Short answer: probably not, in most cases. A colour lookup table is a set of numbers that maps input colours to output colours. Copyright protects original creative expression, not facts, systems or methods of operation, so a LUT is on weak ground, and the file format (a .cube file, or a 2D LUT saved as a PNG) doesn’t change that. I’m not aware of a court ruling on LUTs specifically, so nobody can give you a firm yes or no. What you can protect is the stuff around the LUT: the name, the licence, the sample images, and a dated record of your own work.
Disclosure: I’m Inna Hall, co-founder of TimeBinder, a tool that timestamps files. This is general information, not legal advice.
Table of Contents
Why LUTs are weak candidates for copyright
Three problems stack up:
- It’s data, not expression. A LUT says “this RGB value becomes that RGB value”. That’s a table of facts about a transform, much like a conversion chart.
- It’s functional. US law excludes any “procedure, process, system, method of operation” from copyright (17 U.S.C. §102(b)). A LUT exists to operate on pictures, which puts it close to that line.
- Many LUTs have no creative choices at all. Conversion LUTs, such as Log-to-Rec.709, a camera profile or a colour-blind-safe palette, are dictated by maths or by the target. There’s nothing original to protect.
The strongest argument for protection is a “look” LUT, where a colourist made many deliberate aesthetic choices. Even then, the result is the look, and copyright doesn’t protect a style. Someone who makes a similar look by eye hasn’t copied your file.
Does a 2D LUT saved as an image change anything?
No. A 2D LUT stored as an image, like a Hald CLUT PNG, is the same table laid out as pixels. The image is a mechanical rendering of the numbers, so it doesn’t add the human creativity that the table lacks. Turning a .cube into a PNG, or the reverse, is a lossless conversion, which is a good sign that the format isn’t where any protection lives.
The US and EU positions
United States. Under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone (1991), a work needs independent creation plus at least a minimal spark of creativity, and facts are never protected. A compilation can be protected for the creative selection or arrangement of its data, but a LUT’s arrangement is fixed by its format, not chosen. A useful comparison is fonts: the US Copyright Office won’t register typeface designs, though it does register font software as a computer program. A preset or LUT file is data rather than a program, so it doesn’t get that second route.
EU and UK. The test is whether something is the “author’s own intellectual creation”. Pure data tables struggle with that test too. The EU database right protects substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting data, not in creating it (British Horseracing Board v William Hill, C-203/02). So a LUT you generated yourself is unlikely to qualify as a database either.
What you can actually protect if you sell LUTs or presets
- The licence. Your terms of sale can limit resale and redistribution. That’s contract law, so it binds buyers, not strangers. It’s still the main tool preset sellers rely on.
- The name and branding. A pack name used in trade can be protected as a trademark, which stops others selling under a confusingly similar name.
- The marketing material. Your before/after photos, sample footage, written guides and video tutorials are ordinary copyright works. Copying those is a much clearer claim than copying the LUT.
- A dated record of your work. If someone later claims they made the look first, or a marketplace dispute asks who had it earliest, dated files help. That means your development .cube files, project files and test exports.
What a timestamp does, and doesn’t, do
A timestamp won’t make a LUT copyrightable. What it gives you is verifiable evidence of when a file existed. With TimeBinder, your files are hashed locally in your browser and never uploaded. Only the fingerprint is anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, and you get a Proof of Time Certificate. Anyone can later check that the exact file existed no later than that date and still matches its fingerprint. It does not show who made it, and it doesn’t create rights you don’t already have. It’s a record that supports the licence, trademark and copyright points above. There’s more on this for creative files in proving when a design file was created.
The free plan includes 1 Token a month, and one TimeBind covers up to 10 files. See pricing for the paid plans.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Lightroom presets copyrightable?
The same reasoning applies. A preset is a list of slider values, which is closer to a recipe or a setting than to creative expression. Sellers protect them mainly through licence terms and branding.
Can I file a DMCA takedown if someone resells my LUT pack?
You can send one, but it relies on a valid copyright claim, and for the LUT itself that claim is uncertain. A takedown is on firmer ground if they also copied your sample images, text or product name. Get advice before sending one, because a takedown based on a false claim of infringement can backfire.
Is a LUT I made by hand different from one generated by software?
A hand-tuned look LUT has a better (still untested) argument than one produced automatically, such as a conversion LUT. The more a tool or maths dictated the result, the weaker any claim.
Can I use someone else’s free LUT in paid work?
Follow the licence that came with it. Even where the LUT itself may not be protected, the download terms are a contract you agreed to.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Sources were checked on 28 October 2026.
