Canon Files For DSLR Iris Registration Patent 273
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."
uh...turn it off? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:uh (Score:2, Informative)
As a photographer... (Score:3, Informative)
idiotic (Score:4, Informative)
If you have a good watermarking scheme, embed a string like "This image is Copyright 2008 by
RTFA, it's YOU who jumped the gun... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Informative)
"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:uh...turn it off? (Score:5, Informative)
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:As a photographer... (Score:4, Informative)
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*.
Re:uh (Score:1, Informative)
Um, you fail.
I don't think so.
As a result of the foregoing, biological information indicative of a photographer need not be acquired every time an image is taken and, hence, processing executed by the imaging apparatus is not subjected to a load in terms of the sequence of photography.
This is referring to taking lots of pictures in a short spaces of time (i.e. a few seconds) where the over head of a biometric scan would effect performance. So, if somebody steals your camera, takes some illegal pics within a few seconds of stealing it, then maybe you win. But with the information currently presented, I'd bet against you winning.
Re:uh...turn it off? (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=eff+printer+code+serial [justfuckinggoogleit.com]
We have better things to do than sit here and repeat the exact same information over and over while you rant about tinfoil.
You *BOTH* fail (Score:5, Informative)
Reading over the technical paper, the camera only needs it once, for up to 5 users. The image of the user(s) iris is then stored in non-volatile RAM. If a person steals and uses the camera, your iris (or whomever it was set for previously) will still be the imprint unless they goe back into the Iris capture mode and does the whole setup process over again. Then again, that's a standard for almost EVERY digital camera out there. Once a mode is set, it remains set until a user changes things. All incarnations of my Kodak and Canon digital camera keep resolution choice, last exposure setting, ISO, etc. until you specifically change it in the menu.
So in reality, five different people could get royally fucked.
So much for you morons RTFUCKINGA. Here, let me repost the important part of TFA so you don't have to waste your bandwidth trying to read the page, since you're apparently too lazy to do so anyways:
Canon's Iris Registration Patent
A recent Canon patent application (Pub. No.: US 2008/0025574 A1) reveals the next step in digital watermarking - Iris Registration.
The short and sweet of it?
1. Turn the Mode dial to "REG"
2. Choose between "REG 1 through "REG 5 (for up to 5 registered users)
3. Put eye to viewfinder
4. Look at display of center distance measurement point
5. Press the shutter button
6. Iris image captured
7. Go shoot
Additional embedded info can be added later. All metadata will be added to images after you're finished shooting in a collective manner and not for each image. The purpose of the collective tagging, if you will, is to refrain from hampering the camera's speed (frames per second) while shooting.
I don't think I need to embarrass either of you any further.
Re:uh...turn it off? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
They then sued me for defamation, and I filed a federal copyright lawsuit against them. It went to trial in November (Gregerson v. Vilana [cgstock.com]). This brilliant move cost them as much as >$100,000 in legal fees, on top of whatever the judge awards me (I'm still waiting for the verdict). I represented myself, with procedural advise from an attorney (still quite expensive).
They tried to claim the photo wasn't mine, they even forged a sales agreement and claimed a non-existent person took the photo. This went nowhere, with the court finding the photo was mine based on my copyright registration (and perhaps eyeballing the disputed photo and the original on my website).
I believe there will be a better system in the future, but I don't know what it will look like. As one example from history of a different approach, some great works of art were created during the depression under the WPA Federal Art Project [wikipedia.org], all public domain (artists were paid without having to sue).
Re:uh (Score:3, Informative)
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.)