

It Is A Violation Of The Adobe Trademark To Say An Image Was "Photoshopped"  - clockwork_189
http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#section-4

======
pyrmont
(I'm an Australian lawyer and will use 'trade mark' as my preferred spelling.)

The headline of this link is misleading. An action doesn't 'violate a trade
mark'. An action can infringe the rights that a trade mark owner has (the
scope of those rights will be dependent on the location in which the right has
been granted and where the action takes place). In common law countries, trade
mark rights can refer to statutory rights (which are granted in accordance
with a piece of legislation and typically require registration with a
government office) and common law rights.

This document is Adobe's guidelines for use of its trade marks. Adobe is
saying that, if you follow the guidelines in these documents, then you can be
sure that you have not infringed any of Adobe's rights in its trade marks (or
at least that Adobe won't sue you alleging that you have).

Whether a failure to follow these guidelines constitutes trade mark
infringement is a separate matter. Generally speaking, a trade mark owner has
the right to use a trade mark exclusively in the course of trade in respect of
a class of products. What does it mean to use a trade mark in the course of
trade? This means, for instance, using a particular word or phrase to identify
your product. Consumers will then use your trade mark to identify your product
in the course of trade (eg. 'Could I please buy a copy of Photoshop?'). An
obvious rationale for trade mark rights is to protect consumers from
unscrupulous merchants who might call their product Photoshop in order to take
advantage of the goodwill Adobe has built up in its product.

However, not every use of a term is in the course of trade. It is not in the
course of trade for me to write a Wikipedia article about Photoshop. I would
argue it is also not in the course of trade to use photoshop as a verb to
refer to the act of digital manipulating an image (such as by using the
Photoshop product).

Why does Adobe want to prevent people from doing this? As others have pointed
out, if a trade mark falls into common usage, a trade mark owner can lose the
ability to register it as a trade mark (trade marks are usually registered for
a period of time and must be renewed after that period) and so lose, at the
very least, the statutory rights associated with that registration. This then
enables competitors to use that term in their products. Good examples of trade
marks that have fallen into common usage are elevator, xerox and hoover.
Obviously Adobe spends a great deal of money developing and marketing the
Photoshop brand. They do not want to see it become a generic term that
competitors can use.

That said, usually both trade mark owners and their competitors have little
interest in a term becoming generic. You don't see Microsoft going around
saying that you should 'google' something. While a trade mark falling into
common usage can be a bad thing from an intellectual property perspective, it
can of course be a good thing from a marketing perspective. This is why the
only people like to cause a trade mark to fall into common usage is the
general public (and possibly journalists). So, people like Adobe pay lawyers
to draft up these kind of documents to help make sure that doesn't happen.

While I practice law, I must give one of those annoying disclaimers that are
part of the reason people hate us: I am not your lawyer and the above should
not be treated as legal advice. If you are concerned as to whether you are
infringing a trade mark, I recommend speaking to a lawyer in your local area.

------
marcusf
Must be case of trying to avoid genericizing the trademark, as has happened
with 'googling' or 'aspirin' etc.?
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark>)

Anyway, it doesn't seem inappropriate to at least make a show about trying to
enforce it.

~~~
lambada
Exactly. The only way Adobe can claim that it's not generic is if they
actively pursue those using it in a generic sense.

~~~
Semiapies
Nobody wants to be the next linoleum.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum#Loss_of_trademark_prot...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum#Loss_of_trademark_protection)

When I used to read writing magazines, the backs always had a number of paid-
for messages saying things like, "You don't xerox a xerox on a xerox".

------
tikhonj
This is a result of trademark law rather than any particular idiocy on the
part of Adobe. Guidelines like this get made fun of on the internet fairly
regularly, but it's always the company that's ridiculed rather than the laws.
Ultimately, any company that wants to hold on to its trademarks has to do
something like this.

~~~
zb
Why should the laws be ridiculed? They prevent companies from promoting their
trade marks as generic terms and then claiming a monopoly on them - rather
like the old days when people would sneak patented technologies into IEEE
standards and the like and then demand royalties from everyone who implemented
them.

If the cost to society of preventing this is limited to one mildly absurdist
press release per company, it seems like a pretty good law.

