3 ms·

I don't think this will work because it is my understanding that these symbols are copyrighted and require a fee for use in garments. https://www.ginetex.net/u

I don't think this will work because it is my understanding that these symbols are copyrighted and require a fee for use in garments. https://www.ginetex.net/userfiles/files/Textile_care_symbols_en.pdf https://www.ginetex.net/userfiles/files/Textile_care_symbols...

lifthrasiir 6y ago
Yes, that's a main reason why Korea and Japan (used to) have their own laundry symbols (KS K 0021 and JIS L 0217 respectively). Japan recently switched to ISO 3758 to match with China, which had switched from its own symbol much earlier though.
- myspy 6y ago
  So if there is an ISO 3758 norm, does that mean the symbols there are copyrighted by Ginetex? The symbols almost look the same as far as I can see.
  - lifthrasiir 6y ago
    They are identical (AFAIK). Being a standard doesn't mean its original copyrights or licensing requiements have been waived.
myspy 6y ago
Interesting, I didn't know that. Crazy that it's in the hand of one entity.
bloak 6y ago
Interesting... The document you linked to says they are "protected under trademark law", not copyright. I would guess they are "certification marks", which are a bit different from a normal trade mark like "Apple" or whatever. Their web site says: "GINETEX IS AN INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION UNDER FRENCH LAW". So I would hope the fees are not exorbitant. But who knows? It's an independent organisation. If it did turn evil, would the French government intervene?
ComputerGuru 6y ago
At least in the USA: Symbols can’t be copyrighted, only their encoding (eg the svg or otf) may be. Visual styles and their likeness may not be copyrighted. Symbols may be trademarked but that is specifically for logos and is a different concern (eg fair use rules differ, intention is to avoid confusion not preserve IP, etc). (You can make an exact riff off any font but if you code it from scratch it is ok.)
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  They are not copyrighted, they are trademarked by a nonprofit called GINETEX that licenses them freely, but with agreements that mandate their correct use. They are not likely to want to give an open license to the public via unicode that might result in incorrect labeling.

lifthrasiir 6y ago

Yes, that's a main reason why Korea and Japan (used to) have their own laundry symbols (KS K 0021 and JIS L 0217 respectively). Japan recently switched to ISO 3758 to match with China, which had switched from its own symbol much earlier though.

myspy 6y ago
So if there is an ISO 3758 norm, does that mean the symbols there are copyrighted by Ginetex? The symbols almost look the same as far as I can see.
- lifthrasiir 6y ago
  They are identical (AFAIK). Being a standard doesn't mean its original copyrights or licensing requiements have been waived.

myspy 6y ago

Interesting, I didn't know that. Crazy that it's in the hand of one entity.

bloak 6y ago

Interesting... The document you linked to says they are "protected under trademark law", not copyright. I would guess they are "certification marks", which are a bit different from a normal trade mark like "Apple" or whatever. Their web site says: "GINETEX IS AN INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION UNDER FRENCH LAW". So I would hope the fees are not exorbitant. But who knows? It's an independent organisation. If it did turn evil, would the French government intervene?

ComputerGuru 6y ago

At least in the USA: Symbols can’t be copyrighted, only their encoding (eg the svg or otf) may be. Visual styles and their likeness may not be copyrighted. Symbols may be trademarked but that is specifically for logos and is a different concern (eg fair use rules differ, intention is to avoid confusion not preserve IP, etc). (You can make an exact riff off any font but if you code it from scratch it is ok.)

hannasanarion 6y ago
They are not copyrighted, they are trademarked by a nonprofit called GINETEX that licenses them freely, but with agreements that mandate their correct use. They are not likely to want to give an open license to the public via unicode that might result in incorrect labeling.