io9.com: Poor Adobe. Along with everyone pre-eulogizing Flash, the only other property of theirs you can name—Photoshop—is in danger. Intellectual property danger.
What Adobe’s been worried about for years is “genericization,” which is when the brand name becomes a synonym for a product. Which is how the Bayer-trademarked “aspirin” took over for the real name for the drug, “acetylsalicylic acid.” In Adobe’s case, they would prefer it if people stopped saying that any altered image was changed via Photoshop.
3 comments:
Like Katharine Trendacosta, I see Adobe’s attempts at preventing “photoshop” for becoming a blanket term for photo manipulation futile, and I also don’t see the point. Band-Aid, Aspirin, and Kleenex didn’t go out of business due to genericization. If anything, it seems like it would cause people to buy more of those companies' products as they would be more likely to look for a product in a way that sends them directly to a specific brand. I wish this article explained why Adobe is concerned, because the fact the company cares must mean it matters, and knowing why would add context. That being said, some of the phrases Adobe wants people to use seem impossibly absurd. For example, the phrase, “Photoshop’s new features are impressive,” clearly is referring to Adobe’s software, yet Adobe is not content with that. Trying to get people to talk like an advertisement in conversation is a waste of time. I think if they want people to stop using "photoshop" to refer to all digital image-manipulation, they would need to try to inject an equally (if not more) convenient term into conversational language. Trying to get people to be more verbose just makes Adobe look out of touch and foolish.
This is so hilarious. I get where Adobe is coming from, but once a term like this becomes ingrained into the English language so colloquially, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than just a little grammar lesson coming from the company itself. Not to mention, this ends up coming up a bit desperate on Adobe's part. For marketing materials and for professional organizations attempting to describe the software or doing write ups which may include mentions of altered images, I definitely agree with them. They legally have the rights over the term and its usage. However, for them to play it off as though the good people of America shouldn't be using the phrase "it's obviously photoshopped" or "they photoshopped that" is on another level. Don't get me wrong, I see their point, but in some ways I think they're wasting their time. In some way shouldn't they be thankful that they have such control over that side of the software market that its universally recognized that people ONLY use photoshop to alter images like this?
This is hilarious, in a way- it reminds me of the transformation of Google from a noun referring to the company into a verb referring to a universal internet search. I would think Adobe would turn a blind eye to this corruption of their product name, as I see its use in everyday conversation as a promotional possibility, and as a way to make their product the first and only program associated with image manipulation. Just as Google has the monopoly on internet search and email users, so Adobe gains the upper hand with the colloquial use of its program name. Still, I can see in the examples they give some reasons that they would think of this use having a negative association, with conspiracies and image doctoring. Yet as the article points out, it’s way too late to try and change the way people speak about image manipulation. Things will always be “photoshopped” and despite all of their uptight language and effort, I doubt anyone will change the way they speak. Maybe they should consider giving it up and using the association to their advantage.
Post a Comment