From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please avoid intellectual property activism here[edit]

Speaking as a representative of the average Wikipedia user, I'd like to ask that you guys take your intellectual property policy activism dust up out back in the alley. Most of the readers of Wikipedia don't care about this crap, and we just want information. If you want to qualify it in some way with a link to another article, go ahead, but please don't censor information. Every single claim of intellectual property rights turns into a big edit fight. It's as though every date of an event that is mention in a Wikipedia article turned into a dispute and big discussion of the Gregorian calendar and the addition of microseconds to the calendar and such. We don't care. (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear Hear. Wether or not Pantone's "intellectual property" claim holds any legal water, the fact is they claim it regardless. While the extent of the ramifications is thus unclear in some areas, the current assertions that this intellectual property claim has made some open-source developers shy away from using the system in their programs is valid. So even if their intellectual property claim is useless, the mere threat of legal issues has dissuaded some people. I do not see how this could really be disputed unless open-source developers have said it was NOT a reason for their lack of Pantone inclusion. So the intellectual property bullshit needs to stop. State the facts. Pantone claims intellectual property. Some people think it might cause issues, so they don't mess with it. This part of the debate is cut and dry. TheEFAF (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


I would like more information about the influence of Pantone on the fashion industry. I have heard that due to the utility of defined colors across suppliers, the colors that become predominant in a year's fashion are by default among those that Pantone adds to its catalog annually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

for info: I think this of the history of the Pantone Inc Company must be review

this is the official biography of herbert from pantone site

--Penelope20k 17:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This page has had a complicated series of changes in the last day, including two reversions by me, caused because I hadn't looked at enough of the history.

Someone ( changed "color" to "colour" throughout, which seems to violate Wikipedia policy of not doing unjustified changes between US and UK English. Someone else reverted it, and I reverted that...

The change seems to have been haphazard, because even the names of categories were changed. Notinasnaid 08:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pantone color names copyrighted?[edit]

How can a list of colours and values be copyright? The names trademarked, perhaps, but just lists of information can't be copyright in the US. (There was some case concerning a telephone directory where this was decided by the court.) Even the EU's Database Rights only last 15 years and pantone is older than that. - User:Bryce

Bryce, just FYI: You can always easily sign your Wikiname and the current timestamp by including ~~~~ in your posting. (Three tildes will include just your username without a timestamp.)
Atlant 23:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that Pantone (understandably) use every bit of intellectual property law they can to protect their stuff. Trademark, for example. If you were to make your own list with the same colours, but were to use the word Pantone anywhere in the list, you would be open to accusations of trademark violation. Since every name includes "Pantone" that prevents a direct duplication of the list, at least. Notinasnaid 11:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can we back out of this "intellectual property" tar pit?
Pantone's list of colour numbers and values is the intellectual property of Pantone
is a meaningless statement. I'll do some web searches to see if I can find some sense. Gronky 21:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think your change to mention only software patents is a step too far, and I intend to change it back. I don't see that the statement is meaningless though further clarification is welcome. At the very least, trademark law is also applicable and Pantone claim copyrights. Patents expire, after all, and trademarks do not. Notinasnaid 07:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The Pantone corporation is not "holding hostage" a set of color names—they have a specific instruction set for the amount of pigments and means to combine them to create colours in their official list. --Parhamr 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Pantone currently holds Trademarks on several uses of the Pantone name and Pantone Universe mark as applies to several sectors. Trademarks do expire if an "Affidavits of Continued Use or Excusable Nonuse" and an "Applications for Renewal" are not periodically filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Regarding copyright, "The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine.
Interpret this as saying Pantone's color chip with name is their IP, we can't make a color like it and call it the same name; but we can make a matching color and call it a different name. [Just seeking to clarify not criticise.]


Removal of crucial information[edit]

Twice, the following information has been removed "Pantone's list of color numbers and values is the intellectual property of Pantone and free use of the list is not allowed. This is why Pantone colors cannot be supported in Open Source software such as GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) and are not often found in low-cost software. (This protection is based on copyright and trademark law, not as is sometimes stated software patents)."

