DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera 656
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."
Putting things into perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
What's good for the Goose (Score:3, Interesting)
A high end digital camera without Photoshop? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is because of Judge Kaplan (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:Putting things into perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
Adobe is using this to reinforce their stance on the issue; whereas the black hat Skylarov could break the encryption, did so, and released it (illegally according to US law), Adobe takes the white hat stance, saying they *could* break and release the encryption, but do not because it is wrong. This decision merely supports their previous stance -- that violating the DMCA is wrong.
It's not ironic that Adobe refuses to commit the same crime that was committed against them -- it's reaffirming of their principles.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Interesting)
the only thing I use Nikon Capture for anymore is to control the camera to take shots, and even that has gotten less straight forward starting with Nikon Capture 3.
I agree - this is a bad move for Nikon, not Adobe.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
And it's made worse by the fact that we don't even REALLY know what the effects of the DMCA are. The headline implies that the DMCA is preventing Adobe from supporting Nikon's format. In fact, Adobe is saying that it doesn't really know whether it would be a DMCA violation or not. But it doesn't want to chance it.
To be sure, a lot of things in copyright law, such as fair use, are often ambiguous and dependent on how the specific facts of a specific case get interpreted. However, the DMCA provisions around decryption aren't even resolved at the level of "fair use". (i.e. fair use in a given case may not be clear, but the factors that are weighed to determine whether there's a violation or not are at least understood.)
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
Which copyright is what? (Score:2, Interesting)
If the medium used for the artistic is subject to some IP/copyright, doesn't the artist still have some rights to be able to get to her/his content? I suppose this is the similar to saving to any proprietary format (say zip disk or fat32), but this overlaying of rights sure gets confusing. Sort of reminds me of the recent article about GPL'd fonts.
On the other hand, manufacturers of photographic film certainly keep the chemical makeup, etc of their products secret. Why shouldn't digital camera makers be able to hide the methods of RAW storage for their products? As long as the content is still available in open-ish format (tiff, jpg), the artist can work with it using third-party products.
eks
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.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems clear that the camera is creating the work and as such is not entitled to any copyright protection.
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.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so strange (Score:3, Interesting)
I countered with "If that were true, Microsoft would own the copyright to everything you write with Word."
You could see the gears in his head seize at the thought. After close to a minute he said "But we only have on copy. We'll just pick one machine and say that's what Microsoft owns."
Yes folks, he rebutted me with software piracy.
In the end, I had to un-install OpenOffice
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:2, Interesting)
Once you own their software, nothing prevents you from using Photoshop to view and/or manipulate your pictures. Heck, there's even an 'Open in Photoshop' button in the main toolbar of Nikon View!
For the batch processers out there.. well, you can use Nikon View to batch process all your raw files to 16-bit/channel TIFF files using the white balance settings of the camera when the shot was taken or any previously saved setting. These files can then be individually or batch processed in photoshop as any other files. If storage space is an issue, use 8-bit/channel TIFF files.
What's so annoying about this? That Nikon wants the professionnals or prosumers to pay a little more to use their technology? It's not as big a deal as it seems.
Thomas Knoll says (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about a DMCA opinon, here? (Score:3, Interesting)
What the DMCA does prevent is anybody (like Adobe) from "traficking" in software which decrypts the data. It doesn't matter who actually owns the copyright...even if the photographer releases everything to the Public Domain. It's the fact that there could exist any copyrighted photo which Adobe's software could be used to decrypt by anybody else who's not the copyright holder.
Heck, the Nikon CEO could take his own Nikon camera, take one picture, and thus Nikon would own the copyright to one image, which Adobe's "piracy tool" could be used to unlock. Note this could also affect non-commercial software too, like The Gimp, if they wanted to support the proprietary Nikon white balance.
Of course the DMCA is completely absurd and is only useful for legalizing outright fraud and extortion schemes; it does almost nothing to actually protect copyright or prevent piracy. But I still want to know why in the world is the camera encrypting anything to begin with?
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Around 400MB. For a single image!
Not to mention that Nikon Capture is generally slow as molasses, even on my A64 3500+ w/ 1GB RAM. Who do they think they're fooling?
Re:Exactly... (Score:1, Interesting)
Canon has the pro digital photography market tied up. Nikon is only slitting their throat by playing such games, and that is EXACTLY what it is, a scumbag game in an attempt to try and annoy your customers.
