# Use of term 'Lightroom" - copyright issues?



## Dave Noble (May 21, 2019)

Couldn't find any reference to this elsewhere on the site, so I'll post my query here.

I have stumbled through the legalese in the Lightroom copyright section in which all their various terms and properties are protected.

I'm wondering if I can use the term "Lightroom" deliberately referring to the product in a website folder with, if necessary, the copyright symbol appended?

I'm thinking of putting a gallery up which would be called something like "XXX Meets Lightroom" and then use it to post various examples of Lightroom effects and adjustments. It's meant to give full credit to the Adobe product, not to mis-use anything.

Do the experts here think this is acceptable use, and in fact is providing appropriate credit to the application's legal requirements?

Thanks - any advice greatly appreciated.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (May 21, 2019)

I don't see why not. Look, for instance, at the title of this forum. 

"Here are examples of how to use a program which cannot be named." That just wouldn't fly.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 21, 2019)

Yeah, their legalese is a bit of a minefield. Even if there was a slight misdemeanor, they're unlikely to chase anyone unless that person was trying to rip Adobe off. 

It would be funny if you couldn't google the word Lightroom in order to find related plug-ins, presets, blog posts, tutorials... it's almost like they've done with their own name changes!!!


----------



## PhilBurton (May 21, 2019)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Yeah, their legalese is a bit of a minefield. Even if there was a slight misdemeanor, they're unlikely to chase anyone unless that person was trying to rip Adobe off.
> 
> It would be funny if you couldn't google the word Lightroom in order to find related plug-ins, presets, blog posts, tutorials... it's almost like they've done with their own name changes!!!


I suspect that the lawyers in Adobe are experiencing a lot of angina over all these name changes.


----------



## Zenon (May 21, 2019)

Good


----------



## johnbeardy (May 21, 2019)

The lawyers are probably as confused as the rest of us!


----------



## Kanders (Jun 5, 2019)

Nah, that's what they'd want us to believe. haha


----------



## PhilBurton (Jun 5, 2019)

Kanders said:


> Nah, that's what they'd want us to believe. haha


Actually,  this name change less than two years after these products and names were first announced, seems to me to be more of the marketing malfeasance that we saw with the confused quality of the original announcements.  Methinks the people making these decissions do not have a long-term strategy.  Maintaining a brand is a long-term strategy and what we are seeing here is confusion which is very destructive to the brand identity.

Phil


----------

