There are defined legal rules against MARKETING prints as something they're really not. For example, a mass-produced photolithograph can't legally be sold as a real lithograph. Terminology counts. And even if those kinds of laws haven't reached down to the inkjet level yet, calling those ink productions "pigment prints" per se is inherently deceptive. They're not, can't be, or all the colorants wouldn't even squeeze through those tiny nozzles, if all the colorants were real pigment particles.

If dye destruction printing like Cibachrome were revived, along with R-printing as it once was, I'd hate to see one confused for the other, or sold as if the other. There are real permanence implications. So there are rules to art. Do whatever you want, whatever you like doing - yes - but don't call it what it's not.

Terminology has connotations. For instance, calling something a C-print was once a pejorative. It implies something way cheaper to make and fading way faster than a dye transfer print. But dye transfer is largely (not completely) extinct, and chromogenic prints have dramatically improved, and deservedly shed their old put-down abbreviation, though it still appears on certain product labels. Terminology becomes slang, and slang often becomes stereotypical slander; but we still need terminology.