Slashdot Log In
DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:03 PM
from the see-this-is-a-good-law dept.
from the see-this-is-a-good-law dept.
Will writes "PhotoshopNews.com reports that the risk of getting sued under the DMCA prevents Adobe from fully supporting the raw file format of Nikon's top professional camera Nikon D2X. The file format contains encrypted white balance information that is necessary to render the image correctly and while the encryption can and has been broken, Adobe fears getting sued under the DMCA if they decrypt the data."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who would be purchasing a high-end camera like the D2X and D2H would probably only be doing so to use a high-end piece of software to manipulate the 12+MP digital images.
When a potential buyer looks at Photoshop and sees that it isn't supporting the D2X/H fully because of some retarded move by Nikon to try and make money they are likely going to find another camera. People interested in the D2X/H cameras are going to be shopping around looking for the one that best fits their needs and aren't going to be impulse buying a $5000 camera.
Really dumb move Nikon.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Informative)
Nikon D2X white balance encryption [fredmiranda.com]
Nikon saying you don't need Photoshop [dpreview.com]
Parent
Agreed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truly no issue here. Let Nikon make their own Photoshop if they want, but I think this is going to be 'case closed'.
Parent
Re:Agreed... (Score:5, Informative)
Well... This isn't quite true. Nikon does in fact have photoshop RAW plug-ins, and while they lack features of ACR they do work.
Also, this only effect White Balance. The files can still be read just fine, you'll just have to set WB manually (or use PS's Auto WB) Which really isn't that big of deal since most photographers tweak WB anyway.
Also Nikon Capture is ~$90 ($99 MSRP) which even has a button to open a NEF in Photoshop.
Anyway.. now that the fact are straight... This is a boneheaded decision by Nikon, but they are famous for such things. They make fantastic products, but the management has always been retarded.
Parent
Doubly Agreed... (Score:5, Informative)
I've got a Nikon Coolscan slide scanner. It's a wonderful unit that does excellent high-quality scans.
One day I brought it into work to scan some work-related slides. Since I use Vuescan instead of the Nikon software, I just needed the drivers. The original CDs were in a box somewhere from a recent move so I figured I'd just download the drivers off their web site and I'd be good to go.
Simple, right? Nope. I visited their web site and found they don't offer drivers. What modern peripherals company does not offer drivers online? Instead I had to register, provide proof that I owned the NikonScan software, and download an upgrade to it. Half an hour later I found out the upgrade wouldn't install without the original being present. If it won't install without the original present, why did I have to provide proof that I owned the original? Furthermore, it was packaged in such a way that you couldn't extract just the drivers.
I ended up going to some third party website which required I register, give a working email address, and opt out of a ton of mailing lists. 10kB and a virus scan later, I had the drivers installed.
Clue for Nikon: If someone wants drivers for your hardware, it's reasonable to assume they have the physical hardware present, which means they probably already paid for it. You don't have to make them jump through hoops with the original bundled CDs just to download hardware drivers.
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted. Canon Is no different. The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Interesting)
A reply of "What camera are you using?" frequently gets a disdainful "You must be an idiot" style reply that can only come from the arrogant ignorant when they're wrong, but are convinced they're right. (Everyone whose ever answered a tech support line knows exactly what I mean)
It's amazing how many people are out there using these cameras and are convinced that "Raw" is some universal standard that everyone's supporting.
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Funny)
The only way around that would be to name the files Image001.NotAFuckingFormatRAW
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Our canned response to a a frequently asked question produced hostility in some customers.
2. Therefore, the customers are idiots.
3. ????
4. Profit!
Permit me to suggest that a better answer would be "Some camera manufacturers use a proprietary format and call it RAW. What camera are you using?"
If you are in customer service, I guarantee you that something close to 100% of your customers are idiots. (Dilbert's law - "Everyone is stupid about something sometime.") Your goal should not be to find better customres, but to accomodate the stupidity of your customers while making them happy to give you their money. That's the theory. In practice, when the customer's stupidity makes them unhappy about reality, you find a way to present the reality in a factual, accurate way that does not reflect badly on you. I call it "honest spin." In some cases there is NO honest spin that will make the customers happy; in this situation, you either lie or fire the customer.
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is painfully slow, even for transferring just a few images to JPG/Photoshop. It is in fact so slow that I bought a $25 shareware app that is 10 times faster and actually has a batch mode.
So I think Nikon should stick with the Cameras and let Adobe do the NEF support.
Parent
Here's why it's an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't want my photo library to depend on some secret file format that may end up being completely unsupported and unreadable in ten years' time. What if Linux takes over the desktop, but Nikon decide not to bother with a file format reader for Linux? What if Nikon go out of business, and Windows 2010 can't run the plugin to read your library of thousands of images?
