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."
So I wonder if Adobe feels there's a lesson to be learned here... In other news, Dmitry chuckles softly.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
If I recall, wasn't Adobe responsible for some DMCA silliness a while back? Seems that things have come around and bit them. Be wary of what you wish for...
Surely Nikon aren't going to sue, they can't possibly expect to sell their top of the line camera if it's not fully supported by photoshop.
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
In the MPAA's Anti-DeCSS case, a very poor judge decided the specifically written exclusion of inter-operability from DMCA enforcement did not exist. Somehow, he reasoned, it created a "suicide pact" with the Constitution. Thanks, Kaplan, former employee of a firm representing the MPAA, for abusing your position, ignoring the law as written, and turn back progress once again for the sake of a corporation.
(I personally think that would be a bogus interpretation of the DMCA, since I think the copyrighted information inside the NEF file belongs to the photographer, not Nikon. But Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF).
This is a little strange, isn't it? If a photographer takes a picture, it's pretty clear that the photog owns the copyright to that photo. Nikon couldn't possibly claim any rights on photos taken with their camera, least of all because it would make it impossible for professionals to use that equipment. And with $5K cameras, you're really only looking at the professional market.
So if the white balance information (the encrypted stuff) is a part of the photograph, the photographer owns the copyright on that data, too, right? That seems pretty straightforward, but I could be wrong...
Can the DMCA be applied to prevent you from decrypting something that you own the copyright on? This isn't even like owning a DVD and wanting to decrypt the data, because in that case the movie company owns the copyright.
If the DMCA can be applied that way, that's some fucked-up shit. It's just absurd.
Which would be fine if Nikon Capture was any good. I've been very dissapointed with the direction they've been going for the last few releases.. You have to hop through more and more windows and dialog boxes to get even simple things done, never mind that it doesnt have any strong retouching/editing tools.
the only thing I use Nikon Capture for anymore is to control the camera to take shots, and even that has gotten less straight forward starting with Nikon Capture 3.
I agree - this is a bad move for Nikon, not Adobe.
Starsucks
> 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.
And it's made worse by the fact that we don't even REALLY know what the effects of the DMCA are. The headline implies that the DMCA is preventing Adobe from supporting Nikon's format. In fact, Adobe is saying that it doesn't really know whether it would be a DMCA violation or not. But it doesn't want to chance it.
To be sure, a lot of things in copyright law, such as fair use, are often ambiguous and dependent on how the specific facts of a specific case get interpreted. However, the DMCA provisions around decryption aren't even resolved at the level of "fair use". (i.e. fair use in a given case may not be clear, but the factors that are weighed to determine whether there's a violation or not are at least understood.)
When I was growing up, I was a Nikon guy. I liked the all-mechanical purity of their high-end cameras such as the F2. There is a certain satisfaction in seeing shutters CLUNK that just doesn't exist in the fully electronic cameras Canon sold.
... yet.
But now electronics is vital, and there's little doubt that Canon has the high ground in all things electronic. Their cameras are far superior in design than Nikon's.
However, I still think Nikon lenses are better made and smoother to use, which I appreciate. Of course this might be simply because I haven't seen Canon's more expensive lenses. My D30 has the low-end 28-135 zoom which works great for me but isn't as silkly smooth as Nikon's 17-85 offering.
I almost switched back to Nikon with the D100 but a last minute financial crisis kept me in the Canon camp. In retrospect, that looks like the right decision in view of Canon's newer cameras, and especially now with Nikon trying to pull this on customers.
Pity Canon still doesn't have a low-end HD camcorder to compete with the Sony FX1 and upcoming Panasonic models. That's my next planned purchase and Canon's doesn't even exist in the market
D
If the medium used for the artistic is subject to some IP/copyright, doesn't the artist still have some rights to be able to get to her/his content? I suppose this is the similar to saving to any proprietary format (say zip disk or fat32), but this overlaying of rights sure gets confusing. Sort of reminds me of the recent article about GPL'd fonts.
On the other hand, manufacturers of photographic film certainly keep the chemical makeup, etc of their products secret. Why shouldn't digital camera makers be able to hide the methods of RAW storage for their products? As long as the content is still available in open-ish format (tiff, jpg), the artist can work with it using third-party products.
eks
-- Mein Systemadminstrator hat einen großen schwarzen Moustache.
Damn, and me without Mod Points. My current employer makes digital asset management software, and we're not enthused about clients calling up and saying "Do you support RAW format?"
