[Scribus] Color swatches - Legal and technical issues

[jon]

> Olivier BERTEN wrote:
>> Christoph Sch?fer a ?crit :
>>> Am Montag, 29. Januar 2007 00:11 schrieb Olivier BERTEN:
>>>
>>>> Concretely: you can install a demo version of InDesign or 
>>>> QuarkXPress,
>>>> which are distributed with a dozen of proprietary swatches. The 
>>>> XPress 7
>>>> ones are in xml format so it would be easy to import and the Adobe 
>>>> Color
>>>> Book binary format is quite easy to read. So the question is now: 
>>>> is it
>>>> conceivable to include these formats into the colour import 
>>>> function?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you please check the licences? If you think you can achieve 
>>> anything, did
>>> you also have a look at Corel's palette files (*.cpl)?
>>>
> Going back to the Pantone warnings/notices (from their site):
>
> "Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, published
> materials of Pantone, are protected by copyright laws and include, for
> example, graphic presentations, color references, PANTONE Colors,
> PANTONE Names, numbers, formulas and software. An unauthorized claim by
> third parties either as principals or agents, inferring that any
> referenced color or color system is the same as, or equivalent to, a
> color standard or color system of Pantone, may be a violation of
> Pantone?s proprietary rights and is strictly prohibited. Similarly, any
> cross-referencing, in whole or in part, to any PANTONE Color System
> including, but not limited to, the PANTONE Numbers and PANTONE Colors,
> by third parties, may be a violation of Pantone?s proprietary rights 
> and
> is strictly prohibited."
>
>
> There is wiggle room here, but it's obvious you have to be careful.
> * Obviously, no one, including Pantone, can copyright a color, and
> especially in these days where the RGB/CMYK color systems are freely
> usable -- ie, you can't put a claim on RGB color "ef9824".
> * They *can* copyright the names and the connection with their inks.
> * They want to control the ability of anyone to connect some other 
> color
> system to Pantone names or inks. My guess is about all they can really
> do is attempt to keep you from using their color/ink name, as in "this
> matches Pantone Keepsake Lilac or Pantone 15-2705" (their current color
> of the day). Understandably they don't want someone else feeding off 
> the
> system they have created.
> * What it really begs for is someone to establish another system (open
> of course) with its own names which might in some way link up to 
> Pantone
> and other inks, with the attached disclaimer that no promise is made
> that this product exactly matches any proprietary color or ink.
> * Another thing to keep in mind is to try to avoid any suggestion one 
> is
> trying to harm Pantone. Scribus users, I would think, have no great
> interest in replacing Pantone with anyone else in particular, in fact
> the idea is to make use of Pantone inks.

Mmmh, I think what Pantone does is not to copyright any colors or names 
for colors.
Pantone trades printing colors, that's their main business.
Pantone itself and the color names they use for their colors are 
trademarks.
Identification tables, simulation systems and simulation advices 
(Pantone to HKS / CMYK)
they created are copyrighted, or copyrighted licensenced products from 
other manufacturers.

Say there is a manufacturer wich sells various kinds of metal. E.g. 
they call it "rusty from laying in
saltwater iron" 000-1000 "iron with green spots from copper" 000-1001 
put a trademark on and
copyrighted the process. They created thousands of these "unique" 
whatsoevers.

If you are a shop, selling these to designers, do you have the right to 
take photos, add
the belonging names AND give away this table without obtaining a 
license (saying that this might
not match the product perfectly and mentioning the tm holder, of 
course)?

Another thought that comes up is, if Pantone has any legal chances, 
will they try to stop the process of "perfectly"
adopted and free color tables (meaning to adopt "all" their tables in a 
commonly readable format)?
Just to close the breach? It's likely that they don't want commercial 
enterprises to use free tables, as long
as they can make money out of that.
May it be possible to put "our" tables under a restrictive license to 
omit the including in commercial software?