I absolutely demand that all my photos be in an open, documented file format. And I think you're being foolhardy not to demand likewise.
Sure, you can use the RAW converter on each image as you take them, convert to a sensible format like PNG, and store that--but you're losing information by doing so, making the Nikon a much less appealing and less professional camera.
The really professional companies like Hasselblad understand this, and have committed to Adobe's open DNG raw format [photoworkshop.com]. I wouldn't buy any camera that pretended to be "professional" but didn't support DNG or some other open file format.
Parent
Re:Here's why it's an issue (Score:5, Informative)
And don't think this is some far-fetched scenario. I bought their LS-2000 film scanner a bunch of years ago, with a 50 slide batch feeder. It was an awesome piece of hardware, but the software always sucked. You couldn't use the batch feeder particularly usefully, because the software wouldn't allow you to do an autoexposure operation before each scan, the way you could when scanning negs or individual slides. (Yes, you had to expose the WHOLE set of slides at the same exposure. Mind-boggling.) I had to write a ridiculous AppleScript to simulate mouse clicks in particular locations to get it to work.
Anyway, that's not my point. The LS-2000 was connected to the computer via SCSI. About a year or two after I bought it, Nikon came out with the newer line of scanners that used FireWire or USB instead of SCSI. Almost immediately after that, they stopped supporting SCSI scanners in the new versions of their software. And THEN they fixed the software so that you could do the autoexposure operation before each scan.
So I got stuck with a scanner that could never perform it's main function well and that's no longer supported by their proprietary software. And now they want to tell me that they're going to encrypt the files coming out of their digital cameras? It's hard enough to get good information out of the NEF files coming out of my D70 as it is without using their slow, shoddy software. If you're not locked in by lens purchases, DON'T BUY from a company that's so hostile to its customers as this!
I'm so fed up with Nikon I'm about ready to sell all my lenses and cameras and film scanner and move to Canon entirely. Their approach to technology is so unbelievably inept it makes me sick. My only hope is that a company as large and public as Adobe can turn around Nikon's attitude by making people more aware of stupid policies like this.
Parent
Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Parent
This is DRM on Your Photographs (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
Unfortunately, no standalone raw processors can support Nikon's encrypted format
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Only if what you are saying is that having only one raw converter, Nikon's, is not significant.
This is truely significant. What Nikon is saying is that Nikon owns the file and that the photographer does not.
SteveM
Parent
Re:Exactly... (Score:5, Interesting)
But now electronics is vital, and there's little doubt that Canon has the high ground in all things electronic. Their cameras are far superior in design than Nikon's.
However, I still think Nikon lenses are better made and smoother to use, which I appreciate. Of course this might be simply because I haven't seen Canon's more expensive lenses. My D30 has the low-end 28-135 zoom which works great for me but isn't as silkly smooth as Nikon's 17-85 offering.
I almost switched back to Nikon with the D100 but a last minute financial crisis kept me in the Canon camp. In retrospect, that looks like the right decision in view of Canon's newer cameras, and especially now with Nikon trying to pull this on customers.
Pity Canon still doesn't have a low-end HD camcorder to compete with the Sony FX1 and upcoming Panasonic models. That's my next planned purchase and Canon's doesn't even exist in the market
D
Parent
Re:Exactly... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Canon RAW is supported in Photoshop with the Camera RAW plugin [adobe.com]. Photoshop CS2 [adobe.com] is coming out very soon and should have some major improvements over PS CS.
Very few people use GIMP professionally I've found. Photography is the sole reason I've switched back from Linux. Try as it might, digikam and GIMP just can't keep up with professional grade RAW Converters such as Capture One Pro [phaseone.com]. GIMP supports RAW with the appropriate plugin [rozeta.com.pl], but sorry, it's just not Photoshop.
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it really doesn't, since everyone knows the DMCA only applies to encryption intended to protect copyrighted works, and color calibration data is just information that does not represent a creative work, therefore it can't be copyrighted.
Moreover, even if you did consider that tiny portion of a photo to be a creative work, it is a creative work in which one can assume that the person opening the file is the person who took the photo, or at least working for the same company.
Finally, the encryption isn't being explicitly added by the content producer (the photographer), which therefore means that it falls outside the DMCA by definition.
So... it sounds like Adobe suddenly did an about-face and decided the DMCA is evil for reasons other than saving their backsides. Either that or (more likely) they have a bone to pick with Nikon over something else and they're using this as leverage. That would be my guess....
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any evidence that Adobe is "up in arms." It seems to me that they are respecting what another company sees as that company's IP. The slashdot crowd may be up in arms, but I'm pretty sure that no one here (officially) speaks for Adobe.
Parent
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Informative)
I can't explain it. It's not.
