4 ms·

I think the most interesting thing I learned out of that was from the link posted at the end about the feud between Kapoor and Semple about Kapoor's exclusive r

I think the most interesting thing I learned out of that was from the link posted at the end about the feud between Kapoor and Semple about Kapoor's exclusive rights to vanta black in artwork and semple's creation of a competing almost absolute black colour usable by anyone but Kapoor. >British artist Anish Kapoor acquired exclusive rights for the Vantablack pigment in 2016, making him the only person in the world who can paint using this colour. >It led to a long-running feud with Stuart Semple who created his own version of blackest-black, available to anyone but Kapoor. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/02/05/black-3-0-stuart-semple-anish-kapoor-vantablack/ https://www.dezeen.com/2019/02/05/black-3-0-stuart-semple-an... That was an odd read. I didn't know exclusively licensing a colour was even possible.

ciupicri 7y ago
Not the color itself (for example the RGB combination), but the pigment used to paint an object with that color.
TheRealPomax 7y ago
And then he went on to make the pinkest pink, the bluest blue, etc. None of which can be used by Kapoor. Also note that vantablack is not "a color", it is a manufactured material, and that is entirely ownable (although Pantone will tell you that colours can, indeed, be copyrighted. At least by name, which is why they have identifiers for basically every colour that can be made at the moment...)
- grawprog 7y ago
  Pantone copyright issues aside, I do understand in this case it's more likely the patent to the actual nano-material itself and the writeup didn't necessarily make that clear, it's just a really strange case of exclusive patent licensing to me. I'd read before about vantablack, but it was only about how it worked, I wasn't aware of the exclusive licensing part of it.
jsjohnst 7y ago
> I didn't know exclusively licensing a colour was even possible. Yahoo! did the same with a specific Pantone shade of purple.
- disillusioned 7y ago
  And T-Mobile trademarked their particular shade of magenta, right?
  - mkl 7y ago
    Colour trademarks are common, but they only apply in narrow areas. E.g. Cadbury chocolate has a trademark purple, but all that means is someone like Nestlé can't package their chocolate in a similar purple colour. Cadbury's purple can be freely used for any unrelated purpose though.
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      For a fun example of how trademarks are limited, check out the “Microsoft Windows 95” beer. Sapporo owns the trademark for use on beer products. https://www.ratebeer.com/forums/saporro-black-windows-95-edition_261795.htm https://www.ratebeer.com/forums/saporro-black-windows-95-edi...
      - mkl 7y ago
        That seems to have been an official promotional tie-in for the launch of Windows 95. I doubt they could have used "Microsoft" otherwise. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611227/windows-95-beer/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611227/windows-95-...
        erikpukinskis 7y ago
        Or the graphics, which are copyrighted.
- fortran77 7y ago
aasasd 7y ago
The dude is mentioned every single time Vantablack comes up. People reward his actions with free marketing and lots of notoriety.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Despite the saying, not all publicity is good publicity. Lots of people who'd never heard of Anish Kapoor now know him solely as "that douchebag who copyrighted* a color." *sic.
  - pushpop 7y ago
    I thought the ways was: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Which has the opposite meaning to the good publicity saying you’ve quoted.
    - ozzmotik 7y ago
      they were quoting the same quote you were but reframing it to make a point. there's no such thing as bad publicity more or less semantically conveys the idea that all publicity is good publicity, more often than not (though it could also imply that it could be neutral.) either way, it is a bit confusing of a way to render it
      - pushpop 7y ago
        Ahh yes, you’re right. I completely misread the GP. Thank you
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      There is an implied, “when it comes to revenue,” before that maxim. Sometimes people care about other things than revenue.
      - pushpop 7y ago
        That wasn’t what I was querying. My confusion was because I misread the GPs post and thought he was literally quoting the saying when he said: > not all publicity is good publicity. ...rather than that being part of his own commentary on the saying. It was really just a parsing error on my part rather then a disagreement with the point he is making.
danShumway 7y ago
One of my favorite stories in recent history, just because of how odd and entertaining the whole thing is. I know literally nothing about Stuart beyond this feud, but I smile every time I think of him and this story. I don't even paint, and I almost bought some Stuart's blackest-black just because of how much I liked what he was doing, and how fun the whole feud felt. The paint isn't that expensive, I just don't know what I would do with it.

ciupicri 7y ago

Not the color itself (for example the RGB combination), but the pigment used to paint an object with that color.

TheRealPomax 7y ago

And then he went on to make the pinkest pink, the bluest blue, etc. None of which can be used by Kapoor. Also note that vantablack is not "a color", it is a manufactured material, and that is entirely ownable (although Pantone will tell you that colours can, indeed, be copyrighted. At least by name, which is why they have identifiers for basically every colour that can be made at the moment...)

grawprog 7y ago
Pantone copyright issues aside, I do understand in this case it's more likely the patent to the actual nano-material itself and the writeup didn't necessarily make that clear, it's just a really strange case of exclusive patent licensing to me. I'd read before about vantablack, but it was only about how it worked, I wasn't aware of the exclusive licensing part of it.

jsjohnst 7y ago

> I didn't know exclusively licensing a colour was even possible. Yahoo! did the same with a specific Pantone shade of purple.

disillusioned 7y ago
And T-Mobile trademarked their particular shade of magenta, right?
- mkl 7y ago
  Colour trademarks are common, but they only apply in narrow areas. E.g. Cadbury chocolate has a trademark purple, but all that means is someone like Nestlé can't package their chocolate in a similar purple colour. Cadbury's purple can be freely used for any unrelated purpose though.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    For a fun example of how trademarks are limited, check out the “Microsoft Windows 95” beer. Sapporo owns the trademark for use on beer products. https://www.ratebeer.com/forums/saporro-black-windows-95-edition_261795.htm https://www.ratebeer.com/forums/saporro-black-windows-95-edi...
    - mkl 7y ago
      That seems to have been an official promotional tie-in for the launch of Windows 95. I doubt they could have used "Microsoft" otherwise. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611227/windows-95-beer/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/611227/windows-95-...
      - erikpukinskis 7y ago
        Or the graphics, which are copyrighted.
fortran77 7y ago

aasasd 7y ago

The dude is mentioned every single time Vantablack comes up. People reward his actions with free marketing and lots of notoriety.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
Despite the saying, not all publicity is good publicity. Lots of people who'd never heard of Anish Kapoor now know him solely as "that douchebag who copyrighted* a color." *sic.
- pushpop 7y ago
  I thought the ways was: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Which has the opposite meaning to the good publicity saying you’ve quoted.
  - ozzmotik 7y ago
    they were quoting the same quote you were but reframing it to make a point. there's no such thing as bad publicity more or less semantically conveys the idea that all publicity is good publicity, more often than not (though it could also imply that it could be neutral.) either way, it is a bit confusing of a way to render it
    - pushpop 7y ago
      Ahh yes, you’re right. I completely misread the GP. Thank you
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    There is an implied, “when it comes to revenue,” before that maxim. Sometimes people care about other things than revenue.
    - pushpop 7y ago
      That wasn’t what I was querying. My confusion was because I misread the GPs post and thought he was literally quoting the saying when he said: > not all publicity is good publicity. ...rather than that being part of his own commentary on the saying. It was really just a parsing error on my part rather then a disagreement with the point he is making.

danShumway 7y ago

One of my favorite stories in recent history, just because of how odd and entertaining the whole thing is. I know literally nothing about Stuart beyond this feud, but I smile every time I think of him and this story. I don't even paint, and I almost bought some Stuart's blackest-black just because of how much I liked what he was doing, and how fun the whole feud felt. The paint isn't that expensive, I just don't know what I would do with it.