Every EULA has this line for this exact reason. It is beyond DxO’s control and since the possibility is covered in the EULA they are absolutely shielded. DxO originally included the functionality in good faith and probably did not expect FujiFilm to pull the plug on it for non-Fuji images.
You can always find others willing to join you in a class action lawsuit if you wish but it would most likely fail.
Mark
The way I see it is DxO did it without a clear consent, expecting no resist from Fujifilm AND claim those as part of DxO’s product, and it now back fires.
Noone has time for a class action of this scale. Just pointing out DxO was playing victim here pulling the features like it was nothing but an unfortunate decision from Fujifilm, zero apology to customers who actually paid for the features DxO advertised.
DxO clearly won’t take responsibility and wouldn’t mind losing another customer or two.
Do you have proof of this or is it just a guess?
I was part of the Beta test team at the time this functionality was originally implemented. How these specific simulations were created and whether Fuji consent was required did not come up during discussions.
Keep in mind that there are a number of other Fuji simulations, engineered by DxO, that are still available in FilmPack. The 12 FujiFilm simulations that are the center of this issue were apparently ones with formulas designed specifically by Fuji which possibly required permission to use them. I searched online and it was unclear whether any of these specific simulations are available in the public domain without limitations.
Whether DxO was mistaken regrading their right to use them for non-Fuji images, or FujiFilm changed the rights to these simulations after the fact, is not clear to me.
Mark
I’m very very upset because DxO refuses my order cancellation.
I purchased DxO photolab and DxO filmpack at May/18. After program activated, I found I cannot perform fuji simulations.
DxO said I cannot cancel my order due to the licence has been activated even if the purchase happened in 14 days.
Thanks Mark, that saved me hunting through for which renderings to delete.
Ian - It’s all those with filename-prefix = ‘Fuji’ in the DxO FilmPack Designer ~ folders (numbered 6 & 7) … which you’ll find within;
%UserProfile%\AppData\Local\DxO\DxO Photolab X\PresetsC:\Program Files\DxO PhotoLab X\PresetsJohn
Whilst I understand that there are some conflicts with Fuji (which i don’t profess to understand) my main beef is that instead of hiding these options I get all the blank boxes stating that I can’t use them. Why can’t they just be hidden for non Fuji camera users (at leasrt give me an option to turn off unsupported presets please
While chemical process is patentable (and Fuji likely has many patents there), DxO is likely not breaching any patent rights with their digital Fuji simulations. Please link to a specific patent if you know better.
That said, Fuji surely owns word marks for their own name and likely to names of their films all around the world. They are well within their rights to prevent DxO using those names.
DxO should rename the simulations and keep them available in FP.
DxO had to remove access to Fuji renderings for images from other brands following a lawsuit filed by Fuji against DxO.
It goes quite far, since if the Fuji camera doesn’t offer a rendering option (for example, Reala Ace), it’s not possible to select the Reala Ace rendering in FilmPack for RAW files from that camera!
I don’t see how DxO could take the major risk of reversing this!
DxO offers emulations of Nikon (N-xxxx) and Sony black and white (S-xxxx) renderings, for which they have clearly taken all necessary precautions to avoid the same problems.
(The following is all my own conjecture and not rooted in any specific source of information)
In all likelihood it’s a marketing/business decision (as are most decisions by DxO, as are most decisions by most companies).
People, for whatever reason, go goo-goo gah-gah over, specifically, Fujifilm’s film Simulations. Probably part of the draw of DxO’s products amongst Fujifilm users is that they can get these simulations and apply them to RAFs after shooting instead of having to have a fully-baked JPG.
If they renamed them for all to use, I think they wouldn’t even be able to tell us that “Simulation A is equivalent to Fuji Classic Chrome” (or whatever) because that would likely also be a breach of copyright. So you’d have to just “know” that somewhere in the app there’s an equivalent to Classic Chrome, but you have to hunt it down and figure out for yourself which one it is.
Doing this would lose the draw for several Fujifilm customers and probably not gain anywhere near that many “other” users who want to use these simulations.
Again, this is just my personal thought process on why they did this. I have no direct information to back it up.
I think your analysis is spot on.
Please reread my post above:
This is certainly not a marketing decision, but an obligation resulting from a summons by Fujifilm (decision du tribunal judiciaire de Paris - October 2024).
I understand this occurred after a summons by Fujifilm.
But I believe @jole is correct that it is only the name of the simulation that is copyrighted by Fujifilm, not DxO’s emulations of Fujifilm’s simulations.
I don’t know how we can have full confirmation of this, but I’m almost certain that DxO’s versions of Fujifilm’s simulations were created by DxO themselves to mimic them, and they licensed the usage of the names from Fujifilm to attach to them.
If that is correct, I think my logic stands.
However, if I’m wrong and Fujifilm actually created presets to be used in the DxO software, then yes the entire preset and name both are Fujifilm’s property.
Edit: By the way, the reason I believe DxO created their own versions of the Fuji sims is that if I apply, say Fujifilm Velvia to one of my RAFs in Photolab, it doesn’t look exactly like what my camera creates when it applies Velvia and creates a jpeg.
Fujifilm is likely far more protective of their simulation names than Nikon or Sony are. After all, Fujifilm has built a cult following entirely due to their film simulations.
This is likely the dispute: https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/67193e9814868318089f124f
It only mentions “trademark infringement“, not mentioning any copyright or patent infringements. The dispute was sent to mediation – likely resulting the judgement being non-public.
Something like this is done in guitar amplifier simulators all the time. For instance “California” simulates Mesa Boogie amps, “Tweed” simulates the classic Fender tweed amps, “Blackface” is for the black panel Fender amps, “Plexi” for Marshall amp stacks, “British” for Vox amps, and so forth. Can you think of a pseudonym for a Velvia film simulation?
Sure, I could come up with something if I wanted to.
But my post was to provide a possibly explanation as to why DxO did what they did, not to say that there was nothing else they could do.
For whatever reason they decided it was a better business decision, whether right or wrong, to maintain Fujifilm’s exact naming and give these only to Fujifilm users.