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."

Comments

DMCA prevents Nikon from making money...

[garcia]

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.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money...

[cubase_dag]

I'm a professional Photographer, and I recently purchased a D2H, and wheter or not nikons raw format .NEF, is fully supported, I would still Buy Nikon. Because All of my lenses are Nikon. And What This article is forgetting is that Nikon Has A plugin that does the same thing as the adobe plugin. And Its FREE.

What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted. Canon Is no different. The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money...

[doublem]

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.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money...

[Jurph]

Most of us find it Easier to Read sentences that don't Have random Words capitalized in them. I personally Don't Give a rat's Butt, but then I'm Funny Like that.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money...

[dgatwood]

Well, this looks like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Adobe likes the DMCA and even abuses it to protect ROT-13, but suddenly it "prevents" them from serving their customers and they're up in arms.

Of course, it really doesn't, since everyone knows the DMCA only applies to encryption intended to protect copyrighted works, and color calibration data is just information that does not represent a creative work, therefore it can't be copyrighted.

Moreover, even if you did consider that tiny portion of a photo to be a creative work, it is a creative work in which one can assume that the person opening the file is the person who took the photo, or at least working for the same company.

Finally, the encryption isn't being explicitly added by the content producer (the photographer), which therefore means that it falls outside the DMCA by definition.

So... it sounds like Adobe suddenly did an about-face and decided the DMCA is evil for reasons other than saving their backsides. Either that or (more likely) they have a bone to pick with Nikon over something else and they're using this as leverage. That would be my guess....

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money...

[pijokela]

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.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an "intellectual property" lawyer. That being said, the lawyers working for Adobe are going to be ultraconservative in an attempt to protect Adobe's interests. Thus, my answer and Adobe's answer will differ. Mine is, of course, the correct answer.

I can't explain it. It's not.

Copyright does not protect "functional" aspects of a written work. For example, you cannot copyright an accounting form, even if you can show that you have discovered a totally unique method of laying out the form that makes it twice as easy to check the calculations in half the time. Similarly, the white balance information is functional. Furthermore, the white balance information is functional in a way that has nothing to do with access control. Ipso facto, the white balance information cannot be protected as part of a copyrighted work.

Also, sec 1201(a)(3) clearly states:

As used in this subsection -

(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Nikon does not have a copyright in the white balance information. Nikon does not have a copyright in an image taken by the camera. Nikon does have a copyright in the firmware of the camera and in whatever software they distribute that reads this encrypted information.

Are you accessing the firmware in the camera when you manipulate these images? No. Are you accessing the Nikon software when you manipulate these images? Presumably, no -- I assume Adobe broke this encryption without using the Nikon software --.

Therefore, you are the copyright owner, and you implicitly grant authority to Adobe to access your Nikon-photographed image data, such that THIS IS NOT A DMCA VIOLATION as a matter of black letter statutory law.

Thank you... thank you very much.

Putting things into perspective

[rsborg]

So I wonder if Adobe feels there's a lesson to be learned here... In other news, Dmitry chuckles softly.

Good Grief!

[CaptainZapp]

Can someone in this fine, family type forum please assure me that I'm not in the Twilight Zone?

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!

The correct solution...

[turgid]

...is, of course, for Adobe to license the decryption algorithm from Nikon.

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.

This is getting ridiculous

[WD_40]

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?

Re:encrypted?

[stilwebm]

The term "raw" refers to the fact that the data is straight off of the camera sensor. The encrypted data contains the white balance settings that tell a program how to interperate the single color pixel information to interpolate it in to an RGB (or possibly CYMK) image.

FUCK THEM

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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.

LOL

[Kaa]

Dilbert is a reality show.

" -- Hmm... I know! Let's radically decrease the usefulness of our flagship camera by making it incompatible with the program that probably 90+% of professionals use!

-- Yes, great idea! And if they try to go around it, we'll sue them under DMCA!"

Re:The correct solution...but to which problem?

[Dark Paladin]

I believe the parent poster was using a bit of sarcasm.

When Adobe used the DCMA to go after Russian programmers (a move they rescinded and let the FBI do for them), the DCMA was a great and wonderful thing.

Now, Adobe's learning what a poison pill the DCMA really is. Will this cut short their support for such a law, or next time make them fight such onerous challenges to reasonable copyright as set out by the founders of the United States?

Anyway, that's what I think the poster was talking about.

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.

The best thing is for Nikon to realize their heads are up their asses, remove this stupid encryption algorithm, and for both sides to state publicly that the DCMA is a bad, bad, bad law and they will never give money to any politician who supports it.

Yeah. And monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.

