Hello
I'd appreciate any guidance on the below!
My company issues a monthly electronic viewer containing technical product information. Contained on the DVD is a PDF copy of our feedback form, for any technical information deficiencies or improvements.
I have created a new version of the form and given it extended user rights but does this mean that my feedback using that one document is limited to 500? What constitutes the “document”?
As the feedback form is reloaded onto our data disk monthly, am I “resetting” the 500 count if? Or if not, can I do this by giving it a unique file name each month?
Whilst we send out 150 copies of this DVD, it then has an audience of thousands via independent network installations across the customer base.
We receive approximately 500-600 feedback submissions each year so I need to be clear on this before going live with the form.
Thanks
Chris
Can I reset the EULA 500 number for extended user rights?
2011-01-03 03:14:18
Answered
My Product Information:
Acrobat Pro 9.3.1, Windows
Acrobat Pro 9.3.1, Windows
2011-01-03 06:49:17
#2
What follows is a personal opinion based on our work in copyright law and is not provided as counsel:
The Acrobat EULA (16.8.3) refers to "any unique Extended Document".
Considering a single document which has been used in excess, the EULA is clear and enforceable. however there is no definition of what pertinent aspects of a document make it "unique", either in any terms issued by Adobe nor in US statue or case law, so dealing with counts accrued over a number of "different" documents becomes a problem. The EULA does not include nor exclude the concept of derivatives, therefore any such claim against 16.8.3 will be settled as a ruling of how different this particular document is to others which have been accounted towards the total limit applied by 16.8.4, according to expert opinion. This of course requires that both plaintiff and defendant can somehow identify and compare every Extended Document you have ever distributed, and determine the return counts from each that may or may not accrue against the questioned document. We cannot comment on whether Adobe has ever initiated action based on this clause, but you can see the difficulty it would entail.
Action or lack of it notwithstanding I would expect a "unique" document to be significantly different, either in visual layout or in scripted function or both. Simply renaming a document or updating the date on a header is unlikely to separate the document into a new "unique" object, nor is comparing printed and electronic copies, B+W and color, and so forth. I would expect that two forms created from the same master document with only minor changes would be considered derivatives and not unique. Though you would be free to argue in court that the modifications made, however large or small, satisfy the requirement of 16.8.3, I do not expect you will be able to obtain any advance waiver to that fact from Adobe nor anyone else.
Naturally the legally-watertight solution is to purchase LiveCyle, thereby increasing your permitted return counts to whatever you need.
The Acrobat EULA (16.8.3) refers to "any unique Extended Document".
Considering a single document which has been used in excess, the EULA is clear and enforceable. however there is no definition of what pertinent aspects of a document make it "unique", either in any terms issued by Adobe nor in US statue or case law, so dealing with counts accrued over a number of "different" documents becomes a problem. The EULA does not include nor exclude the concept of derivatives, therefore any such claim against 16.8.3 will be settled as a ruling of how different this particular document is to others which have been accounted towards the total limit applied by 16.8.4, according to expert opinion. This of course requires that both plaintiff and defendant can somehow identify and compare every Extended Document you have ever distributed, and determine the return counts from each that may or may not accrue against the questioned document. We cannot comment on whether Adobe has ever initiated action based on this clause, but you can see the difficulty it would entail.
Action or lack of it notwithstanding I would expect a "unique" document to be significantly different, either in visual layout or in scripted function or both. Simply renaming a document or updating the date on a header is unlikely to separate the document into a new "unique" object, nor is comparing printed and electronic copies, B+W and color, and so forth. I would expect that two forms created from the same master document with only minor changes would be considered derivatives and not unique. Though you would be free to argue in court that the modifications made, however large or small, satisfy the requirement of 16.8.3, I do not expect you will be able to obtain any advance waiver to that fact from Adobe nor anyone else.
Naturally the legally-watertight solution is to purchase LiveCyle, thereby increasing your permitted return counts to whatever you need.
2011-01-03 07:21:37
#3
Thanks for the replies, guys.
It's a tricky one for Adobe to legislate. How can they prove the origins of a form? My particular form was originally a Word form anyway so any of the copies we have received could have been originated there.
This may all become moot however, as I have just discovered that I have LiveCycle Designer 8.2 bundled on my PC!
Never seen it before or used it though, but what limitations does this put on my form distribution?
I just imported my form in, saved it through LC and there's no difference apart from being twice as big.
It's a tricky one for Adobe to legislate. How can they prove the origins of a form? My particular form was originally a Word form anyway so any of the copies we have received could have been originated there.
This may all become moot however, as I have just discovered that I have LiveCycle Designer 8.2 bundled on my PC!
Never seen it before or used it though, but what limitations does this put on my form distribution?
I just imported my form in, saved it through LC and there's no difference apart from being twice as big.
2011-01-03 08:12:42
#4
Here's the test I use: If you're collecting the same data for the same purpose, it's the same form.
Note that you need LiveCycle Reader Extensions ES2 to (potentially) get unlimited usage rights, not LiveCycle Designer that comes with Acrobat.
Note that you need LiveCycle Reader Extensions ES2 to (potentially) get unlimited usage rights, not LiveCycle Designer that comes with Acrobat.
2011-01-03 08:27:55
#5
Hi drofidnas,
When UVSAR said "LiveCycle" he was referring to a set of server products, not just the LiveCycle Designer application which comes bundled with Acrobat. The server products are quite expensive (tens of thousands of dollars and up). The current server product that allows unlimited Reader rights is called LiveCycle Reader Extensions ES2 server (http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/readerextensions/ for more details).
Any PDF you make with LiveCycle Designer alone will fall under the same EULA (500 limit) as a PDF created in Acrobat.
Hope this helps,
Dimitri
WindJack Solutions
www.pdfscripting.com
www.windjack.com
When UVSAR said "LiveCycle" he was referring to a set of server products, not just the LiveCycle Designer application which comes bundled with Acrobat. The server products are quite expensive (tens of thousands of dollars and up). The current server product that allows unlimited Reader rights is called LiveCycle Reader Extensions ES2 server (http://www.adobe.com/products/livecycle/readerextensions/ for more details).
Any PDF you make with LiveCycle Designer alone will fall under the same EULA (500 limit) as a PDF created in Acrobat.
Hope this helps,
Dimitri
WindJack Solutions
www.pdfscripting.com
www.windjack.com
2011-01-04 01:21:19
#6
Accepted Answer
Thanks allI guessed as much, Dimitri - the Designer side alone is just a posh Acrobat Pro as you say - it would give no extra distribution ability and carry no legal weight unless this expensive server back end was implemented.
Back to the drawing board...
Cheers
Chris
I would personally suggest you consult Adobe directly, or have the legal representation of your company do so for you.
- AcrobatUsers Community Expert - Contact me personally at try6767 [at] gmail [dot] com
Check out my custom-made scripts website: http://try67.blogspot.com