This information is extremely important to open source developers and others, and is supported in the article by a reference. I don't want to get into a revert war, but if User:taw insists on deleting without discussion I'm not sure how to proceed.

The statements (1) are verifiably made by Pantone and (2) have an impact, as per the reference. If there is a verifiable source which challenges this, this is very important both to developers and to Pantone and their shareholders (since their entire business model depends on protecting their intellectual property).

In the mean time I am restoring the text with the addition of "Pantone assert that". Notinasnaid 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first sentence, with "Pantone assert that" added, but this the next two sentences are problematic:

This is why Pantone colors cannot be supported in Open Source software such as GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) and are not often found in low-cost software. (This protection is based on copyright and trademark law, not as is sometimes stated software patents).

The "protection" doesn't seem to be based on anything legal, and in particular there doesn't seem to be anything in either the copyright or trademark law to support their claims.

Moreover, just because they claim to have some vague kind of "intellectual property" over the system does not affect the Open Source software in any way, unless one chooses to believe them. Don't present it as some kind of a legal fact. Taw 09:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm all for pedantry, but why not discuss it first. How about this: This is frequently held as a reason why Pantone colors cannot be supported in Open Source software such as GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) and are not often found in low-cost software. It has been claimed that "it seems as if the company is being intentionally unclear" but it is acknowledged that "the simplest claim would be trademark misappropriation or dilution towards someone who produced a color palette marketed as compatible with Pantone's". Notinasnaid 10:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so have any claim that "compatible with X" dilutes a trademark ever succeeded, in any court anywhere ? We should keep it clear that their alleged "IP rights" are not of any traditionally recognized kind, as they can't have a copyright over the list, and merely saying one is compatible doesn't break anyone's trademarks (unless I'm missing something). Taw 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting a source. I am not an IP lawyer. Are you saying that the source is too unreliable to quote? They seem to have done considerable research on the subject, and draw themselves on other sources. If you can find a counter-source of similar reliability that says this is all nonsense, of course we should quote that too. Or am I introducing systematic bias through overly selective quoting? What I am sure is that the threat of legal action, whether or not it has a legal basis, has a real effect, and this real effect and the reasons for it should be properly discussed, whatever one's personal views. Your comments, as they stand, look like original research. Notinasnaid 09:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in the absence of replies, I am putting those two sentences back. Notinasnaid 09:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing that is surely very important to at least the free software movement and Richard Stallman (founder of the GNU project) and is to not confuse "open source" with "free" software (such as the GNU software suite)[2][3]. For this reason, the statement "Open Source software such as GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP)" would be regarded by many as simply factually incorrect. I propose that "Open Source software" should be changed to "Free software" in this sentence. This would also make a lot more sense in the given context as Free software defines a clear philosophical stance against "intellectual property" and non-free (i.e. proprietary) technology which explains why GIMP will not support Pantone. On the other hand, if the intention is to explain that Pantone cannot be supported by gratis software for legal (rather than philosophical) reasons, GIMP is a very bad example since the barrier in that case is primarily philosophical - something that may or may not be true for other gratis or open source software. (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


How did Herbert found AND acquire the company? 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed a sentence[edit]

I removed this sentence: "This effectively creates a loophole that allows software such as GIMP to use the palette." This sounds speculative to me, unless Pantone have acknowledged it, some may disagree. If there is a reliable source which states "This effectively creates a loophole that allows software such as GIMP to use the palette." then we can and should quote the source, in context. But if this is personal interpretation, it has to stay out, sorry. (If it does go back in, it would also be good to understand how such a loophole could be exploited, I don't understand that.)Notinasnaid 08:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

I removed the following text: In various discussions on this subject[1][2], the concensus on the so-called 'intellectual property rights' asserted by Pantone Inc. only apply to a product claiming to be Pantone-compliant (or certified by Pantone), or when a product uses Pantone-trademarked name on a colour.

