Savageduck
On 2014-04-04 11:03:15 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>said:

nospam
In article <j1esj9tg2kdml1shinhn45sidrko3cnhgo@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Sandman
'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.

Eric Stevens
Ever heard of protecting a trademark?

nospam
calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored by adobe.

Savageduck
How the Hell did we manage to come back to this stupid Photoshop plug-in argument for, at least the forth time in multiple threads?

They are fuckin' plug-ins, and they are developed by all sorts of folks to work in Photoshop!! Some of them (with a change from .plugin to .lrplugin & whatever Aperture uses) will work in Lightroom and some will work in Aperture, and some will even work as standalone apps, but remain referred to simply as *plug-ins* by many I won't use *most* because that will open another can of worms) users of PS, PSE, LR, &/or Aperture.