Nikon has its own RAW plugin for Photoshop

[technoviper]

As a professional photographer, i frankly prefer Nikons own RAW filter, its definately better at processing RAW files than Adobes. i had never assumed that the DMCA had anything to do with the RAW processing, as most camera manufacturers have thir own proprietary RAW formats. In the print/prepress world proprietary software and hardware is the norm, not the exception. Having to spend money on an inexpensive plugin is hardly a major inconvenience. (Not to mention that i got the software bundled with my camera)

Agreed...

[Chordonblue]

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'.

Actually...

[J Barnes]

Once you're getting into the "pro" bracket of digital photo investment, serious users are much more inclined to use secondary software solutions that work with photoshop...regardless of cost. While photoshop edits great images and most photoprinters put out some fantastic pictures, serious digital image makers regularly use printer RIPs that cost more then the actual printer.

Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.

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.

Re:Isn't it in Nikon's best interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what probably happened here:

Dear Adobe,
Please be advised that some aspects of our new RAW file format will be stored in an encrypted format. If you wish to support our new format, we are happy to license the decryption mechanism to you for $5 for every copy of Photoshop you sell or that you upgrade to allow to process our format. Please note that, under the terms of the DCMA, you are required to license our technology if you wish to support the thousands of Nikon customers in your customer base. We hope you agree that this is a small price to pay to continue to support our cameras.

Sincerely,
Nikon.

Dear Nikon,
Fuck you.

Sincerely,
Adobe.

This is DRM on Your Photographs

[SteveM]

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

Re:License Bingo!

[mpapet]

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.

Dmitri must be enjoying the hell out of this

[Glamdrlng]

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.

Here's why it's an issue

[metamatic]

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.

Re:Here's why it's an issue

[wandernotlost]

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?

And don't think this is some far-fetched scenario. I bought their LS-2000 film scanner a bunch of years ago, with a 50 slide batch feeder. It was an awesome piece of hardware, but the software always sucked. You couldn't use the batch feeder particularly usefully, because the software wouldn't allow you to do an autoexposure operation before each scan, the way you could when scanning negs or individual slides. (Yes, you had to expose the WHOLE set of slides at the same exposure. Mind-boggling.) I had to write a ridiculous AppleScript to simulate mouse clicks in particular locations to get it to work.

Anyway, that's not my point. The LS-2000 was connected to the computer via SCSI. About a year or two after I bought it, Nikon came out with the newer line of scanners that used FireWire or USB instead of SCSI. Almost immediately after that, they stopped supporting SCSI scanners in the new versions of their software. And THEN they fixed the software so that you could do the autoexposure operation before each scan.

So I got stuck with a scanner that could never perform it's main function well and that's no longer supported by their proprietary software. And now they want to tell me that they're going to encrypt the files coming out of their digital cameras? It's hard enough to get good information out of the NEF files coming out of my D70 as it is without using their slow, shoddy software. If you're not locked in by lens purchases, DON'T BUY from a company that's so hostile to its customers as this!

I'm so fed up with Nikon I'm about ready to sell all my lenses and cameras and film scanner and move to Canon entirely. Their approach to technology is so unbelievably inept it makes me sick. My only hope is that a company as large and public as Adobe can turn around Nikon's attitude by making people more aware of stupid policies like this.

Re:encrypted?

[mindstrm]

Breaking encryption is not a DMCA violation.

Breaking encryption that controls access to a copyrighted work is what is against the DMCA.

Unless nikon is claiming copyright protection on their white balance information, it woudln't have much of a chance of winning (and it's hardly an original or creative work)

Doubly Agreed...

[Solandri]

This is a boneheaded decision by Nikon, but they are famous for such things. They make fantastic products, but the management has always been retarded.

I've got a Nikon Coolscan slide scanner. It's a wonderful unit that does excellent high-quality scans.

One day I brought it into work to scan some work-related slides. Since I use Vuescan instead of the Nikon software, I just needed the drivers. The original CDs were in a box somewhere from a recent move so I figured I'd just download the drivers off their web site and I'd be good to go.

Simple, right? Nope. I visited their web site and found they don't offer drivers. What modern peripherals company does not offer drivers online? Instead I had to register, provide proof that I owned the NikonScan software, and download an upgrade to it. Half an hour later I found out the upgrade wouldn't install without the original being present. If it won't install without the original present, why did I have to provide proof that I owned the original? Furthermore, it was packaged in such a way that you couldn't extract just the drivers.

I ended up going to some third party website which required I register, give a working email address, and opt out of a ton of mailing lists. 10kB and a virus scan later, I had the drivers installed.

Clue for Nikon: If someone wants drivers for your hardware, it's reasonable to assume they have the physical hardware present, which means they probably already paid for it. You don't have to make them jump through hoops with the original bundled CDs just to download hardware drivers.