Skip to main content
news

Re: Calumet files Chapter 7

nospam
Google Google
SubjectRe: Calumet files Chapter 7
Fromnospam
Date04/04/2014 13:03 (04/04/2014 07:03)
Message-ID<040420140703172105%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsTony Cooper
In article <jiasj9p57r7jqiqci42h8lbkviopu1kvf0@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:

Sandman
Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM <81qdi9p509anhalqskqa7cqu8d57g8412o@4ax.com>

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

Eric Stevens
And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

nospam
once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies do.

Tony Cooper
To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe product.

other than you, but you backpedaled on that.

What has been said is that the term "Photoshop Plug-in" is a misleading term. It implies that the plug-in is something Adobe has provided. It should be called "a plug-in for Photoshop".

nonsense. the two terms are interchangeable. there is *no* implication that a 'photoshop plug-in' is authored by adobe. you made that up.

I know you'll be quick to say "Nobody does that". That doesn't negate that the term "Photoshop Plug-in" is wrong. It just shows that there are many people - including you - who have no respect for the proprietary rights to the word "Photoshop".

it's not wrong, and in both cases, the word photoshop is used.