A reply of "What camera are you using?" frequently gets a disdainful "You must be an idiot" style reply that can only come from the arrogant ignorant when they're wrong, but are convinced they're right. (Everyone whose ever answered a tech support line knows exactly what I mean)
It's amazing how many people are out there using these cameras and are convinced that "Raw" is some universal standard that everyone's supporting.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Can someone explain to me how a piece of hardware (the camera) is entitled to copyright protection of it's work (the white balance data). The last time I looked, the Constitution protected people, not machines.
It seems clear that the camera is creating the work and as such is not entitled to any copyright protection.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.
But if the measure is not designed to protect the rights of a copyright owner, I do not believe any device designed to circumvent that measure falls under the DMCA. It is clear to me that encrypting white balance values is not designed to protect my rights as the photographer.
But, I can see why it's scary enough for Adobe to just walk away for the moment.
Another alternative is to call for strengthening it, until it completely locks up commerce. Basically, make it illegal to copy anything for any reason, or to break encryption for any reason.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
I used to have a boss who nearly fired me when he found out I was using OpenOffice, because he insisted that anything I wrote using it would be "Open Sourced" as a result. I'd like to point out that the difference between a word processor and a text editor was over his head, and he thought I wrote my code in it as well.
I countered with "If that were true, Microsoft would own the copyright to everything you write with Word."
You could see the gears in his head seize at the thought. After close to a minute he said "But we only have on copy. We'll just pick one machine and say that's what Microsoft owns."
Yes folks, he rebutted me with software piracy.
In the end, I had to un-install OpenOffice
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Yes, but people who would be purchasing a high-end camera like the D2X wouldn't mind paying a little extra (75-100$) to get Nikon's approved software to read Nikon's proprietary file format.
Once you own their software, nothing prevents you from using Photoshop to view and/or manipulate your pictures. Heck, there's even an 'Open in Photoshop' button in the main toolbar of Nikon View!
For the batch processers out there.. well, you can use Nikon View to batch process all your raw files to 16-bit/channel TIFF files using the white balance settings of the camera when the shot was taken or any previously saved setting. These files can then be individually or batch processed in photoshop as any other files. If storage space is an issue, use 8-bit/channel TIFF files.
What's so annoying about this? That Nikon wants the professionnals or prosumers to pay a little more to use their technology? It's not as big a deal as it seems.
Want the best?
Visit us
Author of Photoshop Thomas Knoll, said "I think the copyrighted information inside the NEF file belongs to the photographer, not Nikon. But Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF."
I read the article about Nikon saying we don't need Photoshop. Thanks, I needed a laugh. Can anyone guess how much RAM Nikon Capture uses to store and display a 6MP raw NEF file, which is compressed to about a 5-6MB file? Anyone? Anyone?
Around 400MB. For a single image!
Not to mention that Nikon Capture is generally slow as molasses, even on my A64 3500+ w/ 1GB RAM. Who do they think they're fooling?
Bingo!
Canon has the pro digital photography market tied up. Nikon is only slitting their throat by playing such games, and that is EXACTLY what it is, a scumbag game in an attempt to try and annoy your customers.
I know of many MANY pro's that spend more on their cameras monthly than the richest geek here spends on his computers in a year. and they certianly make informed decisions and most avoid Nikon's digital line for reasons other than this latest stupid move. Canon lenses are world class (you see the trademark cream colored barrel with red line around the end of the lens everywhere, you do not see any of the Nikon stuff.) and are considered to be the best you can get for most pro work.. (Ok hasselblad is actually better, but you certianly do not see someone with a $70,000.00 hassleblad camera and lens at a baseball game trying to get the chicago times front cover photo.)
Nikon is simply trying to kill themselves.
And where does that leave the GIMP and other open source applications?
Frankly, this sucks. I'm almost tempted to buy a D2X then return it when I "discover" the output is encrypted, just out of spite (and to make a point that might get noticed - a lost $10,000 sale may not be taken lightly).
Well, I'm not a professional photographer but I own a Nikon Coolpics 8700 that has NEF support. I have been using a plugin for photoshop provided by Nikon and at least for this camera - that plugin is utter crap.
It is painfully slow, even for transferring just a few images to JPG/Photoshop. It is in fact so slow that I bought a $25 shareware app that is 10 times faster and actually has a batch mode.
So I think Nikon should stick with the Cameras and let Adobe do the NEF support.
I can't say I have any sympathy for the company that imprisoned a programmer because he broke their encryption so the visually impaired could read their file format. Companies like Adobe are part of the reason the DMCA exists. It's nice to see them bleeding on their double-edged sword every now and again.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
Looking through this, it looks like the encrypted data consists entirely of the settings the user entered into the camera, and white-level readings from the time the image was taken. Since this combination of data comes entirely from the user and the user's operation of the camera, I am pretty sure that any copyright on this combination would belong to the user.
