Comments on: Is it wrong to steal Lightroom presets?

By: Loraine McCall

Loraine McCall — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:19:26 +0000

Many individuals from other countries do not consider plagiarism as wrong, they just see it as another great idea that they should do as well. I am not excusing them, rather, I am just guessing why it happens. This Lightroom preset ordeal is not the first and unfortunately not the last of its kind.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:31:19 +0000

Photographers who cannot, or do not, adapt to the fact they now live in a digital world will fail. It’s that simple.

Continue to be judged by the sum of your parts.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:02:45 +0000

Well I plugged in all the lightroom settings, I even used the same camera settings but my image looks nothing like the onese I was trying to copy

Oh, wait, do I have to take the lens cap off? That wasnt in the meta (instructions) now what do I do?

I have no great use for presets other than learning the general effects of combinations of settings, for as Matt said without the original source material the outcome will always be different.

Lightroom “Settings” as property, completely Laughable, good luck with that one in court. Might as well copyright the temperature and time that you bake cookies for, or better yet directions from point a to point b.

By: wrong to now

wrong to now — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:05:12 +0000

I think it may be wrong, some great site on this is http://www.isitwrongto.com. So if you like it i’ll see you over there, enjoy!

By: Chris T.

Chris T. — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:21:12 +0000

I should also add that the process (algorithm, or in this case a series of presets) to generate something is not copyrightable. Processes however are patentable, if you want protection on your process you can go ahead and patent that, but it is not automatic. And like pharmaceuticals, you would be required to disclose the process to the public, and the patent would expire in ~20 years.

Now a specific look with a specific subject (regardless of the process to get it) could be covered by trademark. Keep in mind that, like a patent, it is not automatic: you would need to get it trademarked and and there are fairly specific rules about enforcing and protecting it.

As many have pointed out, if I managed to take a photo that was strikingly similar, so similar that people would confuse them, then you might be violating some copyrights. But this would also require the two photos look very similar and the actual process probably would not even matter.

I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet.

By: kent

kent — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:32:00 +0000

I only want to comment on the drug company example and point out that it actually may not a good example. If a drug company develops a new drug, which does take quite a bit of time and money in the R&D process, then they are rewarded with a patent that protects anyone else from coming a replicating that drug and selling it for cheaper for a set number of years (around 10 yrs, but can’t remember exactly). These are enforceable and usually successfully so. After that time then anyone can duplicate and sell that product for any price they wish.

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:30:16 +0000

“steal my exif” but you won’t wind up with my images. If you think you will, good luck with that.

We all should try to learn from each other, but don’t kid yourself – it’s more than just “settings” that make good images.

By: Larry Moffitt

Larry Moffitt — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:15:03 +0000

Personally, I am grateful for presets shared by others. I look at them as a jumping off point for own education. I accept them “as is” and know that my mileage will vary if I use them.

I notice the video on How to Install Presets has been taken down. Is that a glitch or intentional?

By: name(erforderlich)

name(erforderlich) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:38:19 +0000

@Patrick

The programm in question does not extract information stealthily. It automatically retrieves information published openly by the photographer. It does it without the photographer knowing but if he posts the picture on a public forum (like flickr) he consents to people looking at the picture.

Also even though you may think it (at least in Germany) you do not have complete control over your works. If you publish a picture i may copy and print it as much as i want, as long as it is for my private use. And coming back to that tool – virtually every user of this tool will use it for private purposes since a pro will use his own settings and know how to achieve the effect he wants.

By: Fletch

Fletch — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:55:46 +0000

OMG – Some really far out views here (although I’m not going to preneted I read even half the replies).

To think that some settings in Lightroom could be subject to copyright is frankly laughable. It’s conceivable that someone could try to apply a patent to a certain combination of settings used to create a certain effect but I doubt it would ever get granted, it just not unique.

If you were to publish your settings and someone coppied that writing word for word as their own work that would be copyright infringement. However if someone read that article and used the settings that is just learning.

If you went to a restaurant and afterwards tried to recreate the dish at home would that be copyright infringement as well? No.

This tool is nothing more than ab agregator for this information that people have published, like google news, putting the information that is out there in an easier to use format. Its not illegal, its not even rude, its just usefull and I hope it goes back up so I can learn from it.