Copyright does not protect "functional" aspects of a written work. For example, you cannot copyright an accounting form, even if you can show that you have discovered a totally unique method of laying out the form that makes it twice as easy to check the calculations in half the time. Similarly, the white balance information is functional. Furthermore, the white balance information is functional in a way that has nothing to do with access control. Ipso facto, the white balance information cannot be protected as part of a copyrighted work.
Also, sec 1201(a)(3) clearly states:
As used in this subsection -
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Nikon does not have a copyright in the white balance information. Nikon does not have a copyright in an image taken by the camera. Nikon does have a copyright in the firmware of the camera and in whatever software they distribute that reads this encrypted information.
Are you accessing the firmware in the camera when you manipulate these images? No. Are you accessing the Nikon software when you manipulate these images? Presumably, no -- I assume Adobe broke this encryption without using the Nikon software --.
Therefore, you are the copyright owner, and you implicitly grant authority to Adobe to access your Nikon-photographed image data, such that THIS IS NOT A DMCA VIOLATION as a matter of black letter statutory law.
Thank you... thank you very much.
Parent
encrypted? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:encrypted? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:encrypted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking encryption that controls access to a copyrighted work is what is against the DMCA.
Unless nikon is claiming copyright protection on their white balance information, it woudln't have much of a chance of winning (and it's hardly an original or creative work)
Parent
Putting things into perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Good Grief! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nikon, to the best of my understanding, is a camera manufacturer. I have no clue if they do stuff in the whiz-bang imaging market, like Kodak, or Agfa, but it would seem that their business model depends on selling cameras, lenses and other nice gizmos, ideally loads of them.
Assume I'm a Fotografer. Since the times of silver plates and baryt paper (which sure as hell still has it's niche, but I digress) seem somewhat outdated I like to process my digital images with what can be considered the major photo processing application; pretty much the standard in my trade.
And the good burgers from Nikon intend to prevent direct access to crucial parts of the raw data of my images?
I think I buy a Canon!
Re:Good Grief! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I buy a Canon!
It's not that simply for a majority of folks that are in the market for cameras like D2X. Most of them already have $10,000 or more invested into Nikon before you even factor the camera body in.
Now they could sell all their Nikon stuff on Ebay for say $5,000, then spend another $10,000 buy the same things for Canon (even assuming that some of the older lens are available, you know the ones that we chipped to get working with the newer cameras).
Sorry that may make sense on /., but it doesn't make sense to real photographers. A few may make that leap, but many will simply stay with their D1's (or even F5's with Provia, and Velvia), until Nikon and Adobe works things out, or someone makes a plug in that hacks it for them.
Parent
The correct solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what the DMCA was intended to do. I can't remember their being much corporate oppostition to the DMCA when it was being introduced.
The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?
Parent
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Adobe used the DCMA to go after Russian programmers (a move they rescinded and let the FBI do for them), the DCMA was a great and wonderful thing.
Now, Adobe's learning what a poison pill the DCMA really is. Will this cut short their support for such a law, or next time make them fight such onerous challenges to reasonable copyright as set out by the founders of the United States?
Anyway, that's what I think the poster was talking about.
As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.
The best thing is for Nikon to realize their heads are up their asses, remove this stupid encryption algorithm, and for both sides to state publicly that the DCMA is a bad, bad, bad law and they will never give money to any politician who supports it.
Yeah. And monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.
Parent
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
But if the measure is not designed to protect the rights of a copyright owner, I do not believe any device designed to circumvent that measure falls under the DMCA. It is clear to me that encrypting white balance values is not designed to protect my rights as the photographer.
But, I can see why it's scary enough for Adobe to just walk away for the moment.
Parent
Re:The correct solution... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyways, notice how Adobe is the only one complaining. I believe it is because Nikon's competing software (and software that other 3rd parties have made) has made Adobe Photoshop less relevant. That is why CS 2 is coming out....to correct the deficiency Photoshop has with regard to digital photography.
Other 3rd party software companies have worked around the WB data, and aren't complaining like Adobe is. There is more to the story than this.
Parent
This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
How about by buying a Canon camera?
Parent
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
And writing to both Canon and Nikon explaining your purchasing decision.
Parent
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshite. They knew exactly what the law would be used for and by whom. This law was drafted for the sole purpose of kissing the collective asses of big business.
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Which is why they just keep writing new laws to do the same thing as older laws ( just adding new "technologies" ) rather than changing the old laws to be more technology neutral.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
We can't. In general, we don't have enough clout to get the politicians to even listen to us, let alone to get them to actually hear us.
Parent
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't let them off the hook that easily. Our legislators were told by consumer rights advocates that this was the type of thing that would happen. Of course supporters of the DMCA told the legislators that nobody would ever stoop that low.
Guess who they beleived?
Parent
FUCK THEM (Score:5, Insightful)
So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all.
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
" -- Hmm... I know! Let's radically decrease the usefulness of our flagship camera by making it incompatible with the program that probably 90+% of professionals use!