But on the other hand, this doesn't seem to add any information. What does this exclude? Only shipping an anonymous' palette with colors matching Pantone, so far as I can see. But says "So marketing your own full-blown replacement for Pantone Matching is out of the question, and shipping a palette of colors clearly mimicking the Pantone color swatches puts you at risk for a lawsuit." This doesn't seem to match the claimed consensus (indeed, not sure that an article that represents a consensus).

Both of these are valuable links, and could be added to the article (is there a way to link straight to the Pantone discussion?). What I am concerned about is that they are presented in a way which reveals a point of view ("so called" is not very neutral in tone, though such things can be fixed), and which doesn't seem to even reflect the article text.

Notinasnaid 08:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: it turns out that one of the links simply duplicated the link used to source the other quotes (and cited). I have added the other link to External Links. Notinasnaid 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Pantone may choose to reformulate the color?[edit]

The page states now:

"In January 2003, the Scottish Parliament debated a petition (reference PE512) to define the blue in the Scottish flag (saltire) as 'Pantone 300'. As well, countries such as Canada and South Korea and organizations such as the FIA indicate specific Pantone colors to use when producing flags. *It is open to speculation whether legislators realize that Pantone may choose to reformulate the color*." My emphasis on the last sentence.

Now, this is simply stupid remark, although it is not incorrect. Just as well are we aware (are you not) that the definition of a metre may be changed at any one time, but that does not prevent us globally from using it (except the metre-uncertainity-aware people in US and UK, I guess). In fact, the definition of length of a metre has actually been changed over the years, both formally and in the matter of its value, as the techniques and methods of measurement etc. has been imporving and we have never ahd problems with that. It is true that the definers of the value of metre has with each new definition been very carefu to make it as close as the rpevious one and that the mor eprecise definition would not yeald any incoherence in practice (although the extremely precise measurement have to cope with the iferences).

One may just as easiy assume that Pantone company would just as well be careful not to disapoint their customers in whimsically changing the colour definitions.

And even if they do - the above mentioned case may simpy continue to use the defintions claiming that the Scotish blue is Pantone 300 as per Pantone scale valid in 2003... No confuzion there...

Should such claim be removed? 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Z.

Pantone colors have been redefined in ways that may be incompatible, especially switching from CMYK to Lab as the reference color space. So this is a rather different situation. And while the legislation could say that, I don't think it does, and so it would require an act of Parliament to fix it. While they could have just used a standard color space instead. Notinasnaid 09:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The last sentance is totally uncalled for. This is a condescending remark critising the governments that chose to use Pantone to express the color instead of a standardized (non-propriety) system. They chose to include this index as it was (and continues to be) the de facto industry standard in that country.
In the case of Korea the law states that the color is the color which can be expressed as Pantone ..., nowhere does it imply that they need to change the color if pantone decides to change the color. I have deleted the sentance unles someone can come up with a better way of phrasing it.
Here is the quotation translated from the official Korean National Flag information Service ( "Standard color shades of Taegukki, the Korean National Flag are as follows: in the CIE System, the x, y, and Y coordinates for the red are x=0.5640, y=0.3194, Y=15.3; for the blue, x=0.1556, y=0.1354, Y=6.5.
Alternatively, in the Munsell System of Color Notation, the corresponds to 6.0R 4.5/14, and the blue to 5.0PB 3.0/12. In the Pantone Matching System, 186C red and 294C blue are recommended." 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that’s the right way to do it. xyY and Munsell colors are clear, unambiguous, and part of a coherent and reasonable system. The Pantone recommendations are left secondary, as recommendations. –jacobolus (t) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought, Canada is probabably the same, and sure enough from the website of the Department of Canadian Heritage: "When reproducing the flag red at 100%, the closest colour from the pantone colour specifier is PMS032. When the flag red is used to reproduce screens, it is advisable to take PMS485 as this one maintains the integrity of the orange colour in the flag. ... When printing in four colour process, the proper mixture is 100% yellow and 100% magenta. Note: To test consistency in the reproduction of FIP red, reflection density measurements should be made on a McBeth Model No. 1155SPI (or equivalent) densitometer. Reflection density using Wratten 58 (green) filter should be not less than 0.80 and not greater than 1.10 density units." They are not defining the color with Pantone, they are using it as a reference for the benefit of manufacturers. 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a pretty awful specification: 100% red and 100% magenta is going to change dramatically depending on the particular printer, and that’s a huge range of acceptable “density units”. Basically this spec amounts to “get it as red as you can get it on whatever printer you have, and don’t worry about the precise hue, lightness, or chroma.” –jacobolus (t) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
WTF!? Why not let's take a look at Scotland and sure enough from the [Draft Proposal for a Flag Code for the Manufacture of the Scottish National Flag Proposed by The Heraldry Society of Scotland]: "1.2 The field of the Flag at manufacture shall be Blue and of a hue compatible with Pantone(c) 300 unglazed" This section has to be revamped. 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Naturally there are other colour standards, Ral (European) and BS-381 (UK): [3] Hakluyt bean (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Color definition[edit]