I know of many MANY pro's that spend more on their cameras monthly than the richest geek here spends on his computers in a year. and they certianly make informed decisions and most avoid Nikon's digital line for reasons other than this latest stupid move. Canon lenses are world class (you see the trademark cream colored barrel with red line around the end of the lens everywhere, you do not see any of the Nikon stuff.) and are considered to be the best you can get for most pro work.. (Ok hasselblad is actually better, but you certianly do not see someone with a $70,000.00 hassleblad camera and lens at a baseball game trying to get the chicago times front cover photo.)
Nikon is simply trying to kill themselves.
Re:The correct solution... (Score:1, Interesting)
And where does that leave the GIMP and other open source applications?
Frankly, this sucks. I'm almost tempted to buy a D2X then return it when I "discover" the output is encrypted, just out of spite (and to make a point that might get noticed - a lost $10,000 sale may not be taken lightly).
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.
Dmitri must be enjoying the hell out of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Disagreed! (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple should fight this. Not only would it be a fairly easy battle to fight, it would establish some really important precedents:
1: User has the right to his own data. Currently the DMCA does not provide an exception for the copyright owner to break someone else's encryption to retrieve his own work. A precedent like this would head off any attempts to require everyone to DRM everything to prevent any copying, even when the creator wants to.
2: Container license must be compatible with Content license. For all of Microsoft's grandstanding over their proprietary word document formats, what happens if I post a Word document on my website with a license granting anyone the right to read that document in any way they choose? Does that supercede whatever proprietary interests Microsoft has on their container? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the container and content are compatible?
not anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it's just an Adobe scam (FUD Mongering) (Score:3, Interesting)
I've read that Nikon actually hasn't encrypted the WB *yet*. It also seems that if Nikon wanted to force people to use thier products they would encrypt much more then WB.
It seems highly possible that this a ploy by Adobe to freak people out about propritary RAW formats so everyone will demand thier next camera be DNG compatible (DNG being Adobe's "Standard" Propritary RAW format (Think Microsoft)).
Re:The correct solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nikon is the hero here. Some engineer at Nikon working on camera firmware heard about Adobe suing under the DMCA, and started laughing manicially.
Three years later, we get these cameras and refusal to license anything to Adobe. The phrase 'Turnabout's a bitch.' springs to mind.
Not that I'm exactly sure what they'd license anyway. How can Nikon grant licenses for Adobe to decrypt your pictures?
Anyway, Nikon was, and probably is still, hoping, Adobe will start cracking their encryption.
Re:Two thoughts. (Score:2, Interesting)
For a pro, this is a true. They will investigate the best RAW converters available (including Adobe, Nikon Capture, C1, Bibble, etc.) and choose the best one. This decision will be almost regardless of cost as it's such as integral part of the workflow that it would be rather silly to cheap out on the raw converter for a pro. So for this reason i find it hard to buy the 'nikon-friendly angle'
However, nikon has cameras aimed at the lower end of the market as well (the D70 for now, with more planned in the near future.) Most of the people buying these aren't pros. They also don't need the best or most efficient workflow - they're not selling prints to clients and trying to make a living from it. This is market Nikon probably wants to make sure buys *their* RAW converters and not the other guy's.
Re:Two thoughts. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course Adobe's RAW converter isn't as good as Nikon's - Nikon has made it illegal for Adobe to produce one with as high a quality. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Nikon's programming prowess (although he seemed competent enough in "Hackers").
It's about time... (Score:2, Interesting)
And they will suffer. My fist thought when I read this was I'm not buying a camera that *can't* work with Photoshop. I mean, there will be plenty of other cameras of similar specs on the market that will work with PS. All Nikon has done is put it's own product at at disadvantage.
Way to go Nikon, you did it to yourself.
Re:Here's why it's an issue (Score:4, Interesting)
I also had a hellish experience with an APS loader for the scanner. My experience with Nikon's "support" has already ensured I'd never buy another Nikon product. However, I thought that was somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand...
So yeah, I'm a Canon guy now. Two Canon pocket digital cameras, a Canon camcorder, and a Canon flatbed scanner. Nikon can sit on a tripod and swivel.
Frankly, I'm not that impressed with Nikon's sub-$1000 digital cameras either. When I look at the images on dpreview and other sites, to my eyes the color fringeing is noticably worse than Canon. I think at this point Nikon are mostly surviving on vendor lock-in and their exaggerated reputation.
Re:Holy cow. Mod parent up. (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Attorneys receive and review cease and desist order
2. Attorneys respond to cease and desist order
3. Attorneys receive federal district court complaint
4. Attorneys answer federal district court complaint
5. Attorneys attend preliminary settlement conference and scheduling meeting
6. Etc.
In other words, it's easier to give a shrug and ignore a minor feature demanded by a minority of specialized customers than to pay somewhere between five and six figures to a group of attorneys to get the case to a point where a motion can be filed (the earlist thing you could possibly file to get rid of this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is typically filed after the answer to the complaint).
