General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Amazon getting a patent on photography against a white background outrages you,...
you just might not understand the purposes of patents.
If you actually read the patent it is a process and method that allows for Amazon to NEVER retouch or alter any photograph of an item. Ever.
There are very specific details on light types and angles, distances, and the precise background.
I can say with all honesty, there is nothing in prior art that goes to this method and it is very deserving of a patent and is just the sort of idea that having patents is designed for.
So, just taking a photograph of an item against some white background will not violate this patent. Doing so with all of the precise lighting types, distances and angles would.
And again, the purpose for this patent is that by using this well defined process, there is no need whatsoever to alter the original image. Your image is as perfect as possible with no image altering.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)For pointing out what the folks raging about this patent never do. It is a very specific patent and it looks like a great idea to me too. Plus I enjoy Amazon.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It only applies if all elements are precisely as listed in the patent. It is not a commonly applied technique, it is a very precise alteration of a commonly applied technique that must be adhered to precisely in order to violate the patent.
The article you link to even quotes somebody who points out the precision that is different from the ubiquitous technique:
this patent claim 1 only applies if you have ALL of
4 rear light sources, in a 10:3 intensity ratio, in exactly
An 85mm lens at f/5.6
ISO 320 set
An elevated platform with the object on it, and a reflective top surface on that platform
That is not a ubiquitous photo technique.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)This is simply a massive corporation pushing through bullshit patent cases in order to generate revenue from violations, real or false, and push out competition.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)IF you're going to believe that, you're free to, just like climate change deniers are free to believe climate change is a hoax.
The only people who will ever violate this patent will be those who do so intentionally.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)With the same parameters their patent describes. Amazon's only purpose that I can think of would be to harass other sellers in the future who deign to try and go straight from camera to the web with a "True White Background" in their images. Which, btw, a client of mine was doing 2 years ago.
A patent doesn't "allow" them to shoot this way, it appears to attempt to dis-allow other's to shoot that way.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)IT is very precise and is not ubiquitous.
The patent only applies if eery last element is precisely the same as the patent.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)And even if it was, as I said (utilizing my years of knowledge that you obviously don't have), it's been done many times over.
Does the following sound specific?
Quote:
<snip>
Although one specific implementation of an embodiment of the disclosure is disclosed herein, it should be appreciated that the desired effect can be achieved by employing one or more rear light sources and one or more front light where the ratio of the intensity of the rear light sources to the front light source is approximately 10:3. For example, in an alternative embodiment, rear light sources totaling four kilowatts and a front light source that is 1.2 kilowatts can also be employed, provided that the dimensions and distances of the various elements in the studio arrangement 100 relative to one another are correspondingly adjusted. Additionally, it is not necessary that tungsten lighting emitting light having a color temperature of 3200K are employed as the rear light sources and front light source so long as the color temperature of the various light sources are the same or similar.
....
<snip>
It should be noted that angles, dimensions, distances, settings, parameters, and other numerical data may or may not be expressed herein in a range format. It is to be understood that the numerical data is presented herein and used for convenience and brevity, and thus, should be interpreted in a flexible manner to include not only the numerical values explicitly recited as the only workable parameters, but also to include all the individual numerical values that can be employed in a studio arrangement 100 to achieve the desired effect discussed herein. To illustrate, a distance expressed as "six feet" should be interpreted to distances that are within a reasonable range of such a distance or may vary significantly provided other parameters compensate to achieve desired effects. Additionally, it should also be understood that embodiments of the disclosure can also include equivalent arrangements of elements in a studio that can also achieve a desired effect. For example, while a particular non-limiting example of parameters related to studio lighting may be recited, these parameters can be varied to achieve the desired effect by modulating a distance in combination with the wattage and/or color temperature of the studio lighting to achieve an equivalent result. All such variations are intended to be within the scope of the present disclosure. In embodiments of the disclosure, terms such as "about," "approximately," and "substantially" can include traditional rounding according to significant figures of the numerical value.
<snip>
It should be also noted that numerical data may be expressed herein in a range format. It is to be understood that such a range format is used for convenience and brevity, and thus, should be interpreted in a flexible manner to include not only the numerical values explicitly recited as the limits of the range, but also to include all the individual numerical values or sub-ranges encompassed within that range as if each numerical value and sub-range is explicitly recited. To illustrate, a distance range of "one feet to two feet" should be interpreted to include not only the explicitly recited range, but also include individual distances (e.g., 1.2 feet, 1.3 feet, etc.) and sub-ranges within the indicated range. In an embodiment, the term "about" can include traditional rounding according to significant figures of the numerical value. In addition, the phrase "about `x` to `y`" includes "about `x` to about `y`".
