Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Your Rights Online

Canon Files For DSLR Iris Registration Patent 273

Posted by kdawson
from the biological-metadata dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Canon has filed for a patent for using iris watermarking (as in the iris of your eye) to take photographer's copyright protection to the next level. You set up the camera to capture an image of your eye through the viewfinder. Once captured, this biological reference is embedded as metadata into every photo you take. Canon claims this will help with copyright infringement of photos online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canon Files For DSLR Iris Registration Patent

Comments Filter:
  • uh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by legoman666 (1098377) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:42PM (#22400418)
    remove the meta data?
    • Re:uh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fonik (776566) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:48PM (#22400476)
      I'm guessing they'll use some kind of watermarking. But, do you really want every photo you take to be unambiguously traced back to you? On one hand, photos you take can be traced back to you. On the other hand, the watermarking or metadata could probably be removed by a third party. It seems lose-lose for the camera owner.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geekoid (135745)
        The more confident people are in there little tracking toys, the easier it is to get away with things.

        I think it's a waste of effort, but then anyone who wants credit to them this will be a feature.
      • Re:uh (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fireman sam (662213) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:13PM (#22400734) Homepage Journal
        Or worse. Your camera gets stolen and is used to photograph illegal activities. The images are then posted on the net with your watermark on them. Cops arrive at your door and your life is history.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          If you want the images watermarked with your iris, you have to verify it's you (as in, put your eye to the viewfinder). Apparently the watermarking can be done later in bulk, to avoid slowing down the camera's performance in the field.
          • Re:uh (Score:5, Interesting)

            by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:46PM (#22401002) Journal

            Yeah, but as soon as the patent describes the technique publicly, it would be possible to extract the metadata block from someone else's photos, use the same technique with that data, and extort money from someone, e.g. "Don't want these photos of kiddie porn signed with your iris? Put ten million dollars in non-consecutive unmarked bills in a brown paper bag under the mailbox at 5th and Rochester."

            Am I missing something?

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              Now that I think about it, that's a good point. There are ways to hide watermarks, and make them difficult to find/remove, but they tend to degrade signal/noise ratios (not good for a camera, at least of professional quality. Most pocket cameras I know have plenty of noise to hide the watermark in), and it'd be a fairly CPU intensive process inserting it. So, you have a point there.
            • Yeah, if you can do that, then I can do that. Report the extortion attempt and get on with your life.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by 1u3hr (530656)
              "Don't want these photos of kiddie porn signed with your iris? Put ten million dollars in non-consecutive unmarked bills in a brown paper bag under the mailbox at 5th and Rochester." Am I missing something?

              Yeah. Why would anyone pay you? It's obviously trivial to spoof. Go ahead and get yourself locked up for 1) forgery 2) extortion 3) making kiddie porn -- good for 20 to life, I guess.

              People seem to have got the idea this is meant to prove conclusively who took a photo. It's not, and can't. It's like

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If you are serious about photography enough to need/want this level of protection then I would think your camera would be important enough to you for you to file a police report about it as soon as it was stolen.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by omeomi (675045)
          Or worse. Your camera gets stolen and is used to photograph illegal activities. The images are then posted on the net with your watermark on them. Cops arrive at your door and your life is history.

          Is there some massive and unlikely database of people's irises that I'm not aware of?
        • by 1u3hr (530656)
          Or worse. Your camera gets stolen and is used to photograph illegal activities. The images are then posted on the net with your watermark on them. Cops arrive at your door and your life is history.

          Yes, they'd arrive at your door. Ask you some questions. No drama, unless the camera was still in your possession. Presumably you've reported the theft, for the insurance at least.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Cops arrive at your door and your life is history.

          so remember, kids, what nelson muntz says:

          bart: "hey, can I try your gun?"
          nelson: "eh, why not. it never hurts to have an extra set of prints on a knife or a gun."


          (this must have some relevance, somewhere; else I wouldn't have spent the effort typing this in.)
      • Enable Iris Watermark? [YES] [NO]
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          Not to mention the obvious:
          Enable Camera Password?[YES][NO]

          Encrypt the iris store in the camera... problem solved... next?
      • How the hell is this a lose-lose situation? The whole point is this gives those people who do want every photo they take to trace back to them an option to do so. Do you really think they will force people to use this feature? Do you really think everyone is so paranoid to the point where they won't buy any camera with this technology?

        Unless you are just trolling, this is definitely one of the more tin-foil-hat posts I've seen on Slashdot in a long time.

