A not so black and white issue: Adobe and Pantone part ways over license cost

[Matt_in_NE]

Adobe lost its license to integrate Pantone with its design products, so now users will have to shell out an extra $21 a month to Pantone directly or all the files they created with pantone will be in black and white. According to TechRadar, the process began in December of last year when Adobe balked at renewing its license and began removing the colors from Creative Cloud apps back in August. Since its creative tools are now software-as-a-service based, the changbe also applies retroactively to files made before they lost the license. Cory Doctorow wrote on Twitter that the immediate cause is Pantone deciding they weren't making enough money on their color libraries, but Adobe is also at fault for trying to make oodles more money as an SaaS company and forcing their customers on to the cloud. If not for that, old files wouldn't be effected and current customers wouldn't have to worry about it until they upgraded -- which could be in a year or two given how much Creative Suite software used to cost -- which would give Adobe ample time to negotiate with Pantone before ruining their customers' livelihoods. 

 

Quotes

Quote

Extra costs aside, one of the biggest concerns for designers is continuing to deliver consistency and accuracy. While Adobe’s photo editor and DTP software allows third-party color books, they risk not identically matching the widely used Pantone libraries. As such, fears of rising complaints and assets not meeting branding guidelines loom over the creative industry. 

 

My thoughts

 Obviously, this is bad news for creatives who rely on both Adobe and Pantone, but the implications are much broader. It further demonstrates that in our digital world, you don't own anything. It doesn't matter if you have a "perpetual" license, if you bought a digital product advertised for sale from a vendor or any way else: you don't own it.   

 

Sources

TechRadar

Cory Doctorow

 

 

[GhostRoadieBL]

I haven't read into the adobe suite terms of service lately, I have been using old school buy once software so it's not really a problem for those users, but my gut feeling is that this could open adobe up to legal action if a creator lost working files or their back catalog being turned to black.

Whether it's previously created content being stored in the cloud which is skirting the line of "accessible" vs "useable" or current contracts for production work needing those files, there are plenty of companies using that colour palette which have effectively been given the finger and could cost major$ in losses if the files show up as a void of colour.

We always assume people who use the software will know all the industry changes but if I'm an artist reopening old files and they appear corrupt, I probably wouldn't think it's some paid software subscription. If I wasn't very tech literate, I'd be thinking I just lost my whole back catalogue of work.

 

I'm honestly hoping a class action suit against both companies costs them millions simply to discourage future companies from pulling the same scam. Finished files or in progress files are the IP of the creator and shouldn't be effected by arbitrary changes in deals between companies. I consider it the same as if the LOTR trilogy suddenly didn't have vfx because the company closed it's shop.

[Kisai]

Everyone who produces merchandise uses Pantone colors at some point. It's simply unavoidable.

 

My primary guess here is that Adobe just doesn't want to, and doesn't care about Pantone and is calling their bluff, because it saves them money. Meanwhile that passes on the cost to those who actually use pantone colors. Which means that if you are producing merchandise like prints, shirts, pins, etc your colors are going to get all screwed up or erased if you don't use the exact colors in the first place.

 

However, I don't personally produce merchandise, but think of all the Etsy and Shopify stores that do. Some people might just give Adobe the middle finger and load up their legacy CS6 software to work on pantone files, but that's only a bandaid.

[starsmine]

21 a month on top of the 21 a month photoshop costs?
Are they taking the piss?

Like I understand its a professional plug in, but it was amortized over all the people who do not use pantone with their adobe suite sub. 

[YellowJersey]

Welcome to the future, where corporations own colours. It's only a matter of time before we have to pay a subscription to breathe.

I'm still clinging to my copy of CS5, which adobe can have when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers, which they've already tried to do by invalidating my license key saying that they stopped working with that distributor. I found a way around it, but I'm increasingly using Affinity Photo instead of photoshop.

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

I haven't read into the adobe suite terms of service lately, I have been using old school buy once software so it's not really a problem for those users, but my gut feeling is that this could open adobe up to legal action if a creator lost working files or their back catalog being turned to black.

Whether it's previously created content being stored in the cloud which is skirting the line of "accessible" vs "useable" or current contracts for production work needing those files, there are plenty of companies using that colour palette which have effectively been given the finger and could cost major$ in losses if the files show up as a void of colour.

We always assume people who use the software will know all the industry changes but if I'm an artist reopening old files and they appear corrupt, I probably wouldn't think it's some paid software subscription. If I wasn't very tech literate, I'd be thinking I just lost my whole back catalogue of work.

