Re[2]: Selling ICC profile...is it legal or not?
Re[2]: Selling ICC profile...is it legal or not?
- Subject: Re[2]: Selling ICC profile...is it legal or not?
- From: Peter Karp <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:56:40 +0200
Hi,
> Saying a profile created by an user/owner of a profiling software is
> the property of the software developer, is about as sane as saying a
> page created in InDesign belongs to Adobe.
I personally don't think so.
If you create a document with a program the program is just a tool
like a wrench, knife or whatever. They can not work on their own. They
don't have 'intellect' included. Or if you buy a piano you have the
option to press any keys you like, so it will become music eventually
:-) The final output will be _determined_ by _your_ thoughts, _your_
talent and _your_ work.
On the other side when 'you' create an ICC profile that's a total
different story IMO. That's more like grinding a street-organ. You do
some manual work, but the final result is _determined_ by _someone_
others intellectual property. The sound of the street organ will
differ if you play on a wide field or between some houses in a city.
Also the profiles created will be different, depending on the paper,
ink and so on.
Examples always lack, but I think you get my point.
Last not least: if getting money for creating a profile and/or
distributing a profile should be allowed or not is a total different
question.
If the originator of the profiling software decides to prohibit
distributing profiles generated with his software I think that's
totally reasonable, if he decides otherwise that's reasonable too! The
software developer (or the company releasing a product) has a right to
specify what is allowed with the profiles.
I although wholeheartedly agree that for the benefit of color
management in general and for the benefit of the users it should be
allowed to distribute profiles normally. Otherwise profiling makes
much less sense.
But it's also reasonable if a company decides to differentiate between
the uses of a software and will charge different. IMO that's a very
good idea. I think it's good that we have special education licenses
which are cheaper, so students can afford to buy a copy of Photoshop
for example. On the other side it's more then 'fair' if a
designer/photographer who is working all day with the software and
will earn money with the help of _his_ talent, but also with the help
of the software he uses, will have to pay more for the software then
the student who just uses the software for personal stuff.
Quato follows that approach:
Quato has no limitations on the monitor profiling software for inhouse
use. If you own one license you can calibrate all monitors _in_house_.
This is true for Quato and non-Quato monitors. Consultant usage by
calibrating other peoples displays is not allowed.
Quato's printer profiling software is available for personal use,
where the profiles must not be distributed. A special consultant
license is available for all who earn money by providing a profiling
service for others or distributing profiles.
Best regards
Peter Karp
_______________________________________________
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