        Perhaps there is a concern for identity theft, dependi
  • Sweet (Score:5, Funny)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:42PM (#22400422) Homepage Journal
    Now if I need to break into someplace that use iris biometrics I can just get that from a photo off of Myspace!

    • Re:Sweet (Score:4, Funny)

      by jjeffries (17675) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:43PM (#22400956)
      Yeah, that's awesome, I was getting sick of ripping eyes out with a ballpoint every time I needed to defeat an iris scan... it really screws up the pen!
    • Re:Sweet (Score:5, Informative)

      by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:43PM (#22400964)
      Practically every post here raises one of a small handful of obvious concerns. Funny thing is they're answered within just two sentences of the article:

      "Alternatively, by processing an acquired biological image into a personal authentication code and recording the code in the image of a subject, the amount of personal data serving as additional information may be reduced." In other words, no, an image of your iris cannot be recovered from the watermark.

      "Alternatively, by embedding personal data which is biological information in the image of a subject as an electronic watermark, falsification can be prevented more robustly." In other words, no, the information won't just be easily removed tags in the metadata.

      That's right, armchair experts, Canon isn't stupid enough to develop this entire application of watermarking without even knowing the first thing about it. Surprise!

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Most people who use canon stuff also have photoshop or something like it - should be interesting to see how the watermark fares after the image is processed. Likewise, it'll be interesting to see how the watermark affects the actual image.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

        In other words, no, an image of your iris cannot be recovered from the watermark.

        That's not enough, not by a long-shot. For example, finger-print identification works by recording information about 'minutae' (whorls, curves, etc). It is not possible to reconstruct a fingerprint solely from the minutae that is stored in fingerprint identification databases.

        HOWEVER, it is possible to use the minutae data to make a fake fingerprint that has all the right information to fool a fingerprint identification system. After all, the computer only cares about what information it stores - if all

  • by Mantaar (1139339) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:44PM (#22400440) Homepage
    And also help to track down that pesky journalist/blogger/dissident always posting images the government doesn't like? No, I'm not referring to any government in particular.

    So we'll have journalist's contact lenses if those things become the DRM of digital photography?
    Like with most advancements in modern electronics, this one does not go down my throat without a huge grain of salt.
    • by rossz (67331) <ogre@@@geekbiker...net> on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:49PM (#22400500) Homepage Journal
      The first thing I thought of after reading the intro paragraph was, "how is this going to be abused?" And what you suggest was exactly what i was thinking. First the government will require all cameras have this technology embedded in it to save the children from pornographers! Then they'll use it to track down that traitorous bastard commie journalist that took pictures of Senator Greedy and his hooker girlfriend (which were faked!).

      Note to self: Get more foil from the supermarket.
      • by Hucko (998827)
        Bloke, you are going to have to step up the tech. Foil only saves you from em fields. "They" are using reflected light or infra-red to read your iris. And "They" aren't going to need to have your eye pressed up to an eyeviewer. "They" read it from the reflection off the lamp post you just walked past. I mean might walk past.
      • by Firehed (942385)
        Okay, I'm a paranoid nutjob conspiracy theorist too, but how on earth would this kind of thing help the Think of the Children! movement? People dumb enough to put that kind of thing online tend to get tracked down pretty quickly anyways.
        • by rossz (67331)
          You obviously are not hardcore enough in your conspiracy theorist beliefs. Obviously, the gubment uses the "think of the children" excuse to get the sheeple to go along with the intrusive law requiring the eye scanner on all cameras. The real reason the government wants it is to track journalists (commies) and whistle blowers (terrorist commies).
    • uh...turn it off? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Quadraginta (902985) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:53PM (#22400532)
      Or don't buy the camera?

      This is something Canon would tout as a feature of their camera, for which artists would pay a premium, so that they could more easily prove that a particular photo belongs to them.

      Keep in mind these are people who (1) earn their daily bread by taking amazing photos, and (2) often have to endure years and years of dry spells before one particular photo hits the big time and generates widespread interest. They have a very strong interest in controlling the reproduction and use of their photos, so they can get paid for their years of effort. A feature like this, sort of an automatic unfakeable "signature" embedded in each frame, would make it much easier for them to prove that a given photo is their property.

      You might not like that of course, but that just means you're not a photographer. Presumably when it comes to whatever you do creatively, that takes years of discipline and effort to do, and which puts the food on your table, is not something you'd like people to just be able to duplicate and distribute randomly and broadly without even asking you first.

