Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/pantone-wants-15-month-for-the-privilege-of-using-its-colors-in-photoshop/
136 comments
I think their businessmodel simply expired. They have to think of something new or end up like Kodak.
They charge designers $X000 for a book or a set of paint chips with swatches of all the colors, so I assume they are trying to continue that revenue stream in a subscription-based way.
The most common are the Pantone formula guide or bridge books, and those are closer to $300
It's still quite a bit, but even the FHI chip books are under $1k. You have to be doing something a bit nuts like getting the full plastic chip carousels to get up into the thousands.
It's still quite a bit, but even the FHI chip books are under $1k. You have to be doing something a bit nuts like getting the full plastic chip carousels to get up into the thousands.
You can find knockoff of very good quality for a few bucks. I think they can control it better through Adobe licensing.
Linus tech tips did a video on this recently: https://youtu.be/JF8UziDHqZo
The one they got was more like $10k.
The one they got was more like $10k.
That channel sure loves to waste money for the sake of "OMG LOOK $$$ WE GOT IT". Just stick to the tech and stay in your lane. This isn't what we meant when we said 'more RGB stuff'.
They're probably spending that money setting stuff up for their LTTStore stuff (see backpack, screwdrivers etc) so they might as well do a video about those things. I'm sure other manufacturers don't get the luxury of making money out of every business expense.
I enjoyed it, it's easy to skip videos that don't interest you.
I assumed they didn't pay for any of this stuff and the vendors give them products to make a video about them.
In the Pantone video in question they say they paid thousands for it
Yeah I saw that. I assumed it was a lie. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, lol
They tell you if the video is sponsored.
Charging more for the dyes would impact the bottom line of very large business interests, namely, the chemical companies that make the inks, and the printing and publishing companies.
Forcing a contract graphic designer to pay $15/month for the privilege of being able to participate in designing stuff for print is much more palatable to business interests.
Forcing a contract graphic designer to pay $15/month for the privilege of being able to participate in designing stuff for print is much more palatable to business interests.
I used to work as a GD professionally, Pantones/spot colours are incredibly important in the industry. Process printing (usually CMYK) is great, but often just not accurate enough, and I really doubt Coca Cola or whoever else would be too pleased with you swapping out their pantone colour for an alternative.
Just think of the companies whose brand is represent by color. Coca Cola is certainly one but there's John Deere green, UPS brown, Caterpillar yellow, T-mobile pink, and Home Depot orange. I'm sure there are many international firms as well. Color is just as important to these companies as is their logo and they want to be damn sure it is represented accurately everywhere.
> you'd loose the benefit of Pantone standardization
That's the point: these colors should be a standard. Standards can also be acquired for a fee. I also purchased physcial samples of Pantone colors. But paying an annual fee for the privilege of specifying a color in an app? No, thank you.
That's the point: these colors should be a standard. Standards can also be acquired for a fee. I also purchased physcial samples of Pantone colors. But paying an annual fee for the privilege of specifying a color in an app? No, thank you.
Colours can be a standard. Nothing's stopping anyone standardising what Pantone do.
Businesses want multiple revenue streams at different layers of the stack with different cycles. Charging developers, printers, consumable producers, hardware makers, etc... means Pantone can make money at every level and they can increase/decrease the price as those different layers as more or less spending capacity is available at that period in the cycle for that layer.
> Pantone can make money at every level
Yes, but there's something to be said of the "First one's free, kid" business model. Making it frictionless to get into your ecosystem usually results in many more sales in the end.
Fewer graphics designers using pantone colors means fewer products going out with pantone colors, which means fewer sales of pantone dyes.
Yes, but there's something to be said of the "First one's free, kid" business model. Making it frictionless to get into your ecosystem usually results in many more sales in the end.
Fewer graphics designers using pantone colors means fewer products going out with pantone colors, which means fewer sales of pantone dyes.
Pantone is what the printers use. If you want to get the most accurate representation of your colors, you use Pantone. Pantone doesn't need to get you addicted; its target market already needs them.
You can care less about your colors, but for some categories of graphic designers, that's not an option.
You can care less about your colors, but for some categories of graphic designers, that's not an option.
> You can care less about your colors, but for some categories of graphic designers, that's not an option.
For many more, it IS an option. If it's trivial for them to select pantone colors for their designs, they probably will use them. If they don't have easy access to pantone colors, they'll just select an approximate shade they like.
In the former (frictionless) case, more pantone dyes may get used. In the later (current reality) case, they certainly will not. It's not a stretch to think that pantone may be cutting themselves off from a potential growth market, in exchange for a rather small amount of cash up-front.
For many more, it IS an option. If it's trivial for them to select pantone colors for their designs, they probably will use them. If they don't have easy access to pantone colors, they'll just select an approximate shade they like.
In the former (frictionless) case, more pantone dyes may get used. In the later (current reality) case, they certainly will not. It's not a stretch to think that pantone may be cutting themselves off from a potential growth market, in exchange for a rather small amount of cash up-front.
Pantone isn't a startup; it's not really a "growth market". Print shops expect to be told Pantone colors. If you tell them something else, you're going to get the best match they can figure out.
Many designers won't care that their banners look slightly different from their tee-shirts and both are slightly different from their business cards. For others, though, they think the variation looks tacky and cheap.
Those are the ones who will pay. It's a very small fraction of their commission on a work.
What's a bad look for Pantone is how many people had been using their colors without really needing to, and still getting cut off. They would usually be fine with a "close enough" shade. I can't tell if that's Adobe's fault, Pantone's, or (probably) both.
Many designers won't care that their banners look slightly different from their tee-shirts and both are slightly different from their business cards. For others, though, they think the variation looks tacky and cheap.
Those are the ones who will pay. It's a very small fraction of their commission on a work.
What's a bad look for Pantone is how many people had been using their colors without really needing to, and still getting cut off. They would usually be fine with a "close enough" shade. I can't tell if that's Adobe's fault, Pantone's, or (probably) both.
Pantone never was free, just Adobe paid license fees and now isn't renewing their contract (which probably got higher fees)
Serves people right for trusting their own work to subscription software with no guaranteed long term support. Adobe could also just go under one day and then say goodbye to a decade of your photo edits. Charging for color adjustment in print is perfectly reasonable, just to decode RGB values is some bull.
Anyone have a list of the hex colors? Should be added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
[deleted]
Photoshop is subscription too now right? So they’re just wanting a cut. It’s almost a funny way to indirectly protest the move to subscription everything.
