Re: Selling ICC profile...is it legal or not?
Re: Selling ICC profile...is it legal or not?
- Subject: Re: Selling ICC profile...is it legal or not?
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:00:40 -0700
- Thread-topic: Selling ICC profile...is it legal or not?
In a message dated 6/24/07 2:53 AM, Giuseppe Andretta wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2007, at 4:23 AM, Marco Ugolini wrote:
>
>> So, does that also mean, if you create your own custom targets using
>> MeasureTool, that GretagMacbeth/XRite owns those too because they were
>> generated using their product?
>
> Yes, all targets exported from Measure Tool by GMB/XRite are
> copyrighted - you can see tha logo © on them - so cannot be
> distributed on the web i.e.
>
> Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but that's what the copyright says...and
> yes, IMO it's silly in this branch of color management. Try to think
> at a printer who wants to put his printers' profiles on the web for
> customers' download.
>
> It would be appreciate an explanation from software houses involved
> in - sorry - this OT thread.
Scusami tanto, Giuseppe...but *all* profiles are "copyrighted" (i.e., they
carry some sort of copyright notice in the "cprt" tag), including Adobe RGB,
US Web Coated (SWOP) v2, you name it. I've *never* even for a second had the
impression that, for example, the working space profiles that come with
Adobe Photoshop are anything but freely available to anybody, or gathered
from any source the warning that there was a prohibition against using them
freely, embedding them, etc.
Obviously, there is a prohibition against third parties from *selling them*.
I agree that this would violate not only the law, but commonly-held norms of
fairness and common sense as well.
If this "copyright violation" bit truly has any of the substance to it that
is being hypothesized here, then it would be a good reason to fight tooth
and nail to change the laws, because it's a clear case of overreaching -- a
way for the companies to stick their hands into the consumer's pocketbook in
ways that no one would consider either fair or practical.
It would represent a form of never-ending rentier-type income that ought to
remain confined to the dark ages, when similarly rapacious practices on the
part of the lords of the castle were common and unopposed, and has no place
in the world of today. Nobody opposes fair one-time compensation, and I
least of all, but endless "compensation" is another matter altogether.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden