digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Adobe uses 'photoshop' as a verb ON THEIR OWN SITE!

adobe.com — Found by searching for 'photoshopped' on adobe.com internal search. This is result #12, right next to the ones where they're ragging on the general public for doing this exact thing. C'mon, guys, couldn't you do a basic search of your own site first? Ugh.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • shwizle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+219Effing Brilliant! I can't believe Adobe wouldn't cover their ass.
    • undetected, on 10/12/2007, -4/+233No, but this page illustrates they can cover other body parts.
    • angrychimp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+170Adobe: "Do as we say, not as we do."
    • TomPlansMedia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+467Adobe: "We put eggs on our butts."
    • gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -5/+62Tsk Tsk. hypocrites.

      Not like this changes anything though. I'll still keep saying that they enhanced the images with Adobe® Photoshop® softw--yeah... something's askew here...

      is she laying an egg?
    • behn1220, on 10/12/2007, -26/+6Yeah, that egg is WAY to small to cover their entire ass.
    • esotericguy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+378fake, this was obviously manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
    • cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -28/+11Is anyone else blind? I've gone blind.
      Eggs in butts. That ain't art. That's just SICK!
      As soon as I confirmed it wasn't Eggs in Boobs,
      things started getting dark...
    • Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33@shwizle, they did cover their ass... with eggs.. (seriously wtf did I just see?)
    • Naga10, on 10/12/2007, -37/+4Adobe: Don't do as I do, do as I tell you.
    • yourmom, on 10/12/2007, -13/+354IM IN MY OWN SITE STEALIN MY OWN TRADEMARKZ
    • kutza, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8It should be:

      Adobe® Photoshop® software was first used to retouch the egg. Next Adobe® Photoshop® software was used to move the egg onto the Adobe® Photoshop® software manipulated body to create the final photoshopped photoshop.
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Aadobe.com+%22photoshopped%22
      Yields
      http://www.adobe.com/education/adaa/winners/winners2001/karriegurnow.html
      http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2005/12/how_far_would_you_go.html
    • Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -23/+1Uh.... I think they own the rights to their own word....
    • captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@Naga10:

      The expression is: "Do as I say, not as I do". I know because that's what my father would always tell me while telling me to get him another Pabst out of the fridge.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3captinherb...except THEY DIDN'T DO IT. This was a press release that was NOT written by Adobe. It is also fromthe UK, which does NOT apply to US trademark laws.

      Though it IS kind of funny to see the Digg community calling people hypocrites! "Talk about a Do as I say not as I do" situation.
    • kmckanna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44"God damnit Todd, I can't believe you didn't SEARCH "photoshopped" within our own f*cking website, now we look like IDIOTS on Digg!"

      I dub the above, the next conversation at Adobe's building.
    • angrychimp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@hdtvdust

      You're sort of right. It's not a press release, but it does appear to be a quote from the original artist/submitter. Despite that, you think they'd exercise editorial control over project descriptions in the event they found a trademark use violation. And it doesn't matter if it's from the UK portion of their site - it's still their corporate website.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7By the way, the funniest part about this hypocrisy is that when Apple posted pretty much the SAME EXACT press release regarding their iPod trademark, no one on Digg was bitching like little pussies over how terrible they were for doing so.
    • Wilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+112Hey guys, look what I Paint.NETed: http://www.deathbyvanilla.com/pics/Adobe%20butts.png
    • mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4oh noes think of how genericized the trademarks will be!
    • drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3How dare a company make a mistake! I know I'll never buy one of their products again. "C'mon, guys.... Ugh."
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Here is what I have to say to Adobe: I don't want your ***** stock photos!

      If you installed CS3, you probably know what I mean. Photoshop keeps getting more and more bloated with all these "extras" Adobe tacks on. Adobe is starting to rival Symantec in bloatware. Install CS3 and it leaves Adobe directories all over the place.

      Now I might offend some Apple users, but I don't find it a good idea to have installed Bonjour on the Windows version of CS3 by default.

      Wake up Adobe, users don't like craplets!
    • smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5well, technically they didn't write that, it was written by the person who won the Adobe Design Achievement Award. but still, they obviously didn't correct it or sue that person, so why should we give a *****.

      that legal line seems to be an attempt to force us to overtly advertise their product when we are just trying to refer to the act of digital image editing. they're not satisfied with universal brand recognition and their product name gaining such ubiquity as a common household word, but they also want to use legal coercion to change language--which grows out of and evolves naturally from human culture.

      natural language: i photoshopped the president's head onto the body of a chimp.
      adobe language: i put the president's head on top of the body of a chimp in Adobe Photoshop(TM).

      no one talks like that, and it's completely unnatural. it also makes it seem like we're trying to endorse their product every time we want to refer to the action of photoshopping. you can't change the coarse of language by employing legal obstacles. adobe owns their trademark, but language is shared by all of us. no one company gets to decide how we speak.
    • Shaman760, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0@wilson

      I made that my desktop wallpaper for the day! Yay!!
    • kewlito, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Somebody is going to get fired
    • Jakesterama, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0http://tinyurl.com/28pnhy
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Adobe® Photoshop:® We Put Eggs in out Butt©
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3What's wrong with this? The fact that 'photoshopped' has essentially become a word, like 'googled', is good buisness for them. There's no need to hide it after the _customers_ invented the word.
    • treehead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Nice, they didn't even capitalize the "P"...
    • a0me, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Edit: Too late for a good Adobe® Photoshop® joke.
    • djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Well, first off....... so what!?

      Secondly, I cannot believe this has gotten 2000 + diggs!
    • birkoph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1HOLY *****!! ALERT THE VILLAGE ELDERS!!

      ...whocares

      bbl, have to go photoshop an image..

  • musicianman, on 10/12/2007, -25/+1I wonder does this mean that they are now to image editing what Hoover are to vacuum cleaners!
    • inukki, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6maybe in windows' dreamworld, but there is also alternative : GIMP
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4you are kidding, right inuuki? Hoover has FAR more competitors than crappy little GIMP.

      Hoover is not considered the standard for vacuums anymore. And hasn't been for quite some time.
    • wibambau, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I don't recall ever hoovering my living room.
    • smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6no, it's more like google, which has been adopted as a verb for searching the web (with google)
    • jcembree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7or, "I just photoshopped this image using Paint.NET"
    • Willeth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11wibambau - you must have an incredibly dirty living room.

      'Hoover' is an extremely widely-used verb here in the UK.
    • wibambau, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1@Willeth - I must? lol Because I don't use the verb? lol rofl wtf - Maybe I'll just send you some pics of my nice place and you can 'chop in all the dirt u want ;) k thx bye
  • quacker912, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19The broken egg photo in the big poster was retouched, since the broken egg photo was taken independently and then photoshopped over the invitation form.
    • Dakart, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Don't you mean:

      "The broken egg photo in the big poster was retouched using Adobe® Photoshop® software, since the broken egg photo was taken independently and then added over the invitation form using Adobe® Photoshop® software?"
  • fober, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43For the record, I don't think anyone at Adobe wrote that description.
    • pintong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Exactly. That was written by the designer, not Adobe.
  • IntellEJent, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51Do they mean "enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® software"?
    • stealth45, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4I feel... betrayed.

      Bury if you'd like, i didn't mean to reply to IntellEJent's post.
  • mjolner88, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4who cares?

    you have too much free time
    • skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Mispost, sorry. Can't digg have a comment deletion button?
  • CommunistEagle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34Clearly that's photoshopped.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Eww, ass egg.
  • Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+116The real question is, why would you take a photo of someone with a egg in their ass?
    • inukki, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5bekas they can
    • NoNameHere, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23But the true artist asks "Why wouldn't you?"
    • h3nn3rs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No that's not the 'real question', the content of the image on the page in question is of no relevance to the discussion.
  • WildBil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Proof that Photoshopped is a Verb.
    That Adobe recognizes its use as such, and uses or allows its use in this way, and so can anyone else.
    IMHO They just lost the trademark and copyright.
    • fliptrick, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1in one of his books, i remember Douglas Coupland using it as an adjective to describe his
      'Photoshoppy' collages. Gay.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Well, thankfully for them, your opinion does not mean *****, and never will.
  • billyoneal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2What are they going to do, sue us commentors now? Maybe they would photoshop us so that it looked like we were stealing or something. Perhaps, they'd just steal the photoshopped ones my little brother made of me holding a gun.........

    Glad the poster of this page followed the advice of http://*****.com
    (Is googleing something wrong too? [SearchforitusingGoogle®*****.com])
  • ChicknBot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Proof that....PWNED!!
  • adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Who cares, they're just worried about being the next "kleenex".
    • stealth45, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think eponym's the word.
    • daybreaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11why would a company NOT want to be the next kleenex, google, or xerox? That kind of market recognition helps sell a lot of products over the competition. If you need a copy machine, sure you can buy a HP printer/copier combo, or you can get a Xerox to xerox things. I know that I buy Kleenex when I need tissue paper. Other companies may as well not even spend advertising money and just hope that by pricing thingsa little cheaper, people will just buy their stuff.

      Having your company name become the verb for the entire market is a GOOD thing. Word of mouth advertising is the best kind. Studies show it beats out any other kind, so you would think that Adobe would be thrilled about photoshop becoming a verb.

      Because let's face it: it's not the fact that people always say "I photoshopped it" that leads to PS piracy, it's the $50 bajillion price tag.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5An eponym is a word that comes from a name, i.e. Albert Shame invented shame.
    • Willeth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4daybreaker - Yeah, great in the short-term. But once you're the market leader you don't need any of that. Once a trademark merges into wider usage, then the trademark can be revoked, because you can't trademark a common word. And once Adobe loses the trademark, any old hack can call their product a 'Photoshop' software package. And then despite how many people use and know the word, Adobe loses the edge it had before. But as long as they can be seen to be trying to protect it, they keep it - which is why this page is so damaging.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Did you know Asprin used to be a trademark? Wouldn't you now be pissed if you were the company that originally made Asprin?

      Adobe *do* want people to say 'photoshopped', it's just they have to be seen to be preventing people from saying 'photoshopped' in order to protect their trademark. It's just a formality. In reality they couldn't give a crap.
  • archlich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15eggcellent find
  • Irfit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34In case they fix it:
    http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5561/photoshoppedkd7.jpg
  • aprilbegins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54These posters won awards? Are you kidding me? I just Photoshopped a little in my mouth.
  • KraigR, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1take that douchebag adobe(r)
  • jweinraub, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Hmm last time I checked, 98.6 F = 37 C. Not 36.6 C, which is 97.8 F. Silly artist!
  • schizogony, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1ifrit, your enhancement looks photoshopped with Microsoft® Paint®.
  • stevene, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That Egg-In-Butt picture is quite clearly digitally edited with the Adobe® Photoshop® software. =)
  • jondanger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Now that they've merged with Macromedia, (IMHO creating a digital design monopoly), why is Adobe concerned about possibly becoming an eponym? Are they worried about posturing anti-trust thoughts?
  • insidein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Its bad enough that every comment is embracing the fact that Adobe does not want their name used as a verb or noun, but to have top stories about it also.
  • WalkerBurgin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I believe we call this irony...
  • jorgepblank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm not sure but I think that what Adobe is against (Didn't even know they were against it haha) is using 'Photoshop' as a verb to show how something was digitally manipulated with an image editor, be it Photoshop, GIMP, or any other image editor. Since they are talking about using Photoshop, the verb 'Photoshopped' in this context seems fair game.
  • FuZi0nDET, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't see what the big deal is they don't want people to use the term photo shop so it doesn't end up like Aspirin and so many other generic terms that weren't originally generic. Xerox had a campaign trying to get people to stop using Xerox as a verb so they didn't loose their trade mark.
  • Jordan117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ah, but that's Adobe's UK site. Obviously their ridiculously strict branding rules don't apply to The King's English.
  • FlapJaw, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1FAKE PHOTOSHOP
  • swingerbone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Adobe needs to photoshop their Photoshop page about photoshopping to conform to their own Photoshop trademark about using photoshop incorrecty. photoshop Photoshop to photoshop the photoshop trademark.
  • pasher1221, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Even Kleenex knows how to use google.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kleenex+site%3Akleenex.com&btnG=Search

  • seancanada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39®OFL
    • po43292, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3I love how everybody uses the R in a circle ® today.

