RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Tools > Software
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Software Photoshop, Lightroom, Paintshop Pro, Painter, etc., and all their various plugins. Of course, you can also discuss all other programs, as well.

Bill's next monopoly?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-29-2006, 09:25 AM
RokcetScientist's Avatar
RokcetScientist RokcetScientist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sodom & Gomorra
Posts: 202
Bill's next monopoly?

With Windows Vista Microsoft plans to introduce its own proprietary alternative to the universal JPEG protocol. Undoubtedly aiming to replace it. I consider that bad news.
Exactly like I never use Apple's AAC format, but stick to MP3 because of its universal compatibility.

So will it be Bill's next monopoly?
Only if we, users, fall for it!

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/wmphoto/default.aspx
Reply With Quote top
  #2  
Old 05-29-2006, 10:48 AM
Doug Nelson's Avatar
Doug Nelson Doug Nelson is offline
Janitor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,068
Blog Entries: 21
Jpeg isn't universal. In fact, Forgent want to charge you for it, and might succeed.
Reply With Quote top
  #3  
Old 05-29-2006, 11:15 AM
Andrew B.'s Avatar
Andrew B. Andrew B. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Nelson
Jpeg isn't universal. In fact, Forgent want to charge you for it, and might succeed.
If this is the same case as a year ago, some large companies have already paid. The thing that bothers me is the idea of jpeg was that companies come forward and make their claims before making it a standard. This company waited until everyone was using it as a free standard, then demanded pay. And apparently they are getting away with it.
Reply With Quote top
  #4  
Old 05-29-2006, 12:28 PM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
doug,

that would be like compuserve now trying to charge for anyone using a .gif. it would be ludicrous, not that that would stop anyone. pheh!

there is a law in the tradermark/patent arena that goes something like, 'if your brand name becomes synomous with the product type, you can no longer trademark it. 'jello' ran into this and so did 'reynold's wrap' and some others. that's why you now hear the jello commercial say 'jello brand gelatin' instead of just 'jello'. i would think the same thing or something very similar applies to file formats. once they've become a standard with no restrictions on use, you cant just go retro on the patent/copyrights. but, that's just me; and lawyers dont think that way

craig
Reply With Quote top
  #5  
Old 05-29-2006, 01:15 PM
Doug Nelson's Avatar
Doug Nelson Doug Nelson is offline
Janitor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,068
Blog Entries: 21
The GIF situation was actually caused by the LZW patent, which expired a couple of years ago.

And the Jello situation (called trademark genericizing) demonstrates why Adobe hates it when people say "photoshopped".
Reply With Quote top
  #6  
Old 05-29-2006, 05:53 PM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
genericizing.... i knew there was a term for it.

and lol, i hadnt even thought of 'photoshopping' something. and yeah, i'll bet adobe hates it.

does anyone else wonder about all this copyright, trademark, patents, and so on? i mean, was Bach ever concerned that someone would rip him off? Beethoven? Da Vinci? Rembrandt?

as an artist, i see something and i want to do something with it, some image or piece of music or whatever...and i often do. but, if it's based on someone else's work, i dare not produce it so that anyone else can see or hear and that part of it just goes against the grain for me. i dont want to steal anyone's work, but one image will often inspire another. if someone else produced the first piece and i produce some alteration of it, i'm doomed if i try to sell it or show it off even.

i've also seen folks here on retouch put a copyright notice and signature on a rendition in the phogo art area where someone else produced the original. i have to wonder if that's even legal. who owns the altered copy? and to make matters worse, i think the laws in the U.K. (and probably other countries) say something like if you alter it 15% or more, then it's your work, the altered copy. at least, that's what i've heard. dont know for sure. but i doubt that's true in the U.S

even here on retouchpro where we're more or less a peer to peer learning site, doug has taken the conservative side on this, even though the law has stipulations of 'for educational purposes'. but i dont blame doug one bit. someone is always willing to go find a lawyer thinking they can make a buck or 'to protect my properties' or whatever, and i certainly wouldnt want the hassle of fifty lawyers banging on my door every day. even if doug could defend himself in every instance and be found not guilty, the hassle is immense, not to mention the stress.