 

I'm honestly hoping a class action suit against both companies costs them millions simply to discourage future companies from pulling the same scam. Finished files or in progress files are the IP of the creator and shouldn't be effected by arbitrary changes in deals between companies. I consider it the same as if the LOTR trilogy suddenly didn't have vfx because the company closed it's shop.

My question is can they just pay for the pantone license separately so they still have access to those files? I mean that is what it sounded like to me from the article summary but I could be wrong. If that is the case then i would say it's a bit of a hassle but probably not the end of the world. If there is no way to recover those files then it would definitely be a huge issue. 

[Arika]

i foresee a lot of designers just starting to use something like

https://codebeautify.org/pantone-to-rgb-converter

 

chances are they already have the pantone book or plates, i don't think anyone is using pantone colours in photoshop without the real world equivalent.

[Supreme Calamitas]

Pantone's greatest threat 

 

[GhostRoadieBL]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

can they just pay for the pantone license separately so they still have access to those files?

If they buy the pantone subscription for the plug-in they can open and edit the files in colour, if they don't pay, the files will open with all the colours as black.

There's a side load program you can use to translate the pantone codes to hex so you can use a different palette than pantone but if it's that easy, why didn't Adobe do this for their paying users? Or simply date-lock any newly created files after x date to require the plugin?

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

chances are they already have the pantone book or plates,

That's less common than you'd think, most of the time (due to cost) the majority of pantone users will have a calibrated monitor and only huge profit companies or larger manufacturers will have the physical swatches.

Remember LTT didn't have the swatches until recently when the amount of samples being sent back and forth out priced the useful cost of the swatch set. Most smaller companies won't have the income to buy a swatch set and now they're being extorted for the privilege of using the industry standard. There are smaller alternatives like Swtchos with just over 900 colours (completely free for virtual and like $50 for a deck of swatches) and SMS with around the same but pantone has something like 15000 so they really are the only one big manufacturers use.

[CTR640]

You own nothing and you'll be happy. 

[wanderingfool2]

I sort of wonder what the copyright implications are from this.  Like could you create a clone app that effectively displays the correct colors...as you can't really copyright functional elements if I recall correctly.

 

11 hours ago, Kisai said:

My primary guess here is that Adobe just doesn't want to, and doesn't care about Pantone and is calling their bluff, because it saves them money. Meanwhile that passes on the cost to those who actually use pantone colors. Which means that if you are producing merchandise like prints, shirts, pins, etc your colors are going to get all screwed up or erased if you don't use the exact colors in the first place.

Honestly, it seems like Pantone is trying to use their market dominance to dictate a new pricing (as it appears as though you now are effectively paying double).  They know the people who use their service can't get away without using it, so they can ask whatever they want for the product.  From Adobe's perspective, they might be asking for the moon (and Adobe doesn't want to dish it out to everyone who uses the service to effectively subsidize those who do).

 

From my understanding, people who use this are likely already purchasing the chips from them, the manufacturers also have to purchase to access the defined color...so this to me feels very much like double dipping.

 

Would be interesting for LTT's perspective on this.

[HenrySalayne]

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

i foresee a lot of designers just starting to use something like

https://codebeautify.org/pantone-to-rgb-converter

I don't think that's a solution. Additive colours are relatively easy (thanks to something called Metamerism) but subtractive colours are really hard. For anything not self-illuminated you would still need a reference to get the exact colour which Pantone provided in the past.

 

15 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

but my gut feeling is that this could open adobe up to legal action if a creator lost working files or their back catalog being turned to black.

EU law doesn't allow a party to a contract to unilateral worsen said contract.

In response, the other party could lower the periodical fees and they would have a special right of cancellation. And there are probably a number of other options.

It might be worth to ask a lawyer about these options. Maybe the costs for the Pantone plug-in can be deducted from the Adobe fee.

[jagdtigger]

I hope companies will sue the living crap out of adobe for intentionally damaging their property.....

[tikker]

16 hours ago, Matt_in_NE said:

It further demonstrates that in our digital world, you don't own anything. It doesn't matter if you have a "perpetual" license, if you bought a digital product advertised for sale from a vendor or any way else: you don't own it. 

Not completely. EU court has ruled before (Oracle case) that you own the software copies that you buy with a perpetual license. Paying yearly for something isn't a perpetual license though, which is the attractive thing about subscriptions.

6 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Or simply date-lock any newly created files after x date to require the plugin?

This would've been nice. It would make sense to me to at least retain some read-only functionality or the likes such that you could at least export your work, as the works before date X were created while a license was still held. At the same time I understand the other side that they don't have the license to do so anymore (and if cracked would probably be another can of worms), but it sucks that your work can be backwards revoked by things like this.