      Think of it as the equivalent of your engraving your SSN on your very expensive tools, so that if they're ripped off you can prove they're yours.
      • by DannyO152 (544940)

        And if your tools are ripped off, you can also add the frisson of identity theft worry to the nuisance and cost of replacing expensive tools.

        What percentage of the professional photographers' work is work-for-hire? Does the watermarking survive the printing process? Will the watermarking survive the web-sizing?

        However, as noted above, I would be concerned about freedom of the speech and the press if the photos could be traced back to the photographer.

      • Or don't buy the camera?

        Or don't have a choice? This sort of technology could be easily abused and inserted covertly into most, if not all, cameras at the bequest of governmental intelligence agencies. This has already happened with ink jet printers which secretly print a serial number, traceable back to the purchaser, on every document printed. Abuse of this kind of technology is a threat to already threaten free speech.
      • Speaking as a photographer who has had his work used in print and on-line, (including photos of Mexico used in brochures put out by the Mexico department of Tourism), I can say that *NOBODY* deserves to get paid for mediocre work, and if you're going through a 'dry spell', then you're doing mediocre work.
      • Re:uh...turn it off? (Score:5, Informative)

        by photomonkey (987563) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @10:23PM (#22401280)

        Pro photographer here:

        It's not that hard to prove ownership of photos (for purposes of copyright assertions). I've gone head-to-head with people a couple times to prove that I created (and therefore was the owner of) the work in question. Nobody's ever argued that, really.

        The problem with copyright is more on the law side than the proving ownership side. Copyright attorneys are wildly expensive, and cases are usually long and drawn-out. Plus, just holding the copyright only entitles the owner to sue for actual damages. Only when the work is registered Federally within 90 days of publication (first use) can the owner sue for anything more than actual cost (IE, damages). Hopefully damages are enough to cover not only the bills, but the work missed while in court.

        I would much rather see a less tiered system where any use outside of fair use (and I have a broad view of fair use) is open to suit for cost as well as damages. I don't mind seeing one of my photos on a MySpace page or copied to someone's blog (especially if I'm actually given credit), or even if someone goes to my site, grabs a bunch of photos and makes a screensaver FOR THEMSELVES, but I can't stand it when my photos are appropriated into ads, tourist sites, news sites I didn't contract with, etc.

        It is much easier (and cheaper) to spell out user licenses and sue for breach-of-contract than it is to get anyone on copyright infringement and actually have it be worth your time to pursue.

        In my estimation, the ONLY good thing to come from the DMCA is the ability to serve voluntary and involuntary infringers with takedown notices relatively easily and cheaply.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Christoph (17845)

          It is much easier (and cheaper) to spell out user licenses and sue for breach-of-contract than it is to get anyone on copyright infringement and actually have it be worth your time to pursue.

          I agree, and brought several claims successfully in small claims court under a breach-of-contract argument. But in one case, the defendant's attorney argued that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over anything related to copyright, and the case was dismissed without prejudice to re-file in federal court.

          Th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by syousef (465911)
        I'm not a pro photographer, but I've been known to take upwards of 2500 images in a day, and without blowing my own horn too much I believe I've taken some photos that don't stink. I've even photographed weddings for friends and they've been ecstatic with the results (though I did not charge them).

        I think this idea is idiotic.

        For starters, how hard is it to strip the image of this sort of thing? Hell any tool that will allow you to open the file will be able to save it to a new format sans any digital copy
        • Shoot less, think more - is what I say whilst knowing precisely zero about your situation. The first weddings I shot, I shot 2,000+ images. (Disclaimer right now: the images on my slideshow are crappy - rendered by batch job down to size, with zero consideration or tuning, and without applying Lightroom develop settings. Some just suck.)

          Sure, shooting on average every 10 seconds, if not more, over an eight hour wedding will net many good shots, if only by the "broken clock, right twice a day" theory. Think

          • by syousef (465911)
            Thanks for the advice. That isn't my style, and I'll never shoot that way. Some photographers that claim to shoot like that get fantastic shots. Others are just lazy.

            What I've seen as my skill increases is that the number of good shots I get go up dramatically rather than a requirement to shoot less. I'm not taking so many shots because most are crap. (My mother in law exaggerates with some of this being flattery but she reckons she hardly sees a blurry or badly composed shot in my collection when I show he
            • The only issue with taking so many shots tends to be in managing them. I still wish I had more shots of our own wedding, and we have a couple of thousand.

              VERY true. Even more so when you come into the task with an existing collection - can be Herculean.

