Proper use of the Photoshop trademark

I now have to say; "I'll Google, a registered trademark of Google Inc, it.)

That's just crazy corporate toss. Adobe® PhotoShop® is basically a house hold name for image manipulation today in the same way that Hoover and Coke. People around the world know what Photoshopped means and even people who have never opened Adobe® Photoshop® know that what software is used to Photoshop an image. Adobe® should take there head from out of there Ass®.

------

I've always considered it to be a strong form of branding. It might not have all the C's&R's (©&®) but it does strenghten the brand position. That's like getting upset when people call me Fran instead of Francois. Hey, they're talking to me, and in a way that makes them feel like they know me better. That means they'll be more likely to talk to me again in the future, because they feel comfortable with me.

correct me if im wrong
but if they can own a verb like "to photoshop" thats worth a gazillion bucks.

once people, even non-design-non-techy ones, get the hang of it
"to photoshop something" will become = to everything you could do to an image.
thats overpowering any competition.

EDIT: if that did not happen already...

--------------------------------------------------
always outnumbered, never outgunned

it's a catch 22... the people that use the saying "that image was photoshoped" are almost always talking about an image that was improperly, poorly, and often illegally manipulated. I can see how Adobe wouldn't want to have people associating Photoshop to a poor end product, when in reality it's the user, not the program. You'd never say "that image was John Doe'd" even if John Doe used photoshop to do it..

however, the counter argument has already been said, it's like incredible free advertising. Cause i know i'll never say "that image was paintshop pro'd" or "that image was fireworked" (old school Macromedia lives on).

which all of this reminds me when Microsoft tried to get a copyright for the word "Windows" and it was refused thankfully. Cause then every architect would be SCREWED on their drawings and specifications. hehe

with that said.. it's in my opinion that it's a catch-22 for Adobe. I can't blame them for trying to take a stance on it, but it won't have enough of an effect that people will start saying "that image was manipulated with Adobe Photoshop.. the copyrighted and registered version!"

Adobe has a point when you know the 'Kleenex' story. Kleenex is such a household word now that it's no longer a brand, and then ALL brands of nose-tissue become Kleenex and they loose their product differentiation. NO company in the world wants to become so generic so they protect their copyrights vigorously.

However, Adobe does need to lighten up on this if they are cracking down on bloggers. It's a great way to tarnish your image by killing passion for your product at the source with legal semantics.

----
Natobasso