[Matt_in_NE]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I sort of wonder what the copyright implications are from this.  Like could you create a clone app that effectively displays the correct colors...as you can't really copyright functional elements if I recall correctly.

 

Honestly, it seems like Pantone is trying to use their market dominance to dictate a new pricing (as it appears as though you now are effectively paying double).  They know the people who use their service can't get away without using it, so they can ask whatever they want for the product.  From Adobe's perspective, they might be asking for the moon (and Adobe doesn't want to dish it out to everyone who uses the service to effectively subsidize those who do).

 

From my understanding, people who use this are likely already purchasing the chips from them, the manufacturers also have to purchase to access the defined color...so this to me feels very much like double dipping.

 

Would be interesting for LTT's perspective on this.

They can't copyright colors, but they can and do copyright their system for identifying them, wehich is how they can charge Adobe for a license for it in the first place.

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

EU law doesn't allow a party to a contract to unilateral worsen said contract.

In response, the other party could lower the periodical fees and they would have a special right of cancellation. And there are probably a number of other options.

It might be worth to ask a lawyer about these options. Maybe the costs for the Pantone plug-in can be deducted from the Adobe fee.

Well you have the right to terminate your contract or accept the loss.  It's a licensing dispute, and until then it was just essentially offered free with Adobe, but just not anymore.

 

No court would allow for the cost of the plugin to be deducted from the Adobe fee because the new fee for the Pantone plugin is the same cost as Photoshop itself.  It really goes to show how much Pantone is trying to milk things (given that before customers use to get it free).

 

1 hour ago, Matt_in_NE said:

They can't copyright colors, but they can and do copyright their system for identifying them, wehich is how they can charge Adobe for a license for it in the first place.

Yea, well aware you can't copyright colors (although admittedly you can sort of trademark them...but that's a different can of worms).  My point though is that it's effectively like a dictionary lookup with Adobe and also akin to an API in some regards...both of which aren't copyrightable (although admittedly the API was brought to court in the Oracle v Google case as it wasn't as clear cut).

 

Functionality is not copyrightable, so while I don't deny the set of names and the colors they represent might be copyrighted in the sense of the real world colors they represent, I'm curious if they have the same copyright protection digitally where the purpose of them is to function as essentially an index of things...as for myself I view it a lot more of functionality over implementation.

[Heliian]

Good, the less pantone the better.  There needs to be more competition in this field.  I was just explaining their existence and dumb monopoly to a friend the other day when they asked what "pant one" was on some marketing directive.

 

Sure it may cost them some short term pain to ditch them but pants one has to be called out. 

[tim0901]

9 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

EU law doesn't allow a party to a contract to unilateral worsen said contract.

In response, the other party could lower the periodical fees and they would have a special right of cancellation. And there are probably a number of other options.

It might be worth to ask a lawyer about these options. Maybe the costs for the Pantone plug-in can be deducted from the Adobe fee.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can almost guarantee that it doesn't work like that. Otherwise the likes of Netflix would be subject to litigation every time a show was removed from their platform, or TV providers every time a channel went off air. And what about bugs in software updates? If they worsen the experience for the end user, they would potentially be grounds for litigation under this interpretation, even if it's just a harmless UI glitch.

 

In reality the contract will stipulate that you are paying for access to "Photoshop" as a single entity, not the functions or features that it contains. Any changes to Photoshop therefore wouldn't result in changes to the contract that you signed, and are therefore not covered by this law.

[HenrySalayne]

33 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I can almost guarantee that it doesn't work like that. Otherwise the likes of Netflix would be subject to litigation every time a show was removed from their platform, or TV providers every time a channel went off air. And what about bugs in software updates? If they worsen the experience for the end user, they would potentially be grounds for litigation under this interpretation, even if it's just a harmless UI glitch.

Oh, it does. Check your local laws covering contracts and digital goods. Here in Germany this would be the BGB.

And yes, if - in theory - Netflix would offer a two-year-pay-in-advance subscription (they don't - for obvious reasons) and advertise a TV show and said TV show would be dropped during the two-year contract, you would have any right to terminate your subscription. The same goes for TV channels.

Similarly, if Adobe drops Pantone colours and you needed them regularly, you can terminate the contract.

Section 327n BGB especially states you can lower your payments

Quote

Section 327n Reduction
(1) Instead of terminating the contract under section 327m(1), the consumer may reduce the price by giving notice to the contractor. [...]

These laws apply only to B2C (business to consumer) contracts but might taken as a basis if the matter of dispute is not regulated in the B2B contract.

 

And there is another legal lever: copyright law

German copyright law explicitly states that nobody may change your (art-)work without asking. Adobe replacing all colours with black seems like a pretty big change if you ask me.