              A shot of a couple's first kiss will not replace putting on the rings, and will not replace any one of the hugs the bride gives on the way out. They're all different shots. Missing any one isn't acceptable.

              Also true, and very worth noting. :)

      • by umStefa (583709)
        I am both a geek AND a semi-pro photographer (meaning I also have a day job to ensure that my mortgage gets paid every month). As soon as I read this I saw immediate problems, namely the biometric data needs to be either stored as metadata (which means it can be stripped out without damaging the photo) or it needs to be integrated into the image data itself (which means it will effectively reduce the quality of the picture), thereby rendering this feature useless to anybody who needs to put bread on the tab
    • by SuperBanana (662181) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:05PM (#22400662)

      And also help to track down that pesky journalist/blogger/dissident always posting images the government doesn't like? No, I'm not referring to any government in particular.

      They'd be storing a *representation* of the iris image data. Useless for matching. Watermarking the actual image is only mentioned very briefly and in passing, in a sort of "oh, and you could watermark the image with this" kind of way.

      Given Canon's bread and butter with pro cameras are the press (your cute digital rebel costs $700; a 1DMk3 is $4k), they're unlikely to do anything that will piss them off.

  • hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:45PM (#22400446) Homepage
    So does reflecto-porn count as prior art? I mean, if you consider "unique image of the photographer embedded in the photograph" as prior art.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:47PM (#22400464)
    That sounds pretty easy to strip out after the fact. Or, for that matter, to add in. What makes this any better than adding your name or email address to the metadata, as most cameras allow you to do now?

    Proving an image is yours generally isn't even a problem. Online images are lower resolution versions of the originals, only the photographer will be able to produce an image with many times the quality of the online version. The problem is a) finding out that your images are being used without your permission, and b) getting it to stop. Both of these are made much more difficult by the global nature of the Internet, and neither of them are made any easier by this iris watermarking, as far as I can tell.
    • If it's not defeated, watermarking does make it easier to find copies of your images. You only have to process each image on the web once to find your watermark. Without watermarking, you'd have to do a pairwise comparison between every image on the web and every image of your own.
  • Use and Abuse (Score:2, Insightful)

    by neibwe (101336) *
    Is there some form of public/private key crypto? Otherwise you'd have the same issue with forged signatures or lifted thumb prints.

    "Ooo, hey I just extracted ur iris pic and watermarked my baby pics with it. Now you're busted for kiddie porn. LoLz."

    • I agree that this sounds easy to fake. However, cryptography is not a silver bullet that one can incorporate into any technology idea and have it make the whole thing work. Cryptography is a tool, like a screwdriver, and it can be used for some jobs and not others.
  • Genius idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xigxag (167441) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:52PM (#22400514)
    I don't know that it will achieve its intended purpose, but nevertheless, as a concept, that is shockingly genius in its elegance and simplicity. Damn you Canon, for not waiting for me to come up with it first.

    It strikes me that the patent system is much like Slashdot in that only one person gets to shout "First Patent!" whilst everyone else with the same idea is downmodded to oblivion.
     
    • So, just patent the idea of using a fingerprint instead. If this is patentable, that should be too. Of course, I don't think either deserves a patent. A watermark is a watermark is a watermark, and this is just using something personal for it.
  • Well, that sounds silly. I can't imagine that it'd be a good idea to make available one's biometric identifiers ready-encoded, still less wise to place that into the metadata. Which can be, quite simply, either stripped out, replaced or repurposed.

    It might make some sense to embed some form of identifier within the image itself using old-fashioned steganography, where at least it's harder (though still absolutely possible) to remove or acquire, but, as it stands, this proposal seems to embody the worst of

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @08:58PM (#22400584)

    Canon has filed for a patent for using iris watermarking (as in the iris of your eye) to take photographer's copyright protection to the next level.

    No, putting your photos on a CD or DVD and then following these instructions [copyright.gov] takes it to the next level. It helps that a)you have the RAW files and nobody else does and b)most cameras encode their serial number into the EXIF data (or similar for a RAW image), and if you have proof of ownership of said camera...

    I didn't see anything in the patent summary provided by the linked site that related to ease of copyright enforcement. Just:

    Alternatively, by embedding personal data which is biological information in the image of a subject as an electronic watermark, falsification can be prevented more robustly.