~~~
tikhonj
My point wasn't so much that the law should be ridiculed as _if_ something is
to be ridiculed, it should probably be the law rather than the company.

In practice, I agree with you: I actually think trademark law is completely
reasonable--it's just that the most reasonable course of action involves
companies doing things which can appear silly. And when people see companies
doing silly things, they almost inevitably want to ridicule them, usually with
good reason.

------
endual
Correct: New features in Adobe® Photoshop® have added bloat since Adobe®
Photoshop® 5.5.

Incorrect: Photoshop's new features are impressive.

OK, think I've got it!

------
loup-vaillant
Okay. I'll say "Gimped" from now on. Let's see how that actually help Adobe
squeeze more money out of Photoshop™.

------
thekeywordgeek
In their dreams.

My lexicographer and lawyer colleagues have faced this one many times. As I
understand it once a trademark enters common usage as a verb it is safe for
inclusion in the dictionary, as a noun it isn't.

[http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Hoover#m_en_gb03861...](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Hoover#m_en_gb0386130.002)
<http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google>
<http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photoshop>

------
valjavec
Trademarks must never be abbreviated.

Correct: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software.
Incorrect: Take a look at the new features in PS.

Adobe.... :/

~~~
mattmanser
Google has similar guidelines:

<http://developer.googleapps.com/branding-guidelines>

~~~
terinjokes
* Use the trademark only as an adjective, never as a noun or verb, and never in the plural or possessive form.

[... the very next line ...]

* Use only Google-approved artwork when using Google's logos.

~~~
verroq
>This includes modifying a Google trademark through hyphenation...

------
cynix
Hey Adobe, you might want to revise your icons then…

<http://i.imgur.com/9xoAI.png>

------
sad_bug_killer
I never figured how to pronounce the ®

~~~
J_Darnley
You pronounce it like the letter 'R'. So "Adobe® Photoshop®" becomes "Adobe-ar
Photoshop-ar".

~~~
ufo
But you wouldn't want to refeer to copyrighted software like of of those
_pirates_ , would you?

------
chrislomax
I work for a company that deals mainly in brand identity and believe me, these
guidelines are not obscure compared to some of the guidelines we have to
follow when doing artwork.

Although you could argue that people using the term "photoshopped" has
actually increased Adobes revenue over the years due to the exposure they are
only trying to protect the brand they have built.

There have been a few cases of this over the years, some other comments cover
one of them, "Google it", "I have just bought a Hoover (instead of vacuum)".
Photoshopped gets used as a generic term but I think Adobe should be embracing
this slang usage as they are part of a collective where their branding has
become so important that it has replaced the original term.

Adobe won't see it this way though obviously.

I do take brand identity seriously but I couldn't begin to imagine having a
conversation with someone where I would say, "Have you used Adobe Photoshop
software to edit that image".

------
kellyreid
That's cute. They think people will listen.

Don't most new companies aim for product names that are easily verb'ed?
"Google it", "Xerox it", "Reddit", etc.

"The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software." "This writer has a
stick up his butt".

The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.

Because so many people are using Apple's Photoshop, Google Photoshop and
NeXT's Photoshop. Shouldn't they be glad that their product name is SO
ubiquitous that they don't NEED stuff like this?

Oh lawyers. You so crazy.

------
joelthelion
People are giving us free advertising? Let's sue them!

------
msy
Excuse me while I photochop someone photoshopping themselves giving two
fingers to adobe.

------
squealingrat
Can't they just be happy with all the free advertising they're getting?!

------
matthewlehner
I'm so glad they've payed someone to write this important guide.

------
product50
Can't believe that there is someone actually working at Adobe and thinking
about these use cases. In my opinion, they should feel proud of the fact that
the software is so popular that it is being used as a common verb. And here
they, explicitly mentioning that this is incorrect. Sometimes, I just can't
understand organizations.

~~~
ars
They are basically required to do this by law or they loose the trademark.

So now you understand organizations just a bit better.

Always remember: People are rational. If you don't understand them it's
usually because you don't know something. (OK, not always :)

