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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:uh (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there some massive and unlikely database of people's irises that I'm not aware of?
Re:uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.)
RTFA, it's YOU who jumped the gun... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:uh (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:uh (Score:5, Funny)
"Think of the children".
Not in that way, you pervert!
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.
menu option? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Enable Camera Password?[YES][NO]
Encrypt the iris store in the camera... problem solved... next?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me how this is any different? One day it's an "option" in the high-end DSLR firmware. Next year it's turned on by default in the midrange. Couple years down the road, it'll be standard. Year after that, it'll be illegal not to ship a camera with the iris-based tracking system.
There is no real reason to think this is true. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people here are so paranoid that they think everyone is out to get them. If watermarks on printers were announced as a feature before they were ever put into production, do you think it would have been as successful? And how can this be forced onto people anyway? There is no way for the camera to tell if the photo of your iris is really yours or not to begin with. Don't you think there might be a reason for that? If Canon really wanted to track you, don't you think a more simple UID watermark generated on the camera would be the best way to do it?
But hey, mod me down, because by the rating you seem to be getting, there must be quite a few others wearing their tin-foil hats today.
I have great concern about privacy and the use of technology in general. I used to be an EFF member in sunnier days of higher income, but what I really can't stand are "advocates" who overreact to these types of things without even considering if it's really a problem.
Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I can not wait until we can do eyeball transplants with our own eyes that we grow.
Also, every thing else. or better A whole new body of when I was about 24 and just transplant my head.
Why yes in fact, I would love to live forever.
Re: (Score:2)
I too would like to live much longer then the typical human lifespan (although I think 100 years on this rock may prove boring). I'm currently 25, and I think with the advances in biotechnology that will be occuring in the next decade (or two), we'll be much closer to this being possible (maybe not immortality, but living 1.5-2 times the current developed country life expectantcy).
... whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:... whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:5, Funny)
Note to self: Get more foil from the supermarket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You're wrong. (Score:2)
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: (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.
Th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
VERY true. Even more so when you come into the task with an existing collection - can be Herculean.
Also true, and very worth noting. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forcing your moral and ethical standards on others -- e.g. stating what other people do and do not "deserve" -- is something I find reprehensibly arrogant.
it's all economics (Score:3, Insightful)
The point isn't to make theft impossible in the sense that it would violate the laws of physics. The idea is just to make it more expensive, so that, ideally, it's cheaper to
Re: (Score:2)
What silly comparison is this?
Locking your front door restricts physical access. Your house can't at the click of a button be copied and modified so that the copied house has no front door.
That's worse than the worst car analogy I've seen here. The only similarity is that both are safeguards that try to keep things from being stolen. Beyond that it's apples to oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
You claim that a shot is yours. I claim it's mine. You produce some RGB file with fake metadata and I produce a raw image with my biometric watermark clearly identifiable. Guess who the judge believes?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you mean "the new batch of consumer DSLRs", which I don't see any pros using, and are probably point-and-shoot like Panasonic Lumix, etc.
The sweet spot for a PS camera is around 6-8mp, no more.
But your logic makes close to zero sense on a full frame digital. EOS 1Ds Mk III? 35mm sensor, 21mp. Can use every (well, except EF-S) Canon lens made in the last 25+ years? Yeah. Only an "idi
typicalslashdotkneejerkreaction (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Is it really watermarking if it's in the metadata? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is it really watermarking if it's in the metada (Score:2)
Use and Abuse (Score:2, Insightful)
"Ooo, hey I just extracted ur iris pic and watermarked my baby pics with it. Now you're busted for kiddie porn. LoLz."
crypto not silver bullet (Score:2)
Genius idea (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I...eye? (Score:2)
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
Nothing to do with copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Loss of resolution (Score:2, Interesting)
steg (Score:2)
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
if only there were some way to remove metadata (Score:4, Funny)
Who puts the eye on the viewfinder? (Score:2, Insightful)
As a photographer... (Score:3, Informative)
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*.
idiotic (Score:4, Informative)
If you have a good watermarking scheme, embed a string like "This image is Copyright 2008 by
Waah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
an easier yet better method (Score:3, Interesting)
I am the Paedofinder-General, and I pronounce... (Score:2)
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
Re:I am the Paedofinder-General, and I pronounce.. (Score:2)
Story is tagged "gay"? (Score:2, Offtopic)
"Good" DRM? (Score:2)
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
We already have a think tank for working out... (Score:2)
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
Why not toe watermarking? (Score:2)
Not likely ... (Score:2)
At best this will just encourage another RIAA-like lawsuit mill. Ultimately, I don't really see the benefit.
In next-gen cell phones (Score:2)
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.
I find this to be a fantastic idea (Score:2)
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.
Glad this is not in place yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:metadata (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In the land of the blind... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't look into viewfinder with remaining eyeball (Score:4, Interesting)
And then there's that James Bond movie scene
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT... this doesn't remove the original image, which a photog can take into court proving that it's his... now where's your 2-zillio
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Suppose you produced an image by doing conversions from one format to another, starting with some photographer's original image. Does the photographer hold the copyright fo
Re: (Score:2)
As for the cropping/filters there is existing legislation about derivative works in music, art and literature which varies by country.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, I would imagine that there is already a pretty solid answer to this scenario, though I don't know what it is off-hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, he's the one that has it tough!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More importantly... (Score:2)
Then again, since this is only used for biometric data, precise capture isn't important (thumbprint scanners aren't too high-res either; fundamental points of the thumb/iris are all that're required to est
Re: (Score:2)
You've never heard of a remote shutter release? Or the camera controlled by a PC?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet another clueless company doesn't understand (Score:2)