The Pantone subscription is 1.5x as expensive as Photoshop.
I'm pretty sure Pantone would have charged only a fraction of the cost if Adobe would have included a license for everyone.
Since only a fraction of Photoshop users need Pantone, they now need to pay a lot more.
Since only a fraction of Photoshop users need Pantone, they now need to pay a lot more.
I assume that's what was the case until now. Probably got too expensive to continue.
I think those needing to subscribe to the new Pantone service are more likely to be paying for the full cc suite, not the single app model. This is quite a bit less than that per month.
Yeah, what a great protest. Everyone who is selling lifetime access for a fixed price should do a similar protest and move to subscriptions as well, that would really show them!
And they also have some of the absolute garbage software surrounding it. It's bananas for a company the size of Adobe to have such bad software.
No one at the top cares about the creative tools part of the company whatsoever. They only bought Macromedia because Flash was the video player of the web. Think they all just care more about corporate PDF integrations than any of their creative tools.
All the dev team talent left or was outsourced and the only changes that seem to be able to ship consistently is web view based welcome screens.
All the dev team talent left or was outsourced and the only changes that seem to be able to ship consistently is web view based welcome screens.
> So they’re just wanting a cut.
A cut that is actually larger than the price of Photoshop, which is $10 / month.
A cut that is actually larger than the price of Photoshop, which is $10 / month.
Yes, but Pantone colours is more specialised software and its price shouldn’t be compared to that of software for a wide audience. If you really need Pantone colours, it’s an expense easily worth it.
I understand the outcry but TBH I think it’s a bit exaggerated. That being said I‘m also not sure whether it’s really worth it for Pantone to charge for their digital stuff. I can’t imagine it being a huge part of their revenue.
I understand the outcry but TBH I think it’s a bit exaggerated. That being said I‘m also not sure whether it’s really worth it for Pantone to charge for their digital stuff. I can’t imagine it being a huge part of their revenue.
> Yes, but Pantone colours is more specialised software
Pantone has nothing to do with software.
The "software" here is a mapping of color names to hex. It's literally a text file.
Pantone has nothing to do with software.
The "software" here is a mapping of color names to hex. It's literally a text file.
When you buy a coffee for $4, you also don't care that the beans in it cost $0.01. Cost of manufacturing and customer pricing are far more decoupled than most people think.
Or, for a digital analogy, think of the good old discussion of the cost of distributing an mp3 vs the cost of creating the music (esp. back in the iTunes days when the mp3 cost $0.99).
In this case, Pantone prices the verified digital access to their colours. Almost nobody needs that, UNLESS you deal with Pantone colours in the physical world - and there they have real value.
I'm personally questioning the decision of making designers pay for the digital colours as well; I think it hurts adoption in the long run. But I also think the outcry is over the top: if you design products that require standardised colours in the manufacturing process, the cost of that tiny subscription is completely negligible. Also, because it's negligible, I can't imagine it being a huge part of Pantone's revenue, so this move might have done them more harm than good, but well...
Either way, it seems to me that there's tons of people complaining about this price, but pretty much no-one ever really worked with Pantone colours. That's why I think the internet is overreacting.
Or, for a digital analogy, think of the good old discussion of the cost of distributing an mp3 vs the cost of creating the music (esp. back in the iTunes days when the mp3 cost $0.99).
In this case, Pantone prices the verified digital access to their colours. Almost nobody needs that, UNLESS you deal with Pantone colours in the physical world - and there they have real value.
I'm personally questioning the decision of making designers pay for the digital colours as well; I think it hurts adoption in the long run. But I also think the outcry is over the top: if you design products that require standardised colours in the manufacturing process, the cost of that tiny subscription is completely negligible. Also, because it's negligible, I can't imagine it being a huge part of Pantone's revenue, so this move might have done them more harm than good, but well...
Either way, it seems to me that there's tons of people complaining about this price, but pretty much no-one ever really worked with Pantone colours. That's why I think the internet is overreacting.
There are actually two jewels of shitty capitalism in this crown of crappiness: subscription everything meets proprietary standards.
Discussed few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33369951
Alternative free palette: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387047
Alternative free palette: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387047
It's Adobe weaponizing its userbase against one of their business partners to force them to change their business tactics.
Ironically it's Adobe that made mainstream the concept of subscription based graphic software
devd00d(1)
Can someone tell me what value does Pantone bring to the table? As a man-on-the-street I fail to understand what they are claiming for. Is this about the naming Pantone has given to a particular Hex Code?
My understanding is that the entire suite of colors is calibrated by material, among other things. #aabbcc on the screen does not look like #aabbcc when painted onto wood, or from plastic injection moulding. But Pantone Color #32 will be absolutely identical everywhere.
It’s worse than that. ‘#aabbcc’ does not exist outside of your screen. ‘#aabbcc’ is not a color. Colors are complicated: https://poynton.ca/ColorFAQ.html
[deleted]
PANTONE colors are specific mixes of pigments, not RGB or CMYK values. A PANTONE color includes elements like texture and lustre in its definition that cannot be captured in primary-color systems like RGB or CMYK. Certain trademark shades, like Tiffany blue, are captured as PANTONE colors as well. PANTONE is the standard for print graphic design because a designer will always know exactly how a PANTONE color will look on paper whereas significant calibration is necessary to get a consistent appearance from RGB or CMYK colors.
Yes indeed, the lustre makes a huge difference with some colours - sometimes even affecting the perceived hue, not just the vibrance - Pantone 136C vs 136U for example. Same ink, different paper.
From what I recall, its about phyiscal to virtual color matching, so pantone offers samples of say plastic with the exact matching color as the virtual ones, so you can pick a color, tell the manufacturer you want the plastic molded that color and be pretty sure you'll get the right color of product (or if not you can go back to them and tell them to do it according to spec).
You'd also want to calibrate your monitor accordingly of course
You'd also want to calibrate your monitor accordingly of course
You'll never get exact matching colors between a digital representation and a physical sample - there are too many variables at play an distinct physical differences that can't be made up.
I have never found the Pantone hexs to be particularly close to even the basic coated/uncoated guide colors, either, despite having about as good of a color matching setup as one can get at the prosumer level (and do not see how going from the four-digit to five-digit range would close the gap in color accuracy on thee hexes)
As someone with 3 Pantone decks and 2 RAL decks within arm's reach while writing this, I've never understood the value proposition of these virtual libraries beyond a quick and dirty starting point for digital representation. When something goes to print, your printer isn't going to be comparing against what it looks like digitally, either. They'll either use their proprietary spot ink/dye mix/etc., or pull out their guide and compare physical to physical.
