Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera
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."
Adobe is a large company with deep pockets (unlike Bibble), and it is unlikely we would run the legal risk of breaking the white balance encryption unless we can get some assurance from Nikon that they will not sue Adobe for doing so. Since Nikon clearly does not want third party raw converters reading their files (they would much rather sell you a copy of Nikon Capture), the likelihood of Nikon providing such an assurance to Adobe is not very high.
People who would be purchasing a high-end camera like the D2X and D2H would probably only be doing so to use a high-end piece of software to manipulate the 12+MP digital images.
When a potential buyer looks at Photoshop and sees that it isn't supporting the D2X/H fully because of some retarded move by Nikon to try and make money they are likely going to find another camera. People interested in the D2X/H cameras are going to be shopping around looking for the one that best fits their needs and aren't going to be impulse buying a $5000 camera.
Really dumb move Nikon.
Why is it encrypted in the first place? That doesn't sound very much like raw data to me.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
So why not license it from Nikon?
...comes around.
Nikon, to the best of my understanding, is a camera manufacturer. I have no clue if they do stuff in the whiz-bang imaging market, like Kodak, or Agfa, but it would seem that their business model depends on selling cameras, lenses and other nice gizmos, ideally loads of them.
Assume I'm a Fotografer. Since the times of silver plates and baryt paper (which sure as hell still has it's niche, but I digress) seem somewhat outdated I like to process my digital images with what can be considered the major photo processing application; pretty much the standard in my trade.
And the good burgers from Nikon intend to prevent direct access to crucial parts of the raw data of my images?
I think I buy a Canon!
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Adobe: this is another fine mess you've gotten yourself into.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is exactly what the DMCA was intended to do. I can't remember their being much corporate oppostition to the DMCA when it was being introduced.
Stick Men
The DMCA is having very far-reaching effects, all of which I'm sure were not contemplated or foreseen by the people who drafted the DMCA.
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
They went after a Russian dude who broke their encryption, and he even did it in Russia where it was entirely legal. They only threw him in the can when he entered the US.
So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
to allow Adobe to decrypt the white balance information? This is a very high-end camera, one that many of its users will by to shoot in raw mode. If the #1 tool for post-processing (PS) isn't going to do the job, that will cut into camera sales, will it not?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
There's a difference in principle between encryption to protect content owned by the corporation and encryption simply created to extract money from third-party vendors.
If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?
With the professional imaging market essentially BEING Photoshopm I'd expect that the camera guys would be falling over themselves to have increased support from Photoshop? Sure they might gain a few $s this way selling their own cruddy software, but look at it this way:
-Photoshop pros looking for a camera - lots.
-High end Nikon owners looing for an imaging app other than Photoshop - few.
Nikon use your brain - Photoshop IS the high end imaging market. Preventing improved Photoshop support is pretty much the same as preventing more profit.
Nikon is going to take the hit for this one. Adobe is basically a monopoly when it comes to image processing. If they leave support for Nikon out of their product they won't sufffer a bit, but Nikon will.
This PR blows for Nikon, who is marketing a high-end camera to elite users. That's a fickle market of people who weigh purchasing decisions carefully. I bet Adobe and Nikkon resolve this problem within 3 weeks. Save this post so you can see if I'm right!
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Because if they stick to their own format, there's always: Cannon, Pentax, or some other company that will use a standard format.
So I wonder if Adobe feels there's a lesson to be learned here...
Unfortunately, it's not Adobe who'll be suffering. This is a pure case of Nikon shooting themselves in the foot. With a bazooka, might I add...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Adobe is trying to strong-arm Nikon. Nikon does license the encrypted format infomation. Adobe either doesn't like the terms or wants to try to get something for nothing and releases this story to the media saying its not their fault they can't break the law. Hoping that everyone will scream at Nikon for allowing this to happen, in turn Nikon will need to fold to save public opinion.
Lots of people have file formats that are DMCA protected, including Adobe. And I bet Adobe wants you to pay their licensing fees...
Adobe should get on the horn with Nikon's legal dept. and inform them that there will be a sticker on Adobe's packages and full disclosure on their website about Nikon support.
Truly no issue here. Let Nikon make their own Photoshop if they want, but I think this is going to be 'case closed'.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
More likely they will use the Nikon software for dealing with RAW. It is amazing. As for people interested in buying the D2X/H cameras, shopping around probably isn't an option. These are system cameras. If a photographer is at the point where they need this level of camera, they probably already have an assortment of Nikon lenses and speedlights. Buying a Canon D2s MkII, which is probably the better camera (I haven't seen much on the Nikon) isn't an option. They are in the same price range for the body, but a Nikon user would have to spend several thousand dollars more for the Canon because the accessories are not compatible.