Apple should fight this. Not only would it be a fairly easy battle to fight, it would establish some really important precedents:
1: User has the right to his own data. Currently the DMCA does not provide an exception for the copyright owner to break someone else's encryption to retrieve his own work. A precedent like this would head off any attempts to require everyone to DRM everything to prevent any copying, even when the creator wants to.
2: Container license must be compatible with Content license. For all of Microsoft's grandstanding over their proprietary word document formats, what happens if I post a Word document on my website with a license granting anyone the right to read that document in any way they choose? Does that supercede whatever proprietary interests Microsoft has on their container? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the container and content are compatible?
Look at any sporting event and count how many pros are using off-white lenses (Canon's professional telephoto lenses are all painted off-white, supposedly because it reduces heat expansion of lens elements).
My other first post is car post.
I've read that Nikon actually hasn't encrypted the WB *yet*. It also seems that if Nikon wanted to force people to use thier products they would encrypt much more then WB.
It seems highly possible that this a ploy by Adobe to freak people out about propritary RAW formats so everyone will demand thier next camera be DNG compatible (DNG being Adobe's "Standard" Propritary RAW format (Think Microsoft)).
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Nikon is the hero here. Some engineer at Nikon working on camera firmware heard about Adobe suing under the DMCA, and started laughing manicially.
Three years later, we get these cameras and refusal to license anything to Adobe. The phrase 'Turnabout's a bitch.' springs to mind.
Not that I'm exactly sure what they'd license anyway. How can Nikon grant licenses for Adobe to decrypt your pictures?
Anyway, Nikon was, and probably is still, hoping, Adobe will start cracking their encryption.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
For a pro, this is a true. They will investigate the best RAW converters available (including Adobe, Nikon Capture, C1, Bibble, etc.) and choose the best one. This decision will be almost regardless of cost as it's such as integral part of the workflow that it would be rather silly to cheap out on the raw converter for a pro. So for this reason i find it hard to buy the 'nikon-friendly angle'
However, nikon has cameras aimed at the lower end of the market as well (the D70 for now, with more planned in the near future.) Most of the people buying these aren't pros. They also don't need the best or most efficient workflow - they're not selling prints to clients and trying to make a living from it. This is market Nikon probably wants to make sure buys *their* RAW converters and not the other guy's.
[Disinterested spectator angle]
Of course Adobe's RAW converter isn't as good as Nikon's - Nikon has made it illegal for Adobe to produce one with as high a quality. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Nikon's programming prowess (although he seemed competent enough in "Hackers").
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It's about time. Corporate lobby groups instigated the DCMA to control market factors, such as competition. It's about time stupid corporate-whore laws like this start hurting corporations that try to use them to control competition.
And they will suffer. My fist thought when I read this was I'm not buying a camera that *can't* work with Photoshop. I mean, there will be plenty of other cameras of similar specs on the market that will work with PS. All Nikon has done is put it's own product at at disadvantage.
Way to go Nikon, you did it to yourself.
Hey, guess what? I have a Nikon film scanner too. I've also been screwed over by their lack of support for SCSI scanners under OS X. Fortunately Hamrick's VueScan gets around the problem, and does a better job than Nikon's software anyway. Check it out.
I also had a hellish experience with an APS loader for the scanner. My experience with Nikon's "support" has already ensured I'd never buy another Nikon product. However, I thought that was somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand...
So yeah, I'm a Canon guy now. Two Canon pocket digital cameras, a Canon camcorder, and a Canon flatbed scanner. Nikon can sit on a tripod and swivel.
Frankly, I'm not that impressed with Nikon's sub-$1000 digital cameras either. When I look at the images on dpreview and other sites, to my eyes the color fringeing is noticably worse than Canon. I think at this point Nikon are mostly surviving on vendor lock-in and their exaggerated reputation.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
The answer is, Adobe does not want to spend the money required when:
1. Attorneys receive and review cease and desist order
2. Attorneys respond to cease and desist order
3. Attorneys receive federal district court complaint
4. Attorneys answer federal district court complaint
5. Attorneys attend preliminary settlement conference and scheduling meeting
6. Etc.
In other words, it's easier to give a shrug and ignore a minor feature demanded by a minority of specialized customers than to pay somewhere between five and six figures to a group of attorneys to get the case to a point where a motion can be filed (the earlist thing you could possibly file to get rid of this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is typically filed after the answer to the complaint).
After all, you're charging your customers thousands of dollars for the privilege of using the "premiere" graphics software in existance, not to defend their ability to use it in the most effective way possible.