Every time I've sent stuff to a printer that has spot color in it, they've wanted it manually referenced as well, so I've never been able to just hand over an EPS or PDF that had spot color in it and get it done without additional work anyway.
I have never found the Pantone hexs to be particularly close to even the basic coated/uncoated guide colors, either, despite having about as good of a color matching setup as one can get at the prosumer level (and do not see how going from the four-digit to five-digit range would close the gap in color accuracy on thee hexes)
As someone with 3 Pantone decks and 2 RAL decks within arm's reach while writing this, I've never understood the value proposition of these virtual libraries beyond a quick and dirty starting point for digital representation. When something goes to print, your printer isn't going to be comparing against what it looks like digitally, either. They'll either use their proprietary spot ink/dye mix/etc., or pull out their guide and compare physical to physical.
Every time I've sent stuff to a printer that has spot color in it, they've wanted it manually referenced as well, so I've never been able to just hand over an EPS or PDF that had spot color in it and get it done without additional work anyway.
Yes, at best with experience a designer can visualize how a particular color will look in print when they see it on screen.
But that's true when viewing anything to be printed on-screen.
The only way to get there is to do a lot of printing.
But that's true when viewing anything to be printed on-screen.
The only way to get there is to do a lot of printing.
Of course at that point you're already bought into the ecosystem with physical samples (which are not cheap), monitor calibration and all, so it feels like a "double dip" for no value added
It's not really a double dip. It's more like a triple dip, as they charge the designers for the physical samples, then they charge the designers in order to reference those physical samples in their Photoshop designs, and then they charge the printers in order to produce the output that the Photoshop files are referencing.
So… they charge people for using their cross-referencing system is what you mean?
It’s no more triple dipping than two people each needing their copy of photoshop to work on the same psd.
It’s no more triple dipping than two people each needing their copy of photoshop to work on the same psd.
They want to make sure you pay at every single point where you might think "PANTONE®". So in addition of having to buy the PANTONE® sample book in order to actually know what the PANTONE® colours are, you now need to pay to reference the PANTONE® colours in a Photoshop document so that the receiving party knows which PANTONE® colours they need to get out of a printer.
If they could make you pay for sending an email containing "I need the background to be in PANTONE® Red 032 C", they would.
If they could make you pay for sending an email containing "I need the background to be in PANTONE® Red 032 C", they would.
I would argue that a multi-sided marketplace isn't always a double dip. If I want a Pantone 628 C coffee mug from China, I can order it and know exactly what colour I'm getting. It saves designers tons of money and time with avoided back-and-forth in the prototyping process.
It’s not just the rgb value. Using a specific Pantone color ensures that when you get it printed or manufactured it’s the color that you expect.
...which is also what you get by using an RGB / CMYK approximation and then telling the manufacturer which kind of paint should be used for that layer (by specifying a Pantone color). What this $15 subscription is for is technically just that set of mappings built-in into Photoshop.
> ...which is also what you get by using an RGB / CMYK approximation and then telling the manufacturer which kind of paint should be used for that layer.
That’s not going to work, because the natures of the different surface will make a given RGB/CMYK perceptually differ.
Think display calibration, except a lot worse.
The point of the Pantone system is that they’ve done the legwork to get perceptual matchings across surfaces, and design paint mix recipes to achieve reproducible matching. That’s what you’re paying for.
That’s not going to work, because the natures of the different surface will make a given RGB/CMYK perceptually differ.
Think display calibration, except a lot worse.
The point of the Pantone system is that they’ve done the legwork to get perceptual matchings across surfaces, and design paint mix recipes to achieve reproducible matching. That’s what you’re paying for.
It seems like people are misunderstanding the approach here.
Let's say I want to print something in Pantone 123 (careful, Fluke might go after me!) I send over a design artifact that uses the color #ffc72b. Now, when it comes time for printing, the printer can't print RGB, but I also specify the mapping "#ffc72b is actually Pantone 123".
The printer _uses Pantone 123_. We don't suffer any loss of color fidelity. We only use RGB/CMYK as stand-ins for the correct color.
Note there are millions (24-bit) or billions (32-bit, but I mean, you can use however many bits you want) of RGB/CMYKs and only thousands of Pantones. This mapping doesn't need to be lossy.
Yes, yes, yes, #ffc72b is not Pantone 123. But it _is_ if I say "map everything to the closest Pantone color."
Let's say I want to print something in Pantone 123 (careful, Fluke might go after me!) I send over a design artifact that uses the color #ffc72b. Now, when it comes time for printing, the printer can't print RGB, but I also specify the mapping "#ffc72b is actually Pantone 123".
The printer _uses Pantone 123_. We don't suffer any loss of color fidelity. We only use RGB/CMYK as stand-ins for the correct color.
Note there are millions (24-bit) or billions (32-bit, but I mean, you can use however many bits you want) of RGB/CMYKs and only thousands of Pantones. This mapping doesn't need to be lossy.
Yes, yes, yes, #ffc72b is not Pantone 123. But it _is_ if I say "map everything to the closest Pantone color."
Even better - you don't have to worry about it being "lossy" or not as you don't just map specific RGB color to Pantone; you're mapping whole color layers, so your layer is displayed in #ffc72b on screen, but you're telling the printer that this particular layer is supposed to come out as Pantone 123. This is the exact same thing that happens when you select Pantone 123 in Photoshop after paying for the subscription, except the "telling the printer" part is embedded in PSD file in that case.
>It seems like people are misunderstanding the approach here.
Considering the part that quotes the original post is missing the whole "Pantone colour" bit, I feel like the post was edited afterwards.
Considering the part that quotes the original post is missing the whole "Pantone colour" bit, I feel like the post was edited afterwards.
I added the part in brackets afterwards to prevent further misunderstanding, but it doesn't change the meaning of the post, which was just to move the actual color definition out-of-band.
I have a terrible tendency to hit the send button too soon and then update the post multiple times with typo fixes and clarifications...
I have a terrible tendency to hit the send button too soon and then update the post multiple times with typo fixes and clarifications...
It changes the meaning massively. The original was just "pick a CMYK colour and then tell them what kind of paint you want it printed with", the latter is "pick a CMYK colour and then tell them what it actually need to look like".