I think they are more interested in not looking like a bunch of hypocrites. Remember the Adobe eBook fiasco? If they look at this problem and say (by their actions) that the DMCA is stupidly getting in the way of getting perfectly legitimate work done and break the encryption, they loose.
I think what we're seeing here is Adobe's opening shot in what they hope will be a publicly visible dispute.
As many noted, this hurts Nikon. And hurts them plenty.
Why wouldn't Adobe simply license the technology? Why should they? Why should they pay Nikon for the ability to decrypt information that has no business being encrypted in the first place?
More to the point, Adobe is simply not going to open the floodgates here. If they pay the license fee here, they've told every camera manufacturer "hey, build in some pointless encryption and we'll pay you money!"
Adobe's putting Nikon, and by extension the industry, on notice here. They're not going to be blackmailed into licensing pointless technology for DCMA issues. They'll drop your product first. And, as Nikon is sure to learn, they've got a lot more to lose than Adobe.
Looks like Nikon gambled here that Adobe would pay up to keep support for Nikon's product. And lost.
Back in the old days, when they weren't used to prevent competition, but to encourage sub-licensing at a reasonable rate?
Well, those days are gone, and the same's true for copyright and the DCMA.
All your profits are belong to CEOs.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Photoshop's RAW converter is considered by many in the industry to be mediocre. Nikon wants images from their flagship camera to be processed well, reflecting the quality of their product.
[More Realistic Angle]
Nikon wants to sell more copies of its Nikon Capture software, which is a superior RAW converter, hands down. $100 for a copy of NC is penuts to a pro, and the savings in their time will be significant.
Why should *I* pay YOU to support YOUR format?!
YOU should be paying ME to support your format.
Adobe has the upper hand here.
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
Unfortunately, no standalone raw processors can support Nikon's encrypted format
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Only if what you are saying is that having only one raw converter, Nikon's, is not significant.
This is truely significant. What Nikon is saying is that Nikon owns the file and that the photographer does not.
SteveM
No. The real question is: If I already use Photoshop, why would I want Nikon Capture? After all, it only does half of what Photoshop CS can do, and won't be compatable with my clients.
Pros aren't going to be dumping Photoshop any time soon. And while there're not, there's not much of a reason to use something else. Unless, of course, the company who made your camera is trying to lock you in, in which case you might consider another brand.
Why is Nikon so hot and bothered about image editing all of a suddern anyway?
Bullshit. Photoshop is still VERY relevant to the post-processing of an image once it's been converted from RAW. I'm not talking about applying cheesy filter effects either, rather adjusting the tonal range or the image, etc. Adobe is trying to eliminate the need for third parties to develop their own RAW format by creating the Adobe DNG (digital negative) format. They have asked for input form the photography industry, including camera manufacturers.
I believe your question cuts to the heart of the matter.
I'm imagining Nikon makes a presentation to Adobe about their products, "we need Adobe's support" blah blah blah. And then when Nikon gets to the specifics of their high-end camera they tell Adobe, "Nikon is giving Adobe a wonderful opportunity to license our RAW technology for use in Adobe products!"
After Nikon buys Adobe people an expensive lunch, Adobe is indignant that they must license the RAW import technology. They are ADOBE SYSTEMS for gosh's sake. Adobe Engineering can hack their way into it, but Nikon's smart and is leaving the litigation door open.
Adobe then attempts to reassert their dominance by making Nikon/DMCA out to be the bad guys (which IMHO they are not.)in the press in an attempt to get industry/public opinion on their side.
I give Adobe kudos for doing whatever it takes to get a lower price/free technology. It takes real talent to make customers feel good while they take it up the a**. I'd be much better off if I could do it as well as they do.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Today, white balance. Tomorrow, EXIF. Later, the sensor pattern. Slippery slope, man.
What I don't understand is why they're going through with this insanity when far behind Canon in terms of new DSLR technologies and doing so poorly in recruiting customers. Sure, they're getting sales from pros who've already got a load of Nikon glass, but people starting from scratch, or pros who have the cash to invest in new lenses and bodies, will just switch to Canon and their superior DSLR linup. Tell me again, Nikon die-hards, where's the Nikon answer to the 20D? The entry-level Rebel XT? Where's Nikon's equivalent of the full-frame 1Ds Mark 2? Oh, that's right. There isn't one. There's just a D2X with 12 million tiny little photosites jammed onto an APSC-sized Sony-made sensor. Oh, and an overweight, underperforming Kodak-made monstrosity that doesn't work well past ISO100 anyway. Ick.
