Is this legal?

I occasionally execute Photoshop droplets from a command-line or compiled program, sometimes in a chron or scheduled job. I know that's okay.

But is it okay to do the same on a server? That's where the PS image is on a server, and a droplet is triggered by, for example, a web procedure so that the image is manipulated in accord with something I want to do on that page.

ELSAN wrote:

I occasionally execute Photoshop droplets from a command-line or compiled program, sometimes in a chron or scheduled job. I know that's okay.
But is it okay to do the same on a server? That's where the PS image is on a server, and a droplet is triggered by, for example, a web procedure so that the image is manipulated in accord with something I want to do on that page.

Adobe recommends not working across a network. See the Adobe site for more info.

--
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

"edjh" wrote in message

ELSAN wrote:

I occasionally execute Photoshop droplets from a command-line or compiled program, sometimes in a chron or scheduled job. I know that's okay.
But is it okay to do the same on a server? That's where the PS image is on a server, and a droplet is triggered by, for example, a web procedure so that the image is manipulated in accord with something I want to do on that page.

Adobe recommends not working across a network. See the Adobe site for more info.

It won't be working across the network in that senario. Photoshop will reside on the server, and process images that are only on the server. (Then HTTP (web service) will send the images as it normally does.)

I'd like to know if it is legal. It is certainly feasible.

"ELSAN" wrote in message

I occasionally execute Photoshop droplets from a command-line or compiled program, sometimes in a chron or scheduled job. I know that's okay.
But is it okay to do the same on a server? That's where the PS image is on a server, and a droplet is triggered by, for example, a web procedure so that the image is manipulated in accord with something I want to do on that page.

Yes, it's legal, but it's probably not practical unless you are using it in a very limited way - for example to trigger a once a day batch job from home. You'll need to use a registration license on the server, and Photoshop will start itself up on the server as a single threaded task that will interrupt whatever anyone else is doing on that system. This will make it difficult to administer the system. A request from Photoshop for user interaction, such as an error dialog will hang the whole thing up unless your server extension or script is smart enough to intercept them.

A more general solution would be to use the Java Imaging API. This supports a large number of graphics operations that will integrate with a server environment.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Yes, it's legal, but it's probably not practical unless you are using it in a very limited way - for example to trigger a once a day batch job from home. You'll need to use a registration license on the server, and Photoshop will start itself up on the server as a single threaded task that will interrupt whatever anyone else is doing on that system.

??? I can't think of how it possibly could stop, stall, or interrupt the HTTP server, even if there were accidentally a dialog box to deal with - which there won't be.

Perhaps you would have to know the senario.

So far it appears to be legal within the user-agreement. One user (the server)
One copy
Licensed

done deal

"reboot" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Yes, it's legal, but it's probably not practical unless you are using it in a very limited way - for example to trigger a once a day batch job from home. You'll need to use a registration license on the server, and Photoshop will start itself up on the server as a single threaded task that will interrupt whatever anyone else is doing on that system.

??? I can't think of how it possibly could stop, stall, or interrupt the HTTP server, even if there were accidentally a dialog box to deal with - which there won't be.

Here are two: 1) Another web user processing a large image and filling up the scratch disk, and 2) a user uploading an image that is in the wrong color mode, generating a dialog saying "would you like to flatten the image before proceding". I'm sure you can think of others.

If the server is on a desktop system that is used for other work, anything that causes Photoshop to open a modal dialog will have the effect of stopping the server thread that is running the Photohshop extension.

Perhaps you would have to know the senario.

So far it appears to be legal within the user-agreement. One user (the server)
One copy
Licensed
done deal

Sur, it might be legal, just not practical, given the work needed to interface Photoshop to a web server. Instead it would be more practical to use something like Java Advance Imaging API and get something that will run more reliably.
http://java.sun.com/products/java-media/jai/
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"reboot" wrote in message

So far it appears to be legal within the user-agreement. One user (the server)
One copy
Licensed

So far so good.