 

58 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Any changes to Photoshop therefore wouldn't result in changes to the contract that you signed, and are therefore not covered by this law.

Contracts need to be specific enough to even be valid contracts. Some changes can certainly be tolerable but not drastic ones. Purging all colours from your previous works seems like a drastic change, at least IMHO.

 

But like I said: do your own research and ask a lawyer if necessary. A good point to start would be the actual contract you agreed on at the time of purchase.

[Roswell]

On 10/29/2022 at 1:33 PM, Kisai said:

Everyone who produces merchandise uses Pantone colors at some point. It's simply unavoidable.

No they don’t.

 

On 10/29/2022 at 1:33 PM, Kisai said:

Which means that if you are producing merchandise like prints, shirts, pins, etc your colors are going to get all screwed up or erased if you don't use the exact colors in the first place.

Outside of corporate work, nobody is bothering with Pantone on pins and Shirt prints… Lol.

 

On 10/29/2022 at 1:33 PM, Kisai said:

However, I don't personally produce merchandise,

This is quite clear from your lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

On 10/29/2022 at 1:33 PM, Kisai said:

think of all the Etsy and Shopify stores that do.

Virtually none of them.

 

I’d suggest refraining from commenting on things you don’t have experience with while pretending to have said experience. It looks super duper silly to anyone that works in the field and they’re going to call you out.

 

99.99% of small business that need print work done are sending stuff out in CMYK. Hell, most of them don’t even comprehend color spaces for print correctly and have most of their assets in sRGB.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Roswell said:

Outside of corporate work, nobody is bothering with Pantone on pins and Shirt prints… Lol.

 

Then you clearly don't know anything about how merchandise is made.

 

https://custompins.com/color-chart/

https://wizardpins.com/pages/pantone

https://www.lapelpins.net/pin-colors.html

 

[Roswell]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Then you clearly don't know anything about how merchandise is made.

 

https://custompins.com/color-chart/

https://wizardpins.com/pages/pantone

https://www.lapelpins.net/pin-colors.html

 

Uh… You’re linking to businesses that cater to corporate clients. If you bothered to click around your own links, you could read it yourself. Literally all 3 links on the homepage specifically mention corporate applications, haha.
 

Again, virtually nobody outside of corporate branding/packaging is using Pantone.

[ouroesa]

Is Pantone the only company with the ability to catalogue and standardise color codes? Why is this so hard? Can’t the color codes simply be copied into a database and a non-profit set up to manage this? It won’t take a lot of management as colors generally don't change. 

 

I watched the LTT video of them getting the Pantone color samples and it was also laughably expensive.
Corporation's greed is finally putting a wedge between themselves - how I wish for them to collapse. I'm not a fan of corporations governing our lives.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Roswell said:

 

Again, virtually nobody outside of corporate branding/packaging is using Pantone.

 

And what do you think happens when you get something printed hmm? You think they're just running some sRGB inkjet printer? You literately do not know what you are talking about.

 

 

The people I know that get merch done basically had a fit yesterday over this because that means YOU have to pay for the license before you can even send it to the printer, otherwise it will be black, and the printer has to pay for the license otherwise you're going to be paying them to convert it. Keep your CS5/CS6 around because you're know that's what the printers are using.

 

 

[Roswell]

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You think they're just running some sRGB inkjet printer?

sRGB printers don’t exist.  

 

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

And what do you think happens when you get something printed hmm?

CMYK happens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model

Either you send whatever colorspace image you have (sRGB) and it’s converted to CMYK or you send CMYK yourself so there aren’t any shenanigans in the conversion process and end up with a color accurate print from the source material.

 

OR you coordinate with something like Pantone, which again… for like the 5th time, nobody is doing outside of the corporate world.

 

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The people I know that get merch done basically had a fit yesterday over this because that means YOU have to pay for the license before you can even send it to the printer, otherwise it will be black, and the printer has to pay for the license otherwise you're going to be paying them to convert it.

Wut.

 

The printer that supports Pantone already has a license… How tf do you think they’re handling the print and calibrating with the formula guides?!

 

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Keep your CS5/CS6 around because you're know that's what the printers are using

LOL That is not what they are using… holy moly. You’re honestly under the impression that commercial printers are using 12 year old versions of Adobe software to interface with their printers?!

 

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You literately do not know what you are talking about.

I literally work in the space as a professional. That’s why it was so easy to spot you making things up after you read a few sentences from Google… As I said before, you should probably refrain from pretending to understand an entire industry because it’s painfully obvious to anyone that works in said industry. It looks real silly.