Nikon will probably sign off, but the issue still stands. Reading your data off of your hardware should not involve lawyers.
So many people forget that Adobe is and BIG sponsor of the DMCA and as a big member of the BSA has lobbied hard for the DMCA. So I am afraid that I cannot feel sorry for Adobe in this case. They deserve what they get. They had the Russian kid arrested for doing they same thing. So Screw-em. The should just license the code from Nikon and stop whining. HEY ADOBE! You and the BSA lobbied for this crap. Live with it.
Personally, I don't want the camera manufacturer telling me what software I can use to read my photographs. Would you accept it if Nikon told you you were only allowed to get prints using Fuji labs?
I also don't want my photo library to depend on some secret file format that may end up being completely unsupported and unreadable in ten years' time. What if Linux takes over the desktop, but Nikon decide not to bother with a file format reader for Linux? What if Nikon go out of business, and Windows 2010 can't run the plugin to read your library of thousands of images?
I absolutely demand that all my photos be in an open, documented file format. And I think you're being foolhardy not to demand likewise.
Sure, you can use the RAW converter on each image as you take them, convert to a sensible format like PNG, and store that--but you're losing information by doing so, making the Nikon a much less appealing and less professional camera.
The really professional companies like Hasselblad understand this, and have committed to Adobe's open DNG raw format. I wouldn't buy any camera that pretended to be "professional" but didn't support DNG or some other open file format.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It's not about the costs of a lawsuit. Adobe has several projects that rely on the DMCA to work. Take encrypted PDFs, for example, or Adobe's encrypted ebook format. When push comes to shove Adobe is heavily invested in the idea of proprietary closed formats.
There response to Nikon's use of a closed format is typical. Like Adobe's so-called secure formats Nikon's RAW format isn't really encrypted, but is instead merely obfusticated. With a little engineering Adobe could read the information they need just fine. However, doing so would weaken the DMCA, and Adobe doesn't want to do that. So instead they are putting economic pressure on Nikon. Adobe knows that quite a few of Nikon's users are going to want to edit their photos in photoshop. Adobe is using its market position to influence Nikon to change its mind.
Eventually Nikon will probably relent and give Adobe permission to open these files. Not only would this give weight to Adobe's interpretation of the DMCA, but if Nikon only gives permission to Adobe to open these files then it would give Adobe a market advantage. After all, Photoshop would be able to get the most out of Nikon's raw format and Adobe's competitors would not.
No one really considers Dmitry a blackhat, probably not even the folks at Adobe. The difference is that Adobe feels that it should be possible to make reverse engineering formats illegal, and Dmitry got in the way.
Photoshop does not directly, officially support .NEF, but the PictureProject software with the D2H and most Nikon digital SLRs (including the D70, which I have), has a plugin for Photoshop that allows import of .NEF files into Photoshop, with a control panel for white balance and exposure adjustment during import. It's not as decent in terms of absolute resolution or artifact elimination compared to Nikon Capture Editor, but it's reasonable.
The best method for transferring work to Photoshop with the fewest artifacts and best absolute resolution/clarity would be to convert the image to a TIFF in Nikon Capture Editor or View Editor first.
Let me be about the bazillionth person to point out the Irony.
Adobe went after Sklyarov with the DMCA for removing Adobe's ebook protections.
Now they're on the other end of the stick, and have to cripple their premier application.
I wonder if they still think they did the right thing by going after Dmitry.
Someone explain to me how white balance information on a picture you took, on a camera you own, is any of Nikon's business. DMCA or otherwise.
Why fight when it's easier and cheaper to turn it into a PR nightmare for Nikon?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
From a completely ruthless business point of view, Nikon has made a monumentally stupid decision. Really, this is one for the text books. If they don't about face immediately, they will lose the professional market entirely. Though more conservative than the typical slashdot reader, pro photographers are even more jealous of their rights. And no matter how you spin it, Nikon appears to be encrypting some of my information for the sole purpose of selling me software to decrypt it. That's extortion.
But that's not the monumentally stupid part. The once-in-a-lifetime blunder is in the numbers. In order to pull a few million in software sales, they are throwing away a billion dollars in brand value. Value that took 50 years to build. Value they will likely never be able to reclaim. That brand recognition gets them shelf space in stores, and ensures their cameras are reviewed by journalists, and gets their products support from companies like Adobe. The annual worth of those benefits is probably 10x the revenue they could hope to pull from their software. Unbelievable.