      Yes I ctrl C/ctrl V'd the symbol cuz I'm retarded.
    • mpphan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@po43292

      ©OPY ©AT!
  • Compuwiz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Awesome, great find. They should photoshop that out, =)
  • williamw83, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1OK seriously, this page is from 2002. They didn't start adamantly opposing the use of "photoshop" as a verb until recently. Even more, it's from a press release of some UK design award. Are we really to expect them to go back and change the text of old press releases?
  • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1they are not "ragging on the general public" The situation in which you are referring was NOT aimed at everyday people using it amongst friends.
  • pivovy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But it has become a verb even in different languages long time ago, so what's the big deal
  • oSiBo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Q.E.D.?
  • Rozza, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3SHOCK! HORROR!
    oh geez, calm the farm
  • davethe1st, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2HOLY *****! I think I will kill myself. Corporations DO LIE!
  • qazyhoods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2BURIED IN INACCURACY! Adobe didn't type that as a verb. the guys who took the picture did.

    "Team lead: Tarek Atrissi
    Co-lead: Kiki Katahira

    School of Visual Arts"

    It was only posted on the adobe web site
    • FunkyNuts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually it's not inaccurate. By publishing on their website what others may have typed is an acceptance of the content. If Adobe feels strongly enough to publish trademark usage guidelines, then it should feel strongly enough to police what it's publishing on its own site, regardless of who typed it.

      P.S. I photoshopped quite a few photos today.
    • rocketdog7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yah, but they had it available as a search on their site. also, the photographer did not necessarily type the text.
  • Atomic0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Accidents do happen. People cannot be always perfect anyway. I agree with the fact that Adobe wasn't the person who wrote this up.
  • centerblack, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3***** Adobe.

    Corporate Entities:
    ***** you. The control you claim to have, the control you claim is yours, is a PRIVILEGE afforded to you by THE PEOPLE. If you don't like our terms, then take your ball and go home.

    Some people are going to pirate your *****. Some people are going to use it in ways you didn't intend and maybe don't like. If these facts and truths are to overwhelming for you, you always have the choice of discontinuing your work.

    The fact is, even with people pirating your work, even with people using it in ways you don't approve, you're still turning a PROFIT, and that's all you really care about anyway. When that profit no longer justifies your work, then stop working. Until then, stfu.
  • MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Why would they give up free advertisement like this? It's not like they are going to loose the trademark any time soon (if Klenex hasn't lost theirs yet) from it being used as a verb. It's just stupid.

    Fine, I suggest we replace "photoshop" with a new verb: GIMP'd (or GIMPed, gimped, or gimp'd).

    We have alternative editor, we have an alternative verb.
    • vetal17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2yeah but photoshop is much better then gimp
    • zoom1928, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> loose the trademark any time soon

      My company has several registered trademarks, and I have never heard the phrase loose used wrt a trademark. what does that mean? What makes one trademark less tight than another?
  • MisterSam, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Erm, am I missing something here bit what's the big deal. To photoshop has become a verb and so what if adobe uses it? They made the program and they can use their word as a verb. Who really gives a damn?
    • teletran1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you're missing the part where you READ THE STORY.

      "they're ragging on the general public for doing this exact thing."
    • zarex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Because then anyone could make a photo editing suite and call it "photoshop". Obviously this is BAD for Adobe.

      Jeez, is everyone here complete ignorant of basic trademark law?
  • numbnu7s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Maybe that photoshopped image was gimped.
  • vetal17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6you can see a big ass hair on the bottom of the right buttock EEEEEWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!
  • donald347, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Now when a company contradicts itself publicly it will be called Photoshoping. This is technically a different verb too.

  • Holocaust, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Mmm! Photoshop CS3 almost here!
  • donjuan571, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1sadly someone probably lost their job over this.
    • Cenobite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wouldn't call it sad to fire someone who A: can't do their job; and B: caused public embarrassment for the company.
    • mjpatey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I doubt that. The trademark memo was likely a response to internal "infractions" like this in the first place. Nobody's getting fired, but you can bet this page won't be the same in a few hours. :-)
  • wangaramus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1this is not news.
    this should not of made it to top 10 stories.
  • Experiment626, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Moral of the story: Don't verb nouns.
  • atmofunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can't think of a better, or longer lasting, way to maintain a brand. If I were them I'd be stoked to have my product become a verb. Language stands the test of time much more efficiently than a product name.

    Just embrace it, Adobe - you can't buy this kind of recognition.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.