It should be emphasized that the above-described embodiments of the present disclosure are merely possible examples of implementations set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of the disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)People are going off on the Title or the Detailed Description.
That's not how patents work.
In order to infringe the patent, you have to do EXACTLY this (each and every element):
1. A studio arrangement, comprising:
a background comprising a white cyclorama;
a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama;
an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6;
an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform;
a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level;
a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level;
a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and
a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein
a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device;
and
the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.
Use three rear lights? You aren't infringing.
Use f16? You aren't infringing
Use an intensity ratio of 2:1? You aren't infringing.
This is what we call a "red button patent". Somebody came up with a machine that doesn't do anything particularly interesting or novel, so you claim it right down to the "red button", because you argue that the red button confers some kind of non-obvious advantage.
Red button patents, or "picture claims" (where you recite every element in the patent), are pretty standard fare for overpaid patent drafters who don't want to say "so what" to the division manager in some company who is trying to justify his her existence by being able to tell upper management, "but we got patents".
The actual racket isn't what you think it is.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Orrex
(63,216 posts)
bluesbassman
(19,376 posts)Just for variety.
And I just realized that my post text is in a seamless white background. Hope I don't get sued.
Ubiquitous,
Ubiquitous.
You're welcome
rug
(82,333 posts)Disclosed are various embodiments of a studio arrangement and a method of capturing images and/or video. One embodiment of the disclosure includes a front light source aimed at a background, an image capture position located between the background and the front light source, an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background, and at least one rear light source positioned between the elevated platform and the background. A subject can be photographed and/or filmed on the elevated platform to achieve a desired effect of a substantially seamless background where a rear edge of the elevated platform is imperceptible to an image capture device positioned at the image capture position.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8676045
I swear, this must have been written on an iPad at Starbucks.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Read the independent claims (i.e. the claims which do not refer to any other claims) - the longwinded numbered sentences called "claims".
The "patent" is not about the abstract, the drawing or the description - they are just there to define terms used in the claims.
rug
(82,333 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But not obnoxious.
The stupidity is safely confined to the management/legal interface at Amazon, and will have little impact on the rest of the world, since the patent is incredibly narrow anyway.
The thing is, people go off on things like the titles. You know how many patents are filed each year by Canon and Nikon with the title "Camera Lens"?
Gobs of them.
It's not like some miniscule feature of whatever it is about that "Camera Lens" is a big deal, and it's not like they got a patent that covers any and all camera lenses.
But it's a stupid patent, in the same sense most of them are. And I say that as a registered patent attorney.
rug
(82,333 posts)Who would I see if I invented a new rudder?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)See what I mean?
Depending on where you are, I can put you in touch with a reputable independent inventors' group.
The BEST pro se resource is "Patent It Yourself" by Jon Pressman, published by Nolo Press, I believe. I recommend that people read that book before consulting with any patent attorney.
Would you believe me if I warned you to stay well away from those late night cable TV ads for "Let Us Patent Your Invention" folks? I realize this may come as a surprise to many, but these services are no more valuable than many of the other things touted on late night cable TV ads, including various legal and financial services or remarkable devices that allow you to cook bacon into the form of a bacon boooowl.
rug
(82,333 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I think it would have to be challenged in court, but the patent office grants all kinds of patents all the time, many of which are invalid.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But this seems like a bullshit "patent" to me.
burrowowl
(17,641 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)...if 3-D modelling/mouse control of zoom and other such methods of interaction weren't also ubiquitous. Given that it is, the purpose of making one specific, highly-defined picture that, from any other even remotely slight angle no longer has patent protection, seems ridiculous on face value.
I fully admit I may be lacking some insight here (wouldn't be the first time!), but it's hard to put the two together, especially given the tendency of so-called patent poachers and their method of acquiring everyday used techniques.
gmoney
(11,559 posts)When Apple or Best Buy or Walmart use seamless white backdrops so their products "float" in space, will Amazon start filing nuisance lawsuits?
Or when some small company photographs their products in a similar way (I did some just the other day), will Amazon's brigade of attorneys swoop down and crush them, just because they can?
I think if this is ever litigated, the defendant can find about 200 old photography "how to" books that have an almost exact version of this diagram, and hopefully the case will get thrown out.
By the way, I have patented using an automobile, truck, or other vehicle to make a "right-turn™" from one roadway to an adjacent roadway or space. Meters will be installed on your steering wheels by September 31. Your compliance is appreciated.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)how will Amazon know when this patent has been violated?