    Wow, you don't say. We can do that now- it's called Digimarc. They'll even crawl the web for you and look for images with your Digimarc watermark. Too bad it costs about a zillion dollars- their pricing model means that only a small number of pros use it (and you pay for both per-image watermarking, AND the services like web crawling.) This technology is sufficiently expensive and limited in scope to mean that it will never make it into anything except the 1D series cameras- it probably wouldn't even make it into the _0D series.

    I really don't see an application for this technology, except for *maybe* press agencies, where they want to (more) easily track who took what photo. This is a fairly painless way of doing so; you no longer need to track who has what camera (Canon and Nikon provide loaners for repairs and loaners for special events, which means that no, it's not 1 person, 1 camera. Pro's also often shoot with more than one body.)

    Though really, they could do the same thing with a microSD slot (where shooting preferences could be stored, too) for a lot cheaper. The only thing this gets them is more "proof", maybe- if they can somehow provide tamper-proof metadata (supposedly, the "data verification kit" from Canon provides verifiable images, but I've never seen even the most basic description of how it works.)

    • by daBass (56811)
      I read the instructions on copyright.gov and I can't find anywhere where it says that you can submit CDs/DVDs to the Library of Congres, which your wording seems to imply. It sounds to me they want prints only.

      Personally, I would prefer to send (optical, not inkjet) prints as in the archives of the LoC they will no doubt last longer than recordables.
  • So, the raw image (or high resolution JPEG or other) is watermarked. Seems to me that when the original image is re-encoded for publication that detail will be lost.
  • by mugnyte (203225)
    Not in the metadata, but the patent doesn't specify. Digimarc does this; they try to embed information into the image via stenography. However, it must be quite redundant, cover the entire image, and not affect the output, through all kinds of filters that post processing entails. This is a difficult problem, IMO.

    For example, jpg and several other popular formats allow for pixel info that is not displayed, but that is an easy target. in true steg, the information is interwoven with part of an i
  • by JeanBaptiste (537955) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:14PM (#22400758)
    like maybe the print screen button
  • Really, who does that this days? if this is suppose to work for any person on any camera they would have to register the iris every time a photo is taken. If it's registered before taking photos, then anybody using your camera can take photos that can be traced back to you, not them.
  • As a photographer... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Idiot with a gun (1081749) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:25PM (#22400848)
    It's neat, but I'm not sold. The real issue with it all, is not proving that it's your photograph. RAW files, EXIF data, and having a whole sequence of photographs instead of one, can help prove that a photograph actually belongs to you. The issue more often than not is commercial photographers not going after those that infringe upon their copyrights. I know it sounds draconian, but that's life. I love my Creative Commons as much as the next *nix user, but if you're trying to make your living off of it, you can't hand it away.
    • by Zymergy (803632) * on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @10:34PM (#22401358)
      As another photographer, I fully agree.

      I have seen some photographers not even bother to go after the unauthorized or unlicensed use of their images... that is until they are published someplace with deep pockets who is likely to quickly $ettle well when sued.

      Another issue is the fact that the camera is NOT taking an image of the photographer's iris *every time* the button is pressed and then real-time embedding it into the RAW CCD dump before compression, post in-camera processing, etc..
      This may as well be something that is done from the PC/Mac Editing workstation using special watermarking software when memory cards are dumped if it is not to be in-camera and real-time every-time.

      I remember being on "assignment" and shooting "humorous" pictures that were not necessarily related to my paid task, which later were widely circulated in company-wide email (say, like when I caught a police officer in his patrol car SLEEPING... I silently placed dozen krispy-kremes onto his hood just in front of his open window (as I maniacally laughed inside my head while rubbing hands together)... Boy, and I am sure glad that that officer could not 'prove' who shot the images. Heard that the police chief got a copy too.. LOL Parking ticket payback.

      Pro gear or not, any "big glass" shooters will have that crap switched off in a heartbeat if the embedding technology affects/delays shooting performance in ANY way. I know many pros who only shoot in "manual" modes because the internal computers on modern digital cameras inpart too much delay (ANY is too much for a Pro). Typically the only auto feature used are AP (Aperture Priority) with Ultrasonic/Hypersonic (Canon/Nikon) autofocus lenses... the rest are more/less for noobs and wedding photographers.