After all, you're charging your customers thousands of dollars for the privilege of using the "premiere" graphics software in existance, not to defend their ability to use it in the most effective way possible.
ADOBE CLEARLY BAITING NIKON! (Score:2, Interesting)
If you read the article carefully, Nikon didn't say a single word about this issue. Thomas Knoll of Adobe and Jeff Schewe, a paid Adobe Endorser and Canon! user, are on the attack.
Adobe, via Thomas Knoll, is saying he fears that DRMA might be applied if Adobe reverse engineers the Nikon raw file. Meanwhile Adobe was the company that in 2001 sued and had a student arrested after their Ebook was hacked by him and their encryption broken-talk about hypocrisy!
Interestingly, NO ONE has noticed that in order to get D2X support you have to either buy or upgrade to Adobe Photoshop CS2-a $630 or $150 proposition. The Nikon software is $99.
Adobe has reversed engineered Nikon files in the past. They don't use Nikon's SDK (available here at no charge: ) and have not used it in the past. Nikon has not sued them before-why would they even think of suing them now?
If you ask me, Adobe is trying to deflect attention away from their costly Photoshop!
I'd rather use the software designed for the file-in this case Nikon Capture....
Re:Exactly... (Score:1, Interesting)
Frankly, that's the only reason I chose to use Photoshop anymore. If GIMP (not cinepaint or filmgimp or other ugly hacks) up and support more bits, I'll be back on the bandwagon.
Re:Exactly... (Score:1, Interesting)
NIkon never gets another cent from me (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in NSW, Australia Nikon products are repaired by a company called Maxwell. 8 months after buying the camera I started to have what I believe was a shutter jam problem after about half an hour of moderate use. The problem would show up and occur more and more frequently until it was happening every 3rd shot. I do wildlife and particularly bird photography for fun and this made the camera unusable.
What kind of warranty support did I get? I sent the camera in 3 times. The first time they reset it and sent it back. The second time they said they couldn't find the fault, and sent it back. When I called to point out I could reproduce the problem within half an hour I got told to wait until the camera failed completely then send it in. The 3rd time I sent it in with a DVD of the problem occuring and asked to be kept informed of what happened. When I called in I was told they were waiting on parts which would be up to a couple of months to arrive.
In the end I threatened to complain to fair trading (state consumer complaints body), and finally had the retailer who were no more friendly pony up and replace my camera. It took over 3 months and lots of visits to the camera store to get the issue resolved (not to mention the time and trouble to make a DVD recording of what was happening) This is the short version of the story. I had a lot of rude and indifferent behaviour from both the retailer and repairer despite being polite at all times. I couldn't even find a customer complaints department at Nikon or Maxwell to complain to. Never again!
Only problem is I'm not so sure I like some of Canon's policies either. I just had a Canon multifunction die on me and since they consider print heads a replacement part it cost me AUD200 and took weeks to get that replaced since it had to be sent in for service. I also don't like the way Canon cripples their lower end cameras in software. So I'm not sure where I'll go for my next SLR. I'm just glad I only have 2 Nikon lenses, because I'm going to have to get rid of those on Ebay when this camera dies.
Re:not anymore... (Score:1, Interesting)
Cameras on sidelines at Athens 2004 [pbase.com]
Hint. The ratio approaches 1...
Looks like Nikon is clueless in several areas these days. I for one am going Canon.
Also note the wireless remotes.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nikon will lose zero dollars over this. If you are a professional photographer, you are not going to settle for something less just because Adobe won't support it. It is not like Nikon prevent you from getting to your shots. Nikon has their own tools to view and even convert the data. My brother-in-law is a pro-photographer (which lets me use some really great cameras even though I suck as a photographer ; ) ). He does use Photoshop and once I showed him the Gimp, he uses that as well for things that the Gimp excels at. However, to him the only thing that matter is the shot and not whether Photoshop supports it. He could care less about Adobe supporting his camera.
I think your comment falls more on the line of professional graphic artists, and certainly _not_ a photographer. I would like to know a real, professional photographer that would not use the best camera around just because Adobe doesn't want to license a format from Nikon.
Now, as an Open Source geek, I do think that all of this crap is silly. However, this is the nature of the beast when you live in the land of proprietary crap.
Exactly and you just countered your own post. People in the market for a $5,000 dollar camera are not going to worry about Adobe supporting the cameras format. Nikon supplies the tools to get to the shot which is all that matters to someone willing to spend $5k on a camera.Canon "everywhere" is just marketing. (Score:4, Interesting)