holdings.
    "Plug-in For Photoshop®" has the same effect.
    You're not following. What's at issue in the area genericizing a
    trademark is that if the holder does not take action to protect the
    use, then holder can lose the right to protect it in the future. Adobe
    may very well like the proliferation of plug-ins, but not like how the
    trademark name is used.

    C'mon, you can't rule out something based on what has been discussed
    in the past if it contributes to what is being discussed now.
    Discussions evolve and expand.

    Even so, this is part of the trademark issue. Remember Adobe's
    campaign to get people not to say "Photoshopped"? That was in line
    with the genericization of the brand name.

    Well, if you can't find meaning in my words, then move along to
    something else. You seem to want me to find someone else to say what
    I'm perfectly capable of saying.

    To you, "substantiation" seems to be providing a link to someone else
    even if the link does not substantiate the premise. Posting links to
    misusers of something does not prove that they are right.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 2014
  12. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    you're reading way more into what's not there.

    all that 'for iphone 5/4/4s, ipad 2/3' means is that it won't work with
    other iphones and ipads.

    there are many products that say 'iphone dock' or 'iphone case' or
    if it's made by apple it will say 'apple blah blah'.

    a panasonic ipod dock or otterbox iphone case is obviously not made by
    there is no ambiguity. nobody but you is confused.
    Guest, Apr 5, 2014
  13. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I suspect that when you get hold of the Adobe plugin SDK you are bound
    by an Adobe license agreement.

    Do you know what the curent agreement has to say on the subject?
    Eric Stevens, Apr 5, 2014
  14. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    How can there be when they are basically selling the one brand of
    Eric Stevens, Apr 5, 2014
  15. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  16. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    apple stores sell more than one brand of product and users can go to
    any store they want anyway.

    apple stores are competing with every other store out there that sells
    similar products, and they're doing extremely well at it.
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
  17. Usenet Account

    PeterN Guest

    And just where did I say you made that statement. Learn to read. Better
    yet, do learn to comprehend what is written.
    The expected answer.
    PeterN, Apr 6, 2014
  18. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Why no examples? I want to see these letters to plugin developers that
    Adobe sends out "usually".
    Where are the links to information about the civil actions Adobe has
    started against plugin developers, Tony?
    So where is the support that Adobe considers this infringement? Why are all
    your posts filled with claims but totally empty of support?
    So there should be no problem for you to reference specific suits where
    Adobe has sued third party developers for infringing on their trademark
    when calling their software a "Photoshop plugin". That is, after all, what
    we're talking about.

    I sure hopw you didn't waste bandwidth on a whole lot of "should" or
    "would" or "could" instead of "does" which is what I asked for.
    Irrelevant, we're talking about using "Photoshop plugin" vs "Plugin for
    Photoshop". Both cases use the trademarked name, so the presence of tyhe
    trademark can in no capacity be the center of the argument.
    You failed to answer my question, as expected. Is it your claim that no one
    other than Apple "can" say "iPad dock"?
    Eh? "Could" is past tense of "can". They have the same meaning. "can" can
    refer to ability/possibility, but also permission. I.e. "I can drive" -
    "Can I use your phone?"
    You have yet to support this.

    1. That "Photoshop plugin" is ambiguous
    2. That Adobe's position is that third party developers should phrase it as
    "Plugin for Photoshop".
    That's what I just said, Tony.
    Exactly what I just said. Or rather - no one feared that "Coke" could refer
    to "soft drink", but to any similar cola product from a competing brand.
    Coca Cola didn't fear that people would start calling 7-up "Coke".
    As does "Photoshop plugin".
    Which is not what's under discussion here. Third party plugin developer are
    not genericizing anything when calling it a "Photoshop plugin",
    since "Photoshop plugin" is not a trademarked name.
    Another claim from you, without any support. Where is your reference that
    Adobe does not like how the trademark is used?
    I'm not interested in "evolving" this "discussion", I am more intrested in
    getting you to realize and admit to an error you made. I know, I know - you
    never ever admit to mistakes, but I can dream, can't I?
    But not in line with the current issue of supposed "infringement" by third
    party developers using the term "Photoshop plugin" that you're claiming.
    Yes, because there will never come a time when you can offer any support
    for any claim you make.
    I want you to support your claims. It's as easy as that. You can't do that
    becuase your claims are bogus, I know, but me requesting support from you
    should at least have the chance of making you understand that if you were
    an adult you would either actually, you know, offer support or retract the

    (Yeah, this is where you snip and run).
    What things "seem" to you is of no importance to me. Support for your
    claims is, however. Support from you so far: None.
    No one has claimed this, so I have no idea why you're bringing this up.
    Sandman, Apr 6, 2014
  19. Usenet Account

    PeterN Guest

    And what makes any parcel "your land." History teaches that most land
    changes ownership, all too often under bloody conditions.
    PeterN, Apr 13, 2014
  20. Usenet Account

    PeterN Guest

    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.