"What kind of paint you want it printed with" assumed that it's already after matching it to whatever Pantone definition you're after given the materials/conditions/printing method etc., otherwise you're quite obviously not going to get the result you want.
Of course it's going to work, it's the exact same thing except you communicate the Pantone color out of band instead of embedding it in PSD metadata.
This. So much this. The Pantone system covers displays, materials of all types, paper of all types, and fabrics. The same Pantone color will look exactly the same on all those materials. That's why it's the standard and not just for graphic artists, but also for manufacturing, fashion, and other industries I'm probably not even aware of.
It’s not really, you wouldn’t choose these colors from RGB/CMYK you’d use a sample book. It’s more the tool within PS to tell the printers easily which pantones you want to use.
You could of course not subscribe and communicate that manually, but I bet that’s frustrating if you’re an agency working on many brands not a in-house team.
$15 a month is a heavy subscription for the convenience though.
You could of course not subscribe and communicate that manually, but I bet that’s frustrating if you’re an agency working on many brands not a in-house team.
$15 a month is a heavy subscription for the convenience though.
> It’s more the tool within PS to tell the printers easily which pantones you want to use.
That's exactly what I said above. It's nothing more than a label with a mapping. The actual matching to whatever is defined by Pantone happens during printing/manufacturing, not in Photoshop.
That's exactly what I said above. It's nothing more than a label with a mapping. The actual matching to whatever is defined by Pantone happens during printing/manufacturing, not in Photoshop.
And then you'd probably not get what you expect since your CMYK printer isn't calibrated like the print shop's printer is, despite having the same kind of paint.
You get what you want, because you use a Pantone color to match it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
However, for Photoshop specifically, the only use of that information is to display an RGB approximation.
(although with uncalibrated printer you'd be screwed one way or another, I guess)
However, for Photoshop specifically, the only use of that information is to display an RGB approximation.
(although with uncalibrated printer you'd be screwed one way or another, I guess)
It's very valuable if you're printing a single spot color on something. Instead of doing a cyan pass, a magenta pass, a yellow pass, and a black pass, you can just do a black pass and a pass of your spot color. Despite Pantone being a more expensive ink, you may end up spending less money because it allows you to simply use less ink, and fewer resources.
Not to mention when you supply a Pantone color, you will get exactly that color, no matter what print shop you go to (As long as they pay for Pantone inks).
Not to mention when you supply a Pantone color, you will get exactly that color, no matter what print shop you go to (As long as they pay for Pantone inks).
It guarantees that the color will look on a product just like you selected it. In Germany we have an older system called RAL, which is sufficient for most use cases. For example if you ordered a window in RAL 7043 and need to repaint it, you can go to your next hardware store, oder some paint with that color code from any manufacturer, and colors will/should match. But the RAL system applies more or less only to the physical world.
Pantone brings consistency. If you specify a Pantone color, pay a printer to use the right Pantone inks on the right media (and pay for the level of experience for the printer to do this right), you can get exactly what you expect.
By which I mean your company logo will by the right color (assuming your logo was specified as a Pantone color).
When printed, of course.
The hubub is because the Pantone color pallets have been a convenient way of picking colors for many use cases where consistency doesn't matter enough to pay for Pantone inks and the class of printer who can do them right...which is almost all use cases, everywhere all the time.
Pantone created the onscreen colors to facilitate soft proofing. In the small segment of users using them for that, the cost of a license is trivial because clients who require Pantone colors already expect to pay the costs associated with using them.
By which I mean your company logo will by the right color (assuming your logo was specified as a Pantone color).
When printed, of course.
The hubub is because the Pantone color pallets have been a convenient way of picking colors for many use cases where consistency doesn't matter enough to pay for Pantone inks and the class of printer who can do them right...which is almost all use cases, everywhere all the time.
Pantone created the onscreen colors to facilitate soft proofing. In the small segment of users using them for that, the cost of a license is trivial because clients who require Pantone colors already expect to pay the costs associated with using them.
By 'hex code' do you mean RGB or CMYK?
Pantone encodes more colours than those two.
Pantone encodes more colours than those two.
Your last sentence is just wrong. Pantone encodes thousands of colors. RGB/CMYK can encode references to as many (within-gamut, but you can also hack around this) colors as you want, typically millions, often billions.
Sure, you might not get Pantone 123 if somebody asks for #ffc72b. But if somebody says "use Pantone colors only" and specifies #ffc72b, you're going to get Pantone 123.
Sure, you might not get Pantone 123 if somebody asks for #ffc72b. But if somebody says "use Pantone colors only" and specifies #ffc72b, you're going to get Pantone 123.
> Your last sentence is just wrong.
How do you express metallic gold 817 using RGB.
Which of those components gives you how metallic it is? It's not even 1-1 as it depends on the paper used! Their own books show how lossy it is - they show the corresponding CMYK and it often barely matches.
> within-gamut
Ah so you already knew it wasn't true.
How do you express metallic gold 817 using RGB.
Which of those components gives you how metallic it is? It's not even 1-1 as it depends on the paper used! Their own books show how lossy it is - they show the corresponding CMYK and it often barely matches.
> within-gamut
Ah so you already knew it wasn't true.
The cardinality of one set is much bigger than the cardinality of the other one. Pantone 871 is mapped to #84754e. If you see #84754e and also get the instruction "use only Pantone colors", it is not ambiguous!
Someone needs a lookup table to map those back - that’s what you’re paying for. They aren’t claiming to ‘own’ the colours.
> within-gamut, but
How is this not question-begging?
How is this not question-begging?
The title should really be Pantone wants $15/month for the privilege of using its colors in Creative Cloud or Photoshop Subscription.
>To hear Pantone tell it, Adobe had not been updating the Pantone color libraries in its apps for more than a decade, which prompted the end of the previous licensing deal and the wholesale removal of the old libraries from Adobe's apps in favor of the Pantone Connect Extension.
It sounds like Adobe doesn't want to pay X amount of money for it. And we now end up with the drama. But considering the cost of other Pantone tools, I am not surprised at the $15 mark.
>To hear Pantone tell it, Adobe had not been updating the Pantone color libraries in its apps for more than a decade, which prompted the end of the previous licensing deal and the wholesale removal of the old libraries from Adobe's apps in favor of the Pantone Connect Extension.
It sounds like Adobe doesn't want to pay X amount of money for it. And we now end up with the drama. But considering the cost of other Pantone tools, I am not surprised at the $15 mark.
And whatever part of the Creative Cloud customers' money was previously being passed on to Pantone is now being pocketed by Adobe, and they're probably also grabbing a piece of that $15. Pantone is totally willing to be the PR bad guy here, nobody is moving from Pantone. It's an absurdly deeply entrenched and useful standard.
The people that don't understand what's so special about Pantone are really irrelevant because they don't understand print and were never really customers. Of the people that do get it, I think 99.9% would prefer an open color standard (or openesque, because what Pantone does is not easy and has to generate income), but understand how insane a political/physical undertaking that would be to avoid paying $15 a month for products that they're already overpaying for.
I'd rather ditch Adobe than ditch Pantone.
The people that don't understand what's so special about Pantone are really irrelevant because they don't understand print and were never really customers. Of the people that do get it, I think 99.9% would prefer an open color standard (or openesque, because what Pantone does is not easy and has to generate income), but understand how insane a political/physical undertaking that would be to avoid paying $15 a month for products that they're already overpaying for.
I'd rather ditch Adobe than ditch Pantone.
Seems like they dislike subscription models.
Well, color me surprised!
Only if you pay me $15 a month.
Seriously I think the value they bring demands a price. Seeing how Adobe abuses its market dominance to force people into their cloud, I can understand their attempts to do the same.
Seriously I think the value they bring demands a price. Seeing how Adobe abuses its market dominance to force people into their cloud, I can understand their attempts to do the same.
Photoshop already is a rather expensive subscription so whoever doesn't mind paying Adobe obviously uses it for making good money on regular basis and shouldn't have a problem paying Pantone as well.
"Has no choice but to pay for it" != "doesn't mind paying for it."
Lots of graphic designers, "employed" as contractors, have to pay for photoshop.
One of the reasons Adobe moved to this "cloud" shit is because lot of large companies tended to delay upgrading for quite some time...not because they couldn't afford it, but because most of their bargain-basement labor force couldn't.
Lots of graphic designers, "employed" as contractors, have to pay for photoshop.
One of the reasons Adobe moved to this "cloud" shit is because lot of large companies tended to delay upgrading for quite some time...not because they couldn't afford it, but because most of their bargain-basement labor force couldn't.
They should just introduce a more reasonable pricing policy offering personal licenses notably cheaper than corporate licenses, non-commercial and educational licenses even cheaper, major version upgrades at a fraction of a new purchase price. This would be a reasonable, practical, humane model, wouldn't it?
Most folks who used PANTONE spot colours had no business doing so --- their gaudy layout w/ a dozen spot colours would never be printed w/ that many plates, and some production person always had to get permission to convert them into the process equivalents.
For those few jobs where it is actually getting printed as a spot colour? The job would still print fine --- just send along a PANTONE colour chip, or ask your printer to provide one to verify colour usage.
If you still want to use spot colours, use a free library such as the one developed by GCMI, then your printer can pull out the spot colour book and figure out which you actually want to print w/.
For those few jobs where it is actually getting printed as a spot colour? The job would still print fine --- just send along a PANTONE colour chip, or ask your printer to provide one to verify colour usage.
If you still want to use spot colours, use a free library such as the one developed by GCMI, then your printer can pull out the spot colour book and figure out which you actually want to print w/.
This is a real Steve Jobs "You're holding it wrong" way to look at this problem. This is an extremely anti-consumer move, and you can't blame the users for it.
Please tell me how one is going to meaningfully make use of a PANTONE colour w/o using a spot colour printing plate in an actual colour job --- oh? You mean use the process builds which are still in place and which folks can still use?
I've always held that the spot colours should be an optional install, and only installable _after_ a user has passed a quiz on what spot colours and printing plates are.
I've always held that the spot colours should be an optional install, and only installable _after_ a user has passed a quiz on what spot colours and printing plates are.
I am a normal pleb with a Photoshop license. I go to the paint store and see "Oh, I like this PANTONE 628 C colour. That might be nice to put on my wedding invitations", then go home and tell Photoshop "Hey, make the background Pantone 628 C". I am happy with how it looks, and save it. Then I go back a week later to print them, and suddenly it's all black. And that's okay somehow, because... I'm not using a spot colour printing plate?
You should have picked PANTONE 628 the CMYK process build, or the RGB Hex version if it wasn't a spot colour job.
Why would one select an option to use a spot colour intended for having a printing press print on coated stock if one wasn't going to have the job printed on such stuck thus?
How can the distinction between the colour representations be maintained w/o having a specific option for spot colour?
People who make the wrong choice should suffer the consequences of that wrong decision.
For my part, I want back all of my life and energy which has been used explaining what spot colours are, why it would cost a fortune to print a job w/ 23 spot colour plates, and why the job was converted to process and a charge made for said conversion.
Why would one select an option to use a spot colour intended for having a printing press print on coated stock if one wasn't going to have the job printed on such stuck thus?
How can the distinction between the colour representations be maintained w/o having a specific option for spot colour?
People who make the wrong choice should suffer the consequences of that wrong decision.
For my part, I want back all of my life and energy which has been used explaining what spot colours are, why it would cost a fortune to print a job w/ 23 spot colour plates, and why the job was converted to process and a charge made for said conversion.
What an absurd assertion, that software should make me "suffer the consequences" after following a logical set of steps, just because I don't have a bunch of obscure knowledge about printing processes. The case I laid out is a perfectly reasonable one.
"You should have picked PANTONE 628 the CMYK process build, or the RGB Hex version if it wasn't a spot colour job"
To be frank, I don't know what the hell any of that means. But why should I have to? Why should I "suffer" because I don't know a bunch of gatekeepy factoids about the real-life differences between PANTONE 628 and B7DDE1? "Oh, sorry honey. You know that wedding invitation design I made last week and showed you? Well that's gone now, because I entered the colour we liked in the wrong format. It's my fault though. I used a colour palette intended for spot colour printing. What a goof! I am rightfully being punished".
Don't you see how this is insane? I can see a colour I like in real life, and see that there is a tag associated with that colour. I can tell that tag to a piece of software that I pay for, and have the software return a result I like. Then that software can, out of nowhere and without warning, decide to tell me "Oh, I'm not going to show you this colour any more". And then I'm expected to say "Oh, that's reasonable. I should have understood that the colour entry field I used was subject to cancellation, and only intended for spot colour for printing on coated stock".
"You should have picked PANTONE 628 the CMYK process build, or the RGB Hex version if it wasn't a spot colour job"
To be frank, I don't know what the hell any of that means. But why should I have to? Why should I "suffer" because I don't know a bunch of gatekeepy factoids about the real-life differences between PANTONE 628 and B7DDE1? "Oh, sorry honey. You know that wedding invitation design I made last week and showed you? Well that's gone now, because I entered the colour we liked in the wrong format. It's my fault though. I used a colour palette intended for spot colour printing. What a goof! I am rightfully being punished".
Don't you see how this is insane? I can see a colour I like in real life, and see that there is a tag associated with that colour. I can tell that tag to a piece of software that I pay for, and have the software return a result I like. Then that software can, out of nowhere and without warning, decide to tell me "Oh, I'm not going to show you this colour any more". And then I'm expected to say "Oh, that's reasonable. I should have understood that the colour entry field I used was subject to cancellation, and only intended for spot colour for printing on coated stock".
The wedding invitation is still there, and if you submitted it to a printer to print as a spot colour job, would print fine.
If you want to print it on your CMYK inkjet printer, just choose the CMYK build, and if you want to put the image on your web site, choose the RGB hex representation.
Because Adobe doesn't have an option for substrate representation, there are two spot colour libraries (for coated/uncoated stock), and in order for a job to print properly on a commercial press, spot colours have to be identifiable so that a plate can be made.
To use a car analogy, it's like a person complaining that their truck needs diesel because they didn't understand what the diesel engine description on the window sticker meant.
If you want to print it on your CMYK inkjet printer, just choose the CMYK build, and if you want to put the image on your web site, choose the RGB hex representation.
Because Adobe doesn't have an option for substrate representation, there are two spot colour libraries (for coated/uncoated stock), and in order for a job to print properly on a commercial press, spot colours have to be identifiable so that a plate can be made.
To use a car analogy, it's like a person complaining that their truck needs diesel because they didn't understand what the diesel engine description on the window sticker meant.
For the car analogy, it seems to me more like Ford pushing a firmware update to remove support for Ethanol based fuels IMO.
No, because they are consciously choosing an option which their needs don't support, and which every time their files are professionally printed someone needs to explicitly change.
Their needs do support it though. They were happy with the output, and it printed on their inkjet printer just fine. Then Adobe rug-pulled and they weren't able to view their own files any more.
It printed in a preview mode, not as a spot colour job --- if it's not getting printed as a spot colour, don't pick a colour so defined.
Pantone products are professional/B2B.
Does Photoshop give a warning when you're about to use a professional feature? "You're about to use a B2B feature. Please note that this functionality can be removed on a whim. Do you wish to continue?"
Why should I, a normal consumer, expect my psd files to stop working if I had the gall to use a pantone shade I knew I liked?
Are we now at peak subscription nonsense? $20/month for Twitter, $15/month for Pantone, we may be hitting the point where people say enough is enough :)
(Tbh I suspect the Pantone thing is more likely to fly than the Twitter thing)
(Tbh I suspect the Pantone thing is more likely to fly than the Twitter thing)
Both of those subscriptions seem like business expenses to me. As such they are not that non-sensical.
I suppose only a very few people would need a verified Twitter or Pantone in CS without a connection to how they make their livelihood.
I suppose only a very few people would need a verified Twitter or Pantone in CS without a connection to how they make their livelihood.
The title here is slightly misleading; Adobe refused to renew it's licensing deal with Pantone because the main way Adobes products are being used these days is digital art & design. There's no incentive for Adobe to keep paying licensing fees to Pantone (not to mention that the Adobe version of the plugin hasn't been updated since 2011 and is alledgedly very inaccurate and incomplete), so they're cutting the feature.
Pantone, whose business is selling color matching inks between all sorts of materials (digital, paper, wood, fabrics you get the idea, this is a more expensive craft than one may think it is) is now selling the previous product they licensed out to Adobe as a separate 15$/month plugin. The fees specifically exist to make sure that the colors on screen do actually match the colors of the ink that Pantone provides to printing companies. That's why it costs money - Pantone is constantly adding, changing and tweaking those inks to make sure they're as uniform as possible and digital is just another target they have to provide a matching color for.
The only real problem I see here is that Adobe didn't account for the fact that a lot of people likely used it as a hue selector in Photoshop and that they didn't provide an easy one-time Pantone Spot Color to RGB conversion and instead just blacked out the colors.
Pantone, whose business is selling color matching inks between all sorts of materials (digital, paper, wood, fabrics you get the idea, this is a more expensive craft than one may think it is) is now selling the previous product they licensed out to Adobe as a separate 15$/month plugin. The fees specifically exist to make sure that the colors on screen do actually match the colors of the ink that Pantone provides to printing companies. That's why it costs money - Pantone is constantly adding, changing and tweaking those inks to make sure they're as uniform as possible and digital is just another target they have to provide a matching color for.
The only real problem I see here is that Adobe didn't account for the fact that a lot of people likely used it as a hue selector in Photoshop and that they didn't provide an easy one-time Pantone Spot Color to RGB conversion and instead just blacked out the colors.
I think the main problem is how Adobe worded the change. They could have written
"We didn't renew our license with Pantone because it was eating into our profits, so you are on your own now. We also changed said colors to black, to make it easier to spot what you are missing. Have a nice day".
Instead they've written some corporate speak, and let the thing roll by itself.
"We didn't renew our license with Pantone because it was eating into our profits, so you are on your own now. We also changed said colors to black, to make it easier to spot what you are missing. Have a nice day".
Instead they've written some corporate speak, and let the thing roll by itself.
Oh absolutely, the wording Adobe used is abysmal in telling you exactly why they did it, but arguably that is the point.
Nobody wants to hear "yeah so we're killing the feature you're using because it's not profitable enough for us anymore", speaking from experience of this happening with certain FOSS projects (where profit is substituted with "Gary wrote this 5 years ago and we haven't seen him in 3 years so I'm going to yoink it before it starts causing bugs since I dont want to spend time maintaining Gary's code"). That's not an indictment of FOSS projects to be clear (free gift horse and all that), but it does show insight in how feature cuts will come across when done for those sorts of reasons.
The other problem is that sites like Kotaku[1] decided to run the story in a decisively false manner by suggesting that Pantone is trying to copyright the color spectrum. The ARSTechnica article is a slightly more nuanced take on that Kotaku article which was blatantly bad faith, but still overwhelmingly missing the point.