One question isn’t answered by the article: Are Pantone colors defined such that they could be expressed in the CIE color space, or does the whole absorption spectrum define the colors such that the colors look different in different surroundings? In other words: Is there a standard light source defined which is to be used for being able to see the standard color how it really is supposed to look like? Greetings --Quilbert (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As I under stand if from this Color FAQ they cannot be translated to CIE because they're proprietary. Their color scheme defines a set of inks and how to mix these together to get the specified color in their color guide. trond.olsen (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It’s not that they can’t be translated to CIE coordinates, but rather that Pantone has no easily comprehended system behind it, so there’s no logical way to predict the relationship between color and number/code. Each particular Pantone swatch is (probably) defined in terms of CIE coordinates, but you need to look it up in a big table somewhere to figure out what the definition is. –jacobolus (t) 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the graphic design world does have informal standards for color temperature for viewing (such viewing boxes can be purchased). If someone wanted to take a Pantone specifier (or several for averaging) and measure the colors in such a color temperature environment, you could come up with numbers. But that isn't the point or market of these kinds of specifiers. They are meant for practical application. Having said that, Pantone has cooperated with various software vendors, and I suppose there must be some numerical definition of the colors somewhere. (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Intellectual property is vague[edit]

"Pantone asserts that their lists of color numbers and pigment values are the intellectual property of Pantone"... is it under copyright, patent or trademark law? These are different laws. The word "intellectual property" obscures which one they claim their colour numbers and pigment values are protected by. --Sonjaaa (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the statement "however copyright law does not support such a claim" is supported only by an internal Wikipedia link that doesn't specifically reference Pantone. It would be good to have a reliable external source explicitly talking about the validity of Pantone's IP claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Goe System NPOV[edit]

I see that there is an NPOV tag on the Goe System section, but no comments here on the talk page. If anyone has a reason for the tag to remain, please indicate your reasons here. --Badger151 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see from the page history that the NPOV label was applied by User:Trivialist, and have left a message on her (his) talk page asking her to outline her concerns here. --Badger151 (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like User:Trivialist removed NPOV tag. --Badger151 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Color article?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be listed under the color article list of articles? Someone looking up 'color theory' or 'name of a color' because they found a PM #### color name and wondered about it, won't find this article, because this article isn't in the color theory list of articles. (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Which list are you referring to? Anyone looking for Pantone should have little difficulty finding this page. –jacobolus (t) 21:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2016 Color of the year[edit]

I'm not totally sure how to handle 2016 having two colors of the year, so I added them based on the schema of previous years. I was thinking it should have the boxes combined, but I'm not fluent enough in wikiformatting to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspeed0689 (talkcontribs) 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)