Free colour - more important than ever

Question: Why are there actually hundreds of colour systems and collections, when each of us has only one colour perception?

The current situation in the world of colour is comparable to the situation where there would be no standardised metre measure, but hundreds of length measures from the most diverse suppliers. Today's diversity of systems is by no means helpful, but medieval, because it makes constant colour system comparisons necessary when working. These are hindered rather than encouraged by the established colour collections.

Larger suppliers like to call their collections "global colour communication" and at the same time protect them from imitation and comparison. Some brand owners even claim ownership of individual colour shades.

Today's world of colour could be better (=more practical for us users and much freer), because on every desk there is a computer that not only enables free colour, but brings it along by default!

Usual work with colour: awkward

As a professional colour user, you are constantly faced with colour system comparisons: Which is the right adhesive film for a company colour, how can I get it onto the internet, onto the façade or into four-colour printing, etc.? Just as regularly, one is confronted with questions of harmony: what suits my original colour, how do I grade it sensibly?

The most famous manufacturers' collections almost always remain with their answers in their respective collections. That's no wonder, you're not supposed to use other colours.

Bondage from copyright

Several suppliers have the business model of colour collections. There are no formulas behind these colour systems, they are not calculable and must not be so in order not to endanger the business model. Calculated colour systems such as RGB or CIELAB, on the other hand, are not protectable and can therefore spread unhindered without "protection".

...any cross-referencing, in whole or in part, to any PANTONE Color system, including, but not limited to, the PANTONE numbers and PANTONE Colors, by third parties, may be a violation of PANTONE, Inc.'s proprietary rights and is strictly prohibited.

Pantone fan

The RAL products and services are comprehensively legally protected. The presentation of the RAL colours is done exclusively on the basis of the release and approval of RAL gGmbH. (...) The RAL CLASSIC colour collection and the other RAL products are protected by copyright. (...) In order to protect its intellectual property, RAL gGmbH is required to legally prosecute and prevent unauthorised use. The infringement of industrial property rights and copyrights not only entails consequences under civil law, but also constitutes a criminal offence.

RAL-K7 colour fan (edition 2020)

Bondage from trademark law

There are currently about 100 registered colour marks in Germany. Examples: Beiersdorf blue (Pantone 280), Milka purple, Telekom magenta (RAL 4010). These colours may not be used by any competitor for competing products. See also Wikipedia or elsewhere on this website:

Lack of freedom in a free society

Through third-party ownership of individual colours and of the most important colour collections, we curtail our creative and personal freedom. In other words, we allow lack of freedom in a very elementary personal area: in our innermost being.

According to current scientific knowledge, colours are first and foremost experiences. in us - How can one get the idea that these "belong" to someone else? "Thoughts are free", says an old folk song, we should remember this instead of extending commercialisation even to our emotional lives.

Where is this supposed to lead? That one day you have to pay for sentiments because others have given them so-called "traffic validity" with massive media input? This is already the case - we just haven't noticed!

What do we propose?

From our point of view, a rethink would be necessary: away from the manufacturer collections - towards calculated colours. We should simply follow calculated colour models everywhere, because purely mathematically determined colours are copyright and licence-free.

Modern technology makes it possible. In the computer, calculated colours have long been a reality, here colour has long been fully calculable and comparable. Almost all software allows free colour input and colour calculation, and so-called "colour management" is built into all major operating systems.

Calculated colours are also calculable, in the literal and comprehensive sense, and this has numerous advantages in practice. Just try to create a brightness gradient with RAL or Pantone colours or to determine a counter colour. With mathematical colours this is no problem at all.

Which mathematical colour model makes the most sense?

Although CMYK is widely used in pre-press, it is too limited in terms of the available colour space to be considered a useful general model. sRGB is included in every computer program, so it can be used immediately everywhere, but it also has only a limited colour space and as a technical definition is not very perceptually appropriate.

CIELAB is common in colour measurement today and is the better model thanks to its perception-oriented definition, device independence and no gamut restrictions. The CIELAB colour definition is not backed by a multi-million marketing budget, but it has nevertheless become established in colour measurement. It has also been integrated into the usual computer operating systems for several decades. Nevertheless, it still leads a shadowy existence among the general public. We would like to help CIELAB achieve a breakthrough because of its advantages.

However, CIELAB also has weaknesses. It is the attempted calculation of colour as a perceptual quality that takes place within us. Here, assumptions about our colour perception are greatly simplified (e.g. the so-called "CIE normal observer" as a mathematical curve defined the same for all people). Secondly, a CIELAB colour value always applies only under certain standardised lighting conditions (D50, D65,..).

Even more useful than CIELAB would be the broad enforcement of the actual colour primordial data. These are the spectral curves of the light entering our eye. CMYK, RGB, CIELAB etc. can be calculated from this, the better the model in question, the better (more perceptually appropriate). It would therefore make sense if spectral data were not only included in individual programmes, but also in computer operating systems. However, this is a dream of the future; only a few approaches exist in software at present. But in 20 years...?

Free colour for all!

Whichever method is used to calculate them - the advantages of free colour are huge. And one more thing...

Today, technical progress in printing processes makes it possible to produce any colour sample with an accuracy that is hardly inferior to the paint samples of established manufacturers. The cost of so-called proof printing is far lower - making colour affordable for the masses - free colour!

With established manufacturers, copyright stands in the way of the freedom of inexpensive reproduction (see above) - but not with mathematical colour.

A market niche

No - many! For sRGB, HSB and CIELAB, CIELCh, CIELuv etc. there have been no colour samples that meet professional requirements. Formulations for printing, lacquer, facade, plastic and textile paint are also not available. RGB and CIELAB do exist in the computer, but in "real life" only in inadequate form. Nor is there a usable app or software with which one can select, calculate, show, modify, print, harmonise, compare,... any colour in high quality. This is best done with an interface to the colour mixing station in the nearest DIY store and with direct integration into one's own design programme.

There is a lot to do. If you think about it, you can think of an unbelievable number of possibilities that are also commercially promising. We want to help fill these gaps in the market and support third parties in doing so.


Holger Everding