      It also has been my experience that effective watermarking would require some form of "crippling" in Photoshop (and any other pro editing software apps used in the biz). Thjis is just another in the long line or DRM. If you can detect it, there too is a way to remove it. (If anyone would like an example, take some high-rez RAW images of US paper currency (20's and higher I believe) and then attempt to edit those files at high res in Photoshop (el al) and then print them on a high end color printer. The software and the printers are deliberately modified to not allow the operations (by design) because they "recognize" the US currency and prevent the operation. I believe color copiers also have this "feature". http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/08/0111228 [slashdot.org]
      I see this technology as also requiring a level of watermark removal prevention built into the software. Nothing like everyone's secret-sauce editing followed by flattening and a batch-resize with unsharp-mask followed up with everyone's favorite RGB->CMYK conversion (and color loss) to have fun with watermarks. Many imagers I know, wipe their metadata to help mask technical details of how the shot was made (or in my case I'd put made-up BS data in there, f32, ISO6400, 1200mm, etc..)... there are many copycats out there in the competitive world of photography. Something like this reads to me to be a possible new file format. That alone would kill industry-wide adoption (unless it is FREE and far superior compared to JPG, TIF, and RAW "lossless" CCD dump formats.)
      I'd like to see how Canon implements it and how useful it actually *is*.
  • idiotic (Score:4, Informative)

    by nguy (1207026) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:27PM (#22400866)
    Using a biometric identifier for watermarking is pointless and only broadcasts your biometric id across the world. Biometric ids are there for proving that you are you, not that something belongs to you.

    If you have a good watermarking scheme, embed a string like "This image is Copyright 2008 by ..." into the images. If, for some reason, you want to sign your images digitally, sign them digitally.
    • Waah. (Score:2, Insightful)

      As said above: Turn it off, or don't buy that camera. I'm not particularly sold on it myself, so I won't buy it (that and I shoot Nikon, and I've already invested in lenses).
    • Perhaps someone should modify the camera to sign each key with your PGP private key stored on microSD. A little more fool-proof.
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Tuesday February 12, 2008 @09:55PM (#22401066)
    just put your signature on a piece of paper, scan it with a flatbed scanner and save as a couple of the popular file formats used for computer graphics (jpg, png, gif) then resize them small enough to not be noticed and paste them on to your photos you want copyrighted/trademarked whatever, then nobody will know they are there unless they zoom in to 400% and look for the signature in a specified location, but since you keep all that your own little secret nobody knows they are there unless you need it to defend your self in the court of law...
  • ...you Guilty of Paedophilia, because your iris code - as identified from the metadata of images you have shared on Flickr - has been found in images taken by a Kiddie-Fiddler in Thailand and posted to irootkids.com

    Your protestations that such data is insecure and easily manipulated is nonce-sense, for you are a nonce - as proven by the facts that someone with a hex-editor and too much time on his hands has implicated you in such heinous acts, your credit card records that show that you ate at a Thai res
  • Is it too much to ask that we kick the homophobia? Some people are gay; get over it.
  • This seems all quite innocuous.

    The system is completely voluntary, so privacy concerns should be kept to an absolute minimum... The only reason you'd want to use this system is to permanently attach you identity to your photos, thus intentionally sacrificing a bit of privacy.

    In return, you receive nearly-absolute proof of ownership for said photos. This prevents some twat from pulling my photo off of Flickr, selling it to Reuters, and pocketing the profits. However, it doesn't do anything prevent the pho
  • the results of such technology. It's called Science Fiction. Remember 'Minority Report'? It and stories like it are proof that any 'infallible or ingeniously indispensable technology can be both wrong or misused.

    Moral of the story here is that any theft-proof or idiot-proof identification method remains so only as long has it has never been tested against either.

    The second thing to go wrong with this type of technology is that someone will copyright their retina pattern and there will be copyright disputes
  • They could just photograph your toe and insert that in the JPEG header. What about photographing a 32 bit number and putting that in the JPEG header?

  • Canon claims this will help with copyright infringement of photos online.

    At best this will just encourage another RIAA-like lawsuit mill. Ultimately, I don't really see the benefit.
  • This could be useful in cell phones. Validate the owner before allowing financial transactions via phone.

    But, of course, it would really be used to insure that only the registered owner could view DRM-protected content.

  • This is something that could really set copyright ahead in the right direction.
    This is what copyright is all about. This one idea is at the essence of copyright.

    Photographers protecting their images

    You can't collect the iris registration of a corporate entity.
  • by Shadowlore (10860) on Wednesday February 13, 2008 @01:38AM (#22402516) Journal
    So your photographer gets laser surgery and due to the differences in the outer part of the eye the signature is different and now they don't match their old photos? Yes, LASIK (for example) doesn't affect normal iris scans because those use IR to scan the iris itself. But this apparently takes a picture of the eye. And yes a picture can be affected by eye surgery.

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...