Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 04/05/2014 18:20 (04/05/2014 12:20) |
| Message-ID | <050420141220310524%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
In article <8070k99hl7asj5s54eif3hf9gco981q58p@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:
Tony Cooperthey do.
Adobe apparently doesn't pursue infringements.
The availability of plug-ins are beneficial to Adobe because it makes Photoshop a more useful program and more desired. It would be costly for Adobe to crack down. That doesn't mean that they don't have the legal right to do so.it's not an infringement.
obviously you *must* use the word photoshop in describing a plug-in that adds functionality to photoshop.
whether you call it a 'photoshop plug-in', as do the vast majority of users and most developers, or a 'plug-in for photoshop' which a few developers do, makes no difference whatsoever.
the terms are *interchangeable* and both have the word photoshop in it. if one is not infringing, then neither is the other.
03/13/2014-
-