-- Yes, great idea! And if they try to go around it, we'll sue them under DMCA!"
How about a DMCA opinon, here? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a little strange, isn't it? If a photographer takes a picture, it's pretty clear that the photog owns the copyright to that photo. Nikon couldn't possibly claim any rights on photos taken with their camera, least of all because it would make it impossible for professionals to use that equipment. And with $5K cameras, you're really only looking at the professional market.
So if the white balance information (the encrypted stuff) is a part of the photograph, the photographer owns the copyright on that data, too, right? That seems pretty straightforward, but I could be wrong...
Can the DMCA be applied to prevent you from decrypting something that you own the copyright on? This isn't even like owning a DVD and wanting to decrypt the data, because in that case the movie company owns the copyright.
If the DMCA can be applied that way, that's some fucked-up shit. It's just absurd.
Nikon has its own RAW plugin for Photoshop (Score:5, Informative)
Two thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Photoshop's RAW converter is considered by many in the industry to be mediocre. Nikon wants images from their flagship camera to be processed well, reflecting the quality of their product.
[More Realistic Angle]
Nikon wants to sell more copies of its Nikon Capture software, which is a superior RAW converter, hands down. $100 for a copy of NC is penuts to a pro, and the savings in their time will be significant.
It's just whitebalance.. for now (Score:5, Informative)
As the article itself mentions, it's not really that big a deal. It is the white balance parameters as set on the camera when the image was shot that is encrypted. The RAW data isn't directly affected by this, and picking a white-balance preset or performing manual/auto whitebalacing on the RAW data gives you the same/similar/better results (that's partly the point of shooting RAW, no?)
What could be worse is if they encrypted the data as well. This is what SONY does on the F828 and V3, for example.
However, both are supported by Photoshop's RAW support, so I take it they simply licensed or SONY gave them a thumbs up for supporting it. No idea why they encrypt it, though.
Regardless.. that's what would have to happen with any future encrypted formats.. I doubt we've seen the last of them anyway.
If all else fails, get the dcraw utils ( http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ [cybercom.net] ) and convert from one raw to another. That's where the SONY decryptor is also hosted.
Speaking of dcraw... has Adobe given the author credit yet ?
Thomas Knoll says (Score:5, Interesting)
Dmitri must be enjoying the hell out of this (Score:5, Interesting)
The Corporate View (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not the monumentally stupid part. The once-in-a-lifetime blunder is in the numbers. In order to pull a few million in software sales, they are throwing away a billion dollars in brand value. Value that took 50 years to build. Value they will likely never be able to reclaim. That brand recognition gets them shelf space in stores, and ensures their cameras are reviewed by journalists, and gets their products support from companies like Adobe. The annual worth of those benefits is probably 10x the revenue they could hope to pull from their software. Unbelievable.
Re:License (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it always makes my hemerroids itch, when a manufacturer demands a toll in order for me to access my data.
I hope this helps.
Parent
Re:License Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm imagining Nikon makes a presentation to Adobe about their products, "we need Adobe's support" blah blah blah. And then when Nikon gets to the specifics of their high-end camera they tell Adobe, "Nikon is giving Adobe a wonderful opportunity to license our RAW technology for use in Adobe products!"
After Nikon buys Adobe people an expensive lunch, Adobe is indignant that they must license the RAW import technology. They are ADOBE SYSTEMS for gosh's sake. Adobe Engineering can hack their way into it, but Nikon's smart and is leaving the litigation door open.
Adobe then attempts to reassert their dominance by making Nikon/DMCA out to be the bad guys (which IMHO they are not.)in the press in an attempt to get industry/public opinion on their side.
I give Adobe kudos for doing whatever it takes to get a lower price/free technology. It takes real talent to make customers feel good while they take it up the a**. I'd be much better off if I could do it as well as they do.
Parent
Re:Isn't it in Nikon's best interests (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Adobe,
Please be advised that some aspects of our new RAW file format will be stored in an encrypted format. If you wish to support our new format, we are happy to license the decryption mechanism to you for $5 for every copy of Photoshop you sell or that you upgrade to allow to process our format. Please note that, under the terms of the DCMA, you are required to license our technology if you wish to support the thousands of Nikon customers in your customer base. We hope you agree that this is a small price to pay to continue to support our cameras.
Sincerely,
Nikon.
Dear Nikon,
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
Adobe.
Parent
Re:why not just shoot jpeg? (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone else shoots raw because you get all 12 bits of dynamic range which is necessary for quality cast corrections, you can perfect white balance later (or experiment with it), and you dont have to deal with compression and sharpening artifacts that shooting jpeg does, you can do better tonal curves... the reasons are numerous.
In sum, the only people who should ever shoot jpeg are snapshooters and professionals who must do instant turnaround.
Parent