Well...now you have gone and alerted the PS Cops just by posting the question. You will have to be darn sure it's legal as they are sure to investigate you now. Your best bet is to retain a lawyer immediately. It wouldn't hurt to get a tattoo stating "I did not commit suicide." Well...getting the tattoo might hurt...but just a little.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com) freebridge design group

"ELSAN" wrote in message

I occasionally execute Photoshop droplets from a command-line or compiled program, sometimes in a chron or scheduled job. I know that's okay.
But is it okay to do the same on a server? That's where the PS image is on a server, and a droplet is triggered by, for example, a web procedure so that the image is manipulated in accord with something I want to do on that page.

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message

Well...now you have gone and alerted the PS Cops just by posting the question. You will have to be darn sure it's legal as they are sure to investigate you now. Your best bet is to retain a lawyer immediately. It wouldn't hurt to get a tattoo stating "I did not commit suicide." Well...getting the tattoo might hurt...but just a little.

LOL, good one Gene! While you're at it, have them tattoo your Photoshop Product Key too.

Get much of that snow in Easton?
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Here are two: 1) Another web user processing a large image and filling up the scratch disk, and 2) a user uploading an image that is in the wrong color mode, generating a dialog saying "would you like to flatten the image before proceding". I'm sure you can think of others.

Okay, I see where the misunderstanding is. The application won't be taking any files from users. It will be applied against known images.

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message

Well...now you have gone and alerted the PS Cops just by posting the question. You will have to be darn sure it's legal as they are sure to investigate you now.

That would be fine with me, especially if Adobe would begin to bust the millions who use their software without a license.

"reboot" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

Here are two: 1) Another web user processing a large image and filling up the scratch disk, and 2) a user uploading an image that is in the wrong color mode, generating a dialog saying "would you like to flatten the image before proceding". I'm sure you can think of others.

Okay, I see where the misunderstanding is. The application won't be taking any files from users. It will be applied against known images.

Then I would just run the droplet on each image, and link to it.

The other misunderstanding is that you originally posted as ELSAN and other times as reboot. This makes it hard to tell whether you are the original poster, or someone trying to guess what the original poster meant.

I think I've made it clear that bolting a Photoshop droplet to a web server will probably be a waste of time. If it were a specification of work, I would not bid on it, but would instead try to talk the customer into basing this on JAI or something similar. I say this as someone with some experience in both programming Photoshop as well as ISAPI web extensions.

If you understand this, and still want to experiment, and have the programming cycles to do so, more power to you. There are no legal issues in your way, which was your original question.

Maybe you'll discover something new that others, such as myself, have not thought of yet. Let me know when you get it running.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

In article ,
"ELSAN" wrote:

I occasionally execute Photoshop droplets from a command-line or compiled program, sometimes in a chron or scheduled job. I know that's okay.
But is it okay to do the same on a server? That's where the PS image is on a server, and a droplet is triggered by, for example, a web procedure so that the image is manipulated in accord with something I want to do on that page.

You did not include enough information to answer your question. If you own a copy of Adobe PS for your server, I don't see why there would be any problem, but read the license and/or contact Adobe customer support to ask.

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

I think I've made it clear that bolting a Photoshop droplet to a web server will probably be a waste of time.

It's me. Random name generator. But Mike, you have no idea as to what I'm doing. I have to leave it up to your imagination.

If you understand this, and still want to experiment, and have the programming cycles to do so, more power to you. There are no legal issues in your way, which was your original question.

Maybe you'll discover something new that others, such as myself, have not thought of yet. Let me know when you get it running.

Well, we both know one can execute droplets from the command-line, passing arguments, so that opens up a lot of possibilities to anyone else not perfectly WindoiZed to stupid.

"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message

You did not include enough information to answer your question. If you own a copy of Adobe PS for your server, I don't see why there would be any problem, but read the license and/or contact Adobe customer support to ask.

Believe me, I read the ULA. Sometimes it helps to ask here where there are some Smart People who might point to things I overlooked.

Get much of that snow in Easton?
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

About 12 inches but is all gone now.