it at first surprised me when doug took down all the celebrity images here on the site. i'm no lawyer, but i believe we would have been doubly protected there, both on the 'educational' and the 'fair use' or whatever that's called type issues. but again, who wants the hassle and who wants the stress?.

and now someone wants to lease us '.jpg'? lol. i can see the jail cell now.

"what are you in for?"

" i used a .jpg without paying for it."

"oh my god, and they didnt put you put you on death row?"

and that some companies are actually paying this extortion just feeds the greed as far as i'm concerned.

pheh!

craig
Reply With Quote top
  #7  
Old 05-29-2006, 07:52 PM
Andrew B.'s Avatar
Andrew B. Andrew B. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraellin
that would be like compuserve now trying to charge for anyone using a .gif.
Something like this happened. CompuServe was forced to start putting restriction in GIF because they lost permission from the patent holder for some part of it. I don't remember all the details now, but this is what motivated the development of PNG.
Reply With Quote top
  #8  
Old 05-29-2006, 08:06 PM
Doug Nelson's Avatar
Doug Nelson Doug Nelson is offline
Janitor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,068
Blog Entries: 21
Perhaps Da Vinci was a bad example to illustrate your point. The man lived in fear of having his ideas stolen, going so far as to invent a backwards code for his journals to protect them.

"Fair use" is widely misunderstood. In practice, it doesn't protect "educational use", but use for commentary and criticism (which doesn't include "inspiration"), and use by educational institutions (of which we ain't one).

The whole "15%" business is one of the most widely-spread myths about copyright law.

And I didn't remove the celebrity images to protect RP, but because allowing them implicitly endorsed breaking the law (and this is a teaching site, even if it isn't an educational institution).

Copyrights, trademarks, patents, likeness rights, etc., do all get abused, but that doesn't make them bad ideas. They all exist to give the rights owner a fair shake at making a buck from their efforts. Without them, no one would make those efforts.

There's an old joke about how a liberal is just a conservative that's never been mugged. In a similar vein, those that fight copyright, etc., have never felt the sting of having those rights stolen.
Reply With Quote top
  #9  
Old 05-29-2006, 10:06 PM
lkroll's Avatar
lkroll lkroll is offline
Senior Member
Patron
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,746
Don't fret.

Due to prior art issues, Forgent is about to fall. Read this. Yes I subscribe to eWEEK digital magazine (I'm a techie). I think even if it wasn't for this, the US would cause the Patent to be void since they allowed the standard to be open source for so long. If you don't fight for your patent you can loose it. I think that's the jest of the rights of patents.

To add, the Government might even charge them for not disclosing that they knew about the prior art and didn't tell them about it. This is in violation of Patent Law. Sleep calmly tonight.

Edit:

Some kind soul pointed out to be the jest should have been gist. I never said that I was good @ English.

Last edited by lkroll; 05-30-2006 at 08:20 AM.
Reply With Quote top
  #10  
Old 05-30-2006, 11:56 AM
PeteyB PeteyB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 67
Smile Copyright Myths and Smiley

Regarding copyright issues. Did you know that your e-mail is copyrighted. What about linking to a webpage ---- is that a violation of copyright law?

Here is a page that is devoted to 10 Copyright Myths. Interesting stuff.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

(I have the author's permission to link to his page)


Also, Walmart wants the rights to the Smiley face

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed


Pete
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Tools > Software


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chuckle for the day (jokes/humourous tales here please) jeaniesa Salon 391 11-26-2006 02:33 AM
Bill's Grandma, at a wedding in 1912 pctalent Photo Restoration 5 08-17-2006 09:32 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved