This sounds so stupid. Imagine if the inventor of first button had sued others for copying shape and it's shadow

That would be as silly as a computer company getting a patent for a rectangle with rounded corners.

Never heard of Pixelfed, but it's sort of shady that, the moment they received notice that they shouldn't be copying a trillion-dollar company's product 1:1, they immediately cry that they need more donations.

Just rename the filters, and maybe make tweaks so they aren't exactly the same, and then suddenly Meta has no standing.

> Never heard of Pixelfed,

You may not have but that community is actually very active. I posted 5-6 photos on pixelfed and it had more engagement than my total Instagram engagement over 5-6 years.

I don't doubt it. I just wanted to specify that I've had no prior bias one way or another with regard to the service.

Lol, it's federated, you don't post "on Pixelfed" you post on whatever host you're on and maybe that host is federated to lively other hosts

This doesn't feel like a helpful response.

I understand that pixelfed is federated, but I still knew exactly what the commenter meant when they said they posted "on pixelfed". They meant they posted on an instance running the pixelfed software.

It seems like it was effective communication to me, and your correction seems both dismissive and unhelpful.

Yea. And you’re not “on the internet”. It’s a series of nodes that talk with each other and route requests between them. /s

There is no strict technical definition of “on” in this case.

Well. The fact that there is way less photographers on it may help.

Your insta is probably shadowbanned (or whatever nonesensical synonym they’re using nowadays to describe shadowbanning style moderation).

You’ve heard of them now :)

Good for them to call out bullying to spread awareness of their product.

I like how you call this bullying, when all they did was rip off another company's product interface 1:1 and then cried foul when they got called on it. Imagine it were reversed. If a large and well financed corp released a product that was an exact copy of a small company's product. You'd blame the bigCorp for stealing the work and using their industry position to annihilate the small company.

Then again, I guess nobody gets fired for bashing Meta. (In this one case, I'm actually on Meta's side. Might be a second time for me)

i mean there are thousand of small photo sharing apps, and instagram was hardly the first... Naming the filters the same seems a bit stupid though...

Yea. That’s the part that is ripped. Making a new photo sharing app shouldn’t be controversial.

I like Pixelfed, but it was naive to rip the filter names and think that was somehow ok. It was also a totally unnecessary thing to copy. An imitation filter could be called anything and people will be able to tell (assuming you did a good enough job imitating).

Bullying? Really?

how is an open source project asking for donations "shady" ? Is my money going to go to some nefarious ends?

This is Hacker News. OSS is supposed to be a good thing.

I just gave them $50, support creators, especially here where we are all benefiting as creators ourselves.

The shady part to me is Pixelfed vaguely mentions that Meta is "threatening legal action," and then they ask for money immediately after. This paints a David and Goliath tale, where Instagram sees a small startup taking away their users, and is trying to sue them into oblivion, and our donations will directly help. Instead, a later follow-up posts reveals "Well it's just due to the filter names."

I'm sure Pixelfed is a much better alternative to Instagram (I use neither), but the immediate segue from "Meta is threatening legal action" to "Please donate" implies that donations will be used to cover legal costs, when it sounds like the problem is pretty easily solved.

If you run an open-source project funded by donations, it is ok to ask for them every time you get any publicity. There is nothing shady about that.

Well, with a multi-billion dollar company knocking on the door, they know they may need absurd amounts of money for lawyers, so it makes sense to ask for donations should the situation escalate beyond what pro-bono lawyers can handle.

At the core, the problem is that the US doesn't have many protections for individuals and small businesses that need to fight against mega-corporations. It's simply infeasible to achieve anything outside of small-claims court. Europe is a bit better, but not by much.

If I were a small open source project with the prospect of a legal battle on the horizon, I’d want to start raising money for it before, not after, the litigation begins.

It appears that in this case, litigation is avoidable. The project would be purposely engaging in a legal battle at their communities dime over some names.

I would be very surprised if you could guarantee that a litigious entity will not sue on any grounds. I don't think think removing the obvious reason to sue is sufficient protection from the possibility of a lawsuit.

Or maybe it's a good thing that they are standing up to a 'trillion dollar company'. More people should be doing this.

Seems that they have done just that.

https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/pull/4037

I mean at least Meta chose incredibly original filter names, such as

Juno, the ancient Roman goddess, a word in use for over 2000 years.

Clarendon, the wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarendon lists approximately 40+ different uses, from place names to typefaces.

Lark, well, do I have to add anything here?

Ludwig, uhmmm, Beethoven's estate is about to be sued?

Lo-fi: Yes I never heard of this word before in the context of photography. True originators.

Please stop the trademarking of common words and cultural heritage that belong to all of us.

A trademark isn't "you don't get to use this word because I own it now", it is "you don't get to use this word in this context as it is confusing". If you want to name your restaurant Ludwig, go ahead: you just can't name your filter Ludwig. With the exception of Lo-Fi, where maybe you could make a defense, these names are non-obvious and have never been in common use to describe a set of modifications to photographs. Just because Clarendon isn't a unique word does NOT have ANYTHING to do with whether or not you could trademark it for something.

You can't just say "durrrr... I've heard this word before!" you have to actually show that that word has been connected to that context and isn't some otherwise unique usage, and I simply don't see how you are going to claim that for these words: if you show those filters to people and ask them to describe them, the only reason they would say "Clarendon" is because of Instagram's prior usage carefully associating that word with that filter behavior: if you believe otherwise you have to show THAT, not that the word itself has been uttered by someone in the past.

Indeed. Microsoft Windows and those holes in your wall have coexisted for decades without any trouble. (Not so for Mike Rowe's software company, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft)

Why is it confusing to use “Ludwig” as a filter? Nobody is going to get confused what site they are on based on the name of a filter. In fact, it’s less confusing than having to rename filters for each product.

I get that it's about context. But to me this is meaningless, why should any company be able to restrict the usage of common words in a business context?

As a sidenote, Lo-fi has definitely been used in the context of photography before Meta decided to use it as a filter.

I’m afraid you may have some misapprehensions about how trademarks work, and I don’t think this is about trademark specifically anyway.

Trademarks do not give someone the exclusive rights to that word in all contexts. Instead, you register a word or phrase and an category. For instance, there are about 1500 trademarks on the word Apple, from laundromats to eyeglasses[0]

But Meta’s complaint here doesn’t seem to be trademark; companies don’t typically trademark every name like filters. But there is lots of other IP law, including trade dress, which is different from trademark.

And much as I love the fediverse and hope it displaces dinosaurs like Meta, I’m surprised anyone would defending taking the filter names em mass and using them to refer to the same visual effects. That is not something one does. Meta is not claiming ownership of all uses of those words in any context, they are saying please don’t rip off the exact words to clone their UX.

[0] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4802%3A...

If they both had a filter named Lo-Fi you’d have a point. Having all the same names makes this very obviously just plagiarism.

You can say the same for Apple. I think the trademark applies when a common word is used in a distinct business case. Here the word is used as a filter name, for instance. That application is unique.

What are the names of the filters? I’m not familiar with either app and the commit “renaming” them only inserts the letter `i` in a UI template.

This person submitted a pull request to actually-rename them, which conveniently shows the full list: https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/pull/4038/files

Forty arbitrary, artsy words that sound like they could have come from a fashion brand name generator. Yeah that’s not “being sued over css”.

That happen to exactly match Meta’s arbitrary list of artsy words. Clearly, they copied the names.

That's one of the funniest things I've seen this month, I had no idea this existed. Making it such a carbon copy yet with a federated backend is something that both feels like a huge feat and something like an amusingly naive oversight.

Honestly impressed as can be but can certainly see that they could have at least tried to differentiate it from its inspiration at least somewhat, like that's just poking bears in eyes with sticks.