this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
846 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59636 readers
4545 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Photoshop has been around for over 3 decades. It's original patents must have expired by now.
I am also curious how software like Photopea exists. It is a direct Photoshop rip off. But it only runs in your browser. For small jobs it is fantastic since the layout is exactly the same as Photoshop, unfortunately for larger projects it doesn't have the speed that a natively installed app would have. Still check out the website if you need Photoshop functionality without paying Adobe's prices.
But how has Adobe not shut that site down since it mimics Photoshop so closely?
I wish Abode well and would love to see what they come up with.
Patents and Trademark are two separate things:
The issue I see is not so much that Abode is aiming to make an Adobe Suite competitor, but rather that they are so purposefully mimicking the brand and image of Adobe in doing that. I think it is likely that the courts will rule this to be blatant trademark infringement
If you've read the article, they mention that nobody has seen the final branding yet. The logo we see now is not what they're using to sell the product.
He's also had other projects like a free Pantone competitor that he's defended successfully. Apparently he knows what he's doing.
I'm not convinced that running a Kickstarter for a product named Abode, with a (mockup) styling that is designed to look like the Adobe Suite, can somehow be argued not to be selling a product on the back of the Adobe brand.
Even if he changes the branding before release of the final product, that doesn't change that he used branding increadibly similar to Adobe's in order to sell his product which is going to compete with Adobe.
Edit: The Kickstarter page in question
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/culturehustle/abode-a-suite-of-world-class-design-and-photography-tools
Says in the FAQ that the foundation being a nonprofit and him intending this to be considered a parody is how he intends to do it. I don't think that's bulletproof but he does have the legal experience and has an IP lawyer, so I think he has a shot.
Adobe also has some legal experience and an IP lawyer or 80. And they have common sense on their side. You can't just say "parody" like a magic incantation. It's not like calling dibs on the front seat. It actually has to be a parody. I can't just release my own Guardians of the Galaxy 4 as a completely straight up movie with the same titles, characters, etc., and say it's a parody.
He has no shot. He has less than no shot. There's a better chance that his IP lawyer is disbarred than there is that he wins in this.
According to the American bar association, a parody is "conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image". It explains that parody looks like the original, but can't be a direct copy. Trademark is the more relevant here because the only debate is the logos and similar branding,not the adobe suite itself, because this is being built starting with open-source software by "geeks", as per the kickstarter.
The same article goes on to point out that it's important that the parody is actually a comment on the thing being infringed on. Hyundai lost a parody argument when an ad used Louis Vuitton markings on a ball to comment on luxury products in general, with the court making it clear that if they had been commenting on Louis Vuitton specifically, it would have counted.
This product's logo, as far as we have seen it so far, certainly infringes, as parody has to, but the work is definitely intended to critique Adobe'a business practices.
Next, the article goes into trademark dilution, namely, that "abode" and the logos used would cause brand confusion. The image I saw might make me do a double-take, but there's clearly a little house in there, and that's not adobe. If the logo was always with "Abode", it's my opinion that that's pretty distinctive, considering the logo Adobe has is an "A". Precisely, as the article states, an association, but not a false claim that adobe is behind the Abode software. "The more famous the mark being parodied, the higher [Adobe's] burden becomes to establish blurring."
Trademark infringement is a seperate from blurring, but essentially the same argument applies. As long as a "reasonably prudent consumer" isn't fooled, it's not trademark infringement.
Copyright is similar in nature to trademark law here, but also doesn't assume commercial gain, which means it's more weighted towards Abode here, as a non-profit.
Now, yes, a good lawyer can make a case trying to remove any of these defenses, and Adobe will certainly try. I'm not saying it's a sure thing. But I do think there's more than enough here for this to be an actual fight in court. These facts vs Adobe's money.
It’s going to be extremely hard to convince a court that the thing you’re making is both a parody and a legit competitor you believe users should switch to.
As you point out, parody has to be a comment on the thing you’re parodying. In the Hyundai example, the problem was that it was commenting on something else. The problem here is that it’s simply not a comment on anything. It’s a product you’re making to compete with the original.
I think simply the name abode is enough. People don't read that closely, they rely on recognition.