[1]: https://kotaku.com/photoshop-pantone-color-plugin-adobe-crea...
Nobody wants to hear "yeah so we're killing the feature you're using because it's not profitable enough for us anymore", speaking from experience of this happening with certain FOSS projects (where profit is substituted with "Gary wrote this 5 years ago and we haven't seen him in 3 years so I'm going to yoink it before it starts causing bugs since I dont want to spend time maintaining Gary's code"). That's not an indictment of FOSS projects to be clear (free gift horse and all that), but it does show insight in how feature cuts will come across when done for those sorts of reasons.
The other problem is that sites like Kotaku[1] decided to run the story in a decisively false manner by suggesting that Pantone is trying to copyright the color spectrum. The ARSTechnica article is a slightly more nuanced take on that Kotaku article which was blatantly bad faith, but still overwhelmingly missing the point.
[1]: https://kotaku.com/photoshop-pantone-color-plugin-adobe-crea...
It's bad communication as a media play. Adobe drops the licensing in the most expedient and user hostile way possible, and puts the blame on Pantone.
Long term, this might be a better model for Pantone - they're building a direct relationship with the print shops and other businesses that actually need this feature. Short term, a lot of users just treated this as an alternate color picker and Adobe is trying to manage who gets the flack.
Long term, this might be a better model for Pantone - they're building a direct relationship with the print shops and other businesses that actually need this feature. Short term, a lot of users just treated this as an alternate color picker and Adobe is trying to manage who gets the flack.
I'm no fan of Adobe, but to me this sounds like a completely legitimate business decision.
Of course they are not going to pass on the savings to the user, except perhaps indirectly by having a way of easing the shareholder pressure to increase revenue per user, and thereby being able to push license price increases into the future. (I don't know this is how it would play out, but it is a possibility).
Removing something they are bundling from Pantone today also gives Pantone an incentive to build a direct relationship to the users, which may actually be an opportunity in disguise for Pantone. Or perhaps not: Pantone might find that they are worse off if the market turns out to be smaller in terms of profit potential.
(Disclosure: I don't use Pantone. However I do use color palettes from various manufacturers of paints. Very occasionally. And my requirements aren't really at the level where I need to use a calibrated toolchain. I make pictures, I spray paint, and if it roughly looks like what I saw on screen I'm happy.)
Of course they are not going to pass on the savings to the user, except perhaps indirectly by having a way of easing the shareholder pressure to increase revenue per user, and thereby being able to push license price increases into the future. (I don't know this is how it would play out, but it is a possibility).
Removing something they are bundling from Pantone today also gives Pantone an incentive to build a direct relationship to the users, which may actually be an opportunity in disguise for Pantone. Or perhaps not: Pantone might find that they are worse off if the market turns out to be smaller in terms of profit potential.
(Disclosure: I don't use Pantone. However I do use color palettes from various manufacturers of paints. Very occasionally. And my requirements aren't really at the level where I need to use a calibrated toolchain. I make pictures, I spray paint, and if it roughly looks like what I saw on screen I'm happy.)
Deliberately corrupting (or pretending to corrupt) the user's files is a whole new level of Adobeness.
Are they trying to shame Pantone, as some optimistic comments suggest, or happy to get a valued partner's help in their mission to evolve subscriptions to be more like ransomware?
Are they trying to shame Pantone, as some optimistic comments suggest, or happy to get a valued partner's help in their mission to evolve subscriptions to be more like ransomware?
There's no file corruption, Adobe simply updated it's UI to not provide a rendering color to Pantones colors anymore so they default to black.
If you were to have another program that can open PSDs and provide rendering colors for Pantones colors, it'd work just fine. They're cutting a feature (one Adobe had been neglecting for over a decade), not corrupting any files.
For the people who weren't supposed to be using Pantone to begin with (digital only artists), yeah it's annoying. For those people a simple conversion of Pantone to RGB in their files should be enough though and older versions of Photoshop can do that if I understand it correctly (hence why Adobe is recommending older versions of Photoshop for people affected by this). Everyone else seems to not have been supposed to use the Adobe functionality anyway because it's extremely outdated.
If you were to have another program that can open PSDs and provide rendering colors for Pantones colors, it'd work just fine. They're cutting a feature (one Adobe had been neglecting for over a decade), not corrupting any files.
For the people who weren't supposed to be using Pantone to begin with (digital only artists), yeah it's annoying. For those people a simple conversion of Pantone to RGB in their files should be enough though and older versions of Photoshop can do that if I understand it correctly (hence why Adobe is recommending older versions of Photoshop for people affected by this). Everyone else seems to not have been supposed to use the Adobe functionality anyway because it's extremely outdated.
I'm sorry, but this is a very obtuse way to look at this problem. "Oh, the data is still there. You just don't have any way to read it". Like that's fantastic if you're a massive pedant, but if you actually want to use your files using with tools you used to create them, it's functionally identical to the file being corrupted. Doubly so if the application is some cloud bullshit that you can't keep old/functional versions of, despite paying out the nose for it.
And the justification is just that the user wasn't supposed to use that feature in the first place? You have to be so gaslit by Adobe and dark patterns writ large to think this okay.
Data corruption usually refers to actual data loss. The "data is still there but you just can't view it" isn't corruption, it just means your tools aren't up to the task.
You can still download older versions of Adobes apps, it's right there in the ARS article even (Creative Cloud lets you download older versions of PS, InDesign and the like), so your second argument about cloud bullshit doesn't go up there either.
As for the "not supposed to use" part; digital artists were never meant to use Pantone Spot colors to begin with. They're very specifically intended for graphic designers who are planning to have their works printed on different designs. That is what their colors are for.
I don't think Adobe handled (or communicated) this well at all, but this is de facto not data corruption.
You can still download older versions of Adobes apps, it's right there in the ARS article even (Creative Cloud lets you download older versions of PS, InDesign and the like), so your second argument about cloud bullshit doesn't go up there either.
As for the "not supposed to use" part; digital artists were never meant to use Pantone Spot colors to begin with. They're very specifically intended for graphic designers who are planning to have their works printed on different designs. That is what their colors are for.
I don't think Adobe handled (or communicated) this well at all, but this is de facto not data corruption.
I'm sorry, but this is just mental gymnastics to justify dark patterns in modern software development and distribution. If I create a file on Photoshop on Monday, I should be able to open it on Friday. Period. Even if I used a feature I used "wasn't meant for me", as if that matters.