If you read the article carefully, Nikon didn't say a single word about this issue. Thomas Knoll of Adobe and Jeff Schewe, a paid Adobe Endorser and Canon! user, are on the attack.
Adobe, via Thomas Knoll, is saying he fears that DRMA might be applied if Adobe reverse engineers the Nikon raw file. Meanwhile Adobe was the company that in 2001 sued and had a student arrested after their Ebook was hacked by him and their encryption broken-talk about hypocrisy!
Interestingly, NO ONE has noticed that in order to get D2X support you have to either buy or upgrade to Adobe Photoshop CS2-a $630 or $150 proposition. The Nikon software is $99.
Adobe has reversed engineered Nikon files in the past. They don't use Nikon's SDK (available here at no charge: ) and have not used it in the past. Nikon has not sued them before-why would they even think of suing them now?
If you ask me, Adobe is trying to deflect attention away from their costly Photoshop!
I'd rather use the software designed for the file-in this case Nikon Capture....
In addition, many of the pro digital cameras capture in 12 bits per channel. GIMP is limited to 8bpc.
Frankly, that's the only reason I chose to use Photoshop anymore. If GIMP (not cinepaint or filmgimp or other ugly hacks) up and support more bits, I'll be back on the bandwagon.
Every comparison I've seen shows that dcraw (which is used by GIMP's rawphoto plugin) produces much better output than Capture One. It's true that GIMP isn't used much professionally, but stop giving bullshit reasons. People just don't like new things.
As a recent buyer of a D70 I have to say I absolutely regret my decision.
Here in NSW, Australia Nikon products are repaired by a company called Maxwell. 8 months after buying the camera I started to have what I believe was a shutter jam problem after about half an hour of moderate use. The problem would show up and occur more and more frequently until it was happening every 3rd shot. I do wildlife and particularly bird photography for fun and this made the camera unusable.
What kind of warranty support did I get? I sent the camera in 3 times. The first time they reset it and sent it back. The second time they said they couldn't find the fault, and sent it back. When I called to point out I could reproduce the problem within half an hour I got told to wait until the camera failed completely then send it in. The 3rd time I sent it in with a DVD of the problem occuring and asked to be kept informed of what happened. When I called in I was told they were waiting on parts which would be up to a couple of months to arrive.
In the end I threatened to complain to fair trading (state consumer complaints body), and finally had the retailer who were no more friendly pony up and replace my camera. It took over 3 months and lots of visits to the camera store to get the issue resolved (not to mention the time and trouble to make a DVD recording of what was happening) This is the short version of the story. I had a lot of rude and indifferent behaviour from both the retailer and repairer despite being polite at all times. I couldn't even find a customer complaints department at Nikon or Maxwell to complain to. Never again!
Only problem is I'm not so sure I like some of Canon's policies either. I just had a Canon multifunction die on me and since they consider print heads a replacement part it cost me AUD200 and took weeks to get that replaced since it had to be sent in for service. I also don't like the way Canon cripples their lower end cameras in software. So I'm not sure where I'll go for my next SLR. I'm just glad I only have 2 Nikon lenses, because I'm going to have to get rid of those on Ebay when this camera dies.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Nikon will lose zero dollars over this. If you are a professional photographer, you are not going to settle for something less just because Adobe won't support it. It is not like Nikon prevent you from getting to your shots. Nikon has their own tools to view and even convert the data. My brother-in-law is a pro-photographer (which lets me use some really great cameras even though I suck as a photographer ; ) ). He does use Photoshop and once I showed him the Gimp, he uses that as well for things that the Gimp excels at. However, to him the only thing that matter is the shot and not whether Photoshop supports it. He could care less about Adobe supporting his camera.
I think your comment falls more on the line of professional graphic artists, and certainly _not_ a photographer. I would like to know a real, professional photographer that would not use the best camera around just because Adobe doesn't want to license a format from Nikon.
Now, as an Open Source geek, I do think that all of this crap is silly. However, this is the nature of the beast when you live in the land of proprietary crap.
Exactly and you just countered your own post. People in the market for a $5,000 dollar camera are not going to worry about Adobe supporting the cameras format. Nikon supplies the tools to get to the shot which is all that matters to someone willing to spend $5k on a camera.If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
My better half was a Canon junkie and switched to Nikon because Nikon lenses are faster. The reason you see Canon at sporting events everywhere, particularly tennis, is because the top journalists are only allowed to use Canon equipment at a Canon sponsored event. In other words, Canon is Microsofting people by trying to create the perception that their competition is dying.
This is my sig.