This is like pushing a firmware update to DVD players that makes certain disks unreadable. "Actually Grandma, your DVDs aren't corrupted. There's just a licensing dispute between Technicolor and the DVD standards consortium, making your existing tools no longer up to the task. The data is all still there on the discs!"
This is like pushing a firmware update to DVD players that makes certain disks unreadable. "Actually Grandma, your DVDs aren't corrupted. There's just a licensing dispute between Technicolor and the DVD standards consortium, making your existing tools no longer up to the task. The data is all still there on the discs!"
How should Adobe handle it?
Pantone support is a neglected feature that Adobe thinks most people should not be using.
* Do you pop up a UI saying "hey you're using it wrong, convert it" then run the risk that a user needs Pantone support and accidentally converts their files from Pantone and doesn't have a back up?
* Do you automatically convert their files and run the risk of getting sued when the user discovers the change?
* Do you automatically charge their Adobe account $10 and render the colors using Pantone?
* Do you eat the $10 for each user on the off chance they need Pantone?
* Do you eat the $10 only if a user ever opens a Pantone format file? The following week Pantone releases some asset free to everyone in Pantone format to boost their quarterly revenue?
They chose an option that makes it apparent to the user that there's a problem they need to resolve without embedding any controversy in their App or potentially harming user's file.
Pantone support is a neglected feature that Adobe thinks most people should not be using.
* Do you pop up a UI saying "hey you're using it wrong, convert it" then run the risk that a user needs Pantone support and accidentally converts their files from Pantone and doesn't have a back up?
* Do you automatically convert their files and run the risk of getting sued when the user discovers the change?
* Do you automatically charge their Adobe account $10 and render the colors using Pantone?
* Do you eat the $10 for each user on the off chance they need Pantone?
* Do you eat the $10 only if a user ever opens a Pantone format file? The following week Pantone releases some asset free to everyone in Pantone format to boost their quarterly revenue?
They chose an option that makes it apparent to the user that there's a problem they need to resolve without embedding any controversy in their App or potentially harming user's file.
They could simply not offer features which count on variable third party licensing terms.
So you're suggesting they do what they did?
Pantone support has been in their products for 30 years and only recently did Pantone start asking for money.
Pantone support has been in their products for 30 years and only recently did Pantone start asking for money.
No. I'm suggesting they do literally the opposite. They did, by definition, count on variable licensing terms.
I don't follow you, could you explain what you mean?
Historically Pantone has not charged a fee for Adobe to map the Pantone colorspace because it was advantageous for Pantone to not do so. The rationale being that the more widely available the Palette, the more likely it is to be used in print products.
Today Pantone has decided that it no longer wishes for that information to be shared freely and has compelled Adobe to stop mapping the colorspace by requiring they pay an outrageous per-user fee to do so.
Adobe recognizes that the overwhelming majority of it's users do not need Pantone, even if they're inadvertently or mistakenly using it. So they are unwilling to pay a per-user fee to enable a feature only a small subset of their users actually need.
Historically Pantone has not charged a fee for Adobe to map the Pantone colorspace because it was advantageous for Pantone to not do so. The rationale being that the more widely available the Palette, the more likely it is to be used in print products.
Today Pantone has decided that it no longer wishes for that information to be shared freely and has compelled Adobe to stop mapping the colorspace by requiring they pay an outrageous per-user fee to do so.
Adobe recognizes that the overwhelming majority of it's users do not need Pantone, even if they're inadvertently or mistakenly using it. So they are unwilling to pay a per-user fee to enable a feature only a small subset of their users actually need.
The affected pictures are barely recoverable, with inconvenient emergency procedures, risking permanent damage, if you are a power user armed with special software: exactly the same situation as, say, precious files in a FAT filesystem on an accidentally reformatted but not overwritten disk.
How can you say that Adobe deliberately making Photoshop stop working "means your tools aren't up to the task"? This is, frankly, victim-shaming.
How can you say that Adobe deliberately making Photoshop stop working "means your tools aren't up to the task"? This is, frankly, victim-shaming.
You mean using its color Names. They don’t own the hex values
There are any number of ways to turn Pantone names into hex values. The names are what's important, because they are placeholders for specific formulations of ink.
I think Pantone is overplaying their hand here. Clearly, their business has been dwindling for years. I started my professional career in graphic design 20 years ago. Design work targeting digital was barely a blip on the radar. It was all print. Interviews for jobs required a physical portfolio. These days, print is the odd man out.
So, the almighty Pantone swatch book has less value than it once did. Especially, if they want to hose users for $15 a month to use the swatches. Does that mean everyone gets a swatch book for free? Which, btw, is all that matters. The digital swatches really don't mean shit. It's just a placeholder color separation that means "insert spot color here".
Fwiw, in all my years of print design, I used the Pantone swatch book less than a handful of times. It was 99.9% CMYK (which I also had a swatch book for). Maybe it was just the industry/clients I worked with. But, spot colors could add significant cost to a project. So, it was rarely opted.
So, the almighty Pantone swatch book has less value than it once did. Especially, if they want to hose users for $15 a month to use the swatches. Does that mean everyone gets a swatch book for free? Which, btw, is all that matters. The digital swatches really don't mean shit. It's just a placeholder color separation that means "insert spot color here".
Fwiw, in all my years of print design, I used the Pantone swatch book less than a handful of times. It was 99.9% CMYK (which I also had a swatch book for). Maybe it was just the industry/clients I worked with. But, spot colors could add significant cost to a project. So, it was rarely opted.
It's a free market, they can charge whatever they please. You are free to decline the offer.
I smell a lawsuit.
You can't copyright facts. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
> Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright.[1] In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.
You can't copyright facts. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
> Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright.[1] In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.
From what I understand, no "fact" is being copyrighted here.
What is copyrighted is a set of names for colors, that Pantone came up with, which they can have "standardized" for each material they sell ink for.
What is copyrighted is a set of names for colors, that Pantone came up with, which they can have "standardized" for each material they sell ink for.
Maybe this is a possible evolution? Third party ink producers create photoshop add-ins allowing you to specify their specific products - not just standardized colors but actual bottles? I mean you'd loose the benefit of Pantone standardization. But anyway I use the colors brands that my trusted printshop uses. If they tell me ACME ink 1234 is the same as Pantone ABCD then I just would replace that in the document and be done.
(Well to be honest for 99% of things I did spot colors (I think that's the term) are overkill anyway and my printshop guy just told me to use CYMK...)