Slashdot Mirror
Nikon Responds to Encryption Claims
ader writes "In a rare response to public complaints, Nikon has released a statement clarifying the use of encrypted white balance information in the NEF raw data from its digital cameras. They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application. In other words: open source coders can butt out."
An OS project coder could be a bona - fide developer - nothing says Nikon wouldn't provide one to an OS project.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
but, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this originally brought up on /. because of adobe not being able to access this?
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
You take a photograph, you think its yours, taken with a camera you bought, of a subject you chose, with all permissions sorted.
However you then find there's an extra little catch.
You can only access your picture with software that your camera maker has decided to approve.
You didn't agree to any of this, it didn't warn you on the box, nobody told you that the pictures are only your subject to some extra pre-conditions and you had reasonable expectation that the camera would not raise artificial obstacles to you getting at your picture.
And this situation is somehow supposed to be acceptable?
In other words: open source coders can butt out."
In other words, "Would all the tech-saavy people in the audience please discourage everyone they know from buying our products".
We geeks may not have the sort of numbers big companies specifically target, but we do have something they dream of having on their side - Our positive word of mouth when the vast majority of friends and relatives ask us for recommendations on buying a new product; in this case, a digital camera.
Guess which product line just got added to my "Whatever you do, do NOT buy this one" list?
Thanks for the help, Nikon, but we'd rather deal with whichever of your competitors actually wants geeks on their side.
Why are they doing the proprietary bit in the first place? Wouldn't they want their product to be as widely useable as possible?
Widely used by photographers and graphic artists, but not widely used by Kodak and other competing camera manufacturers.
"They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application."
Pardon me, but Fuck' Em with a spoon. They shouldn't receive the support of the open source community, nor should they receive the support of the non-Nikon software community. If they like the bed they're making, then we shouldn't deny them the long-term pleasure of lying in it.
So, somebody explain this to me. What am I missing here?
DMCA prevents the creation or distribution of a tool that defeats access control measures for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to protected content.
Or something like that.
The white balance information is part of the image data. It's unique to each photo. It's the data that's created when the photographer takes the photo.
The person who will be gain access via a white balance plugin is the person who has the raw image data--typically the photographer, unless he gives the file to someone else.
The photographer can hardly be accused of using such a tool to gain access outside of his rights.
Further, since the tool is freely available to any "bona fide software developer" for the asking, it can hardly be described as an access control measure.
In short, it's the photographer's freakin' creation. Who the hell is Nikon or anybody else to say what he can or cannot do what he produced?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I wonder what they will do with their NEF files in 20 years time when they are long obsolete and the software that converts them won't run on any modern hardware?
Why did Nikon actually go to extra effort to make their NEF output less useful?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
no, just in the USA
The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
How would the white-balance information people's digital photos qualify as Nikon-owned property?
AFAIK, the DMCA is there to protect copyright and data colateral to taking a photo should be technically owned by the camera's operator.
Nikon can own the patents or trade secrets behind how to use the data but the actual data's ownership/copyright should clearly belong to whoever took the snaps.
This is not too many steps away from Microsoft claiming it owns all code and software written or compiled using VisualStudio tools.
Yet, hacking your own (and purchased) X-Box is subjected to DMCA infringment?
As much as I and other readers hate to admit it, the DMCA protects proprietary properties that is "explicitly" locked down with security. In other words, it's one thing to reverse engineer, but it's quite another to "hack" encrypted security according to DMCA.
Life is not for the lazy.
Buying a professional CD player, like say a $3000 rig, then trying to hook it up to your professional digital to analogue converter. However, nothing comes out. You call the maker and they say "Oh the data isn't raw S/PDIF, it's a special proprietary format. You'll need to buy this $200 adapter to make it work."
I mean, when you pay the kind of money a professional camera costs, it's not too much to ask that the software be included at no extra charge. It's a very reasonable expectation that it ought to work out of box with Photoshop. Further I'd say it's reasonable to expect that the format be open. After all, you are paying for the hardware to allow you to capture pictures. How you process them afterwards is your own business.
It also ignores the fact that the SDK generates jpeg/tif from RAW. Which wouldn't be bad except the main reason to use Adobe ACR is to use THEIR raw image processing routines. Who wants to waste time decoding the file twice?
Finally, it ignores the fact that Nikon basically wants you to spend $5000 for a camera... and then pay an additional $100 to get their software to process your images.
Stop bashing Adobe and check a few facts. Nikon doesn't want people using ANY third-party image processing software.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
What planet do you live on? EVERY working pro I know has paid for his equipment. You may get a demo of a new camera, but after the demo period is over the camera goes back and you buy your own.
Besides, if you're a top tier professional (whom you seem to be ranting about) a $5,000 camera is pocket change, and a $25,000 MF digital back is not much more so.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
There exist no property or moral rights in this case.
None.
Whatsoever.
(Or are You talking about copy rights, patents or trademarks eventually ?)
Mundus Vult Decipi
A format is not "property". Does Nikon own the pictures I take with my camera? No? Then why the hell can't I read the white balance information in them?
My picture, my property. Ability to read my picture? Also belongs to me.
May not be the way it is right now, but it's the way it damn well should be.
Random and weird software I've written.
My nikon camera (I own a D100 and a coolpix 5700) is my property, not nikon. If I want to take a little bit of driver code that they provide it, and debug it, fix it to work on 64 bit, or just audit it for security, I should be able to do so.
I would expect to be able to give that to other people who also own nikon cameras, given that their camera is also their property. Note that this code is pretty much useless to people who own other cameras, and companys like Canon know enough about things like white balance that they don't give a rip about nikon's code.
Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, not writing device drivers. If the drivers were freely available, and people could write new and interesting software based on it, this would HELP them sell cameras, not HURT them. For the same reason, Nestle gives away the tollhouse cookie recipe - they are in the business of selling chocolate chips.
Nikon has both property and moral rights over their software.
But...do those "property and moral rights" extend to the photos that are taken by the person using the software? Does Nikon "own" the white-balance information of the picture taken by the photographer?
If so, Nikon is basically saying "Buy our camera and use it, but you don't own your pictures".
It'd be like (in film camera terms) buying Kodak film, taking pictures, an then Kodak telling you that you don't own the negative.
Speaking as a photographer who uses Nikon equipment, I find this very troubling. As far as connections with Adobe go, Nikon is shooting themselves in the foot if they don't release information. Nikon's digital camera sales would plummet if RAW format usage with photoshop had some important features cut out. But that much aside, I fail to understand Nikon's reasoning behind keeping their RAW data formats a big secret. i fail to see how it benefits them. But then, I fail to see a lot of things... *sigh*
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Hmm, the D30 I had focused just fine, as did my 10D and my current 20D. None of the front/back focus problems at all, even with a 300mm f/2.8 wide open.
As for the flash, yeah, Canon's flash system wasn't the best, and now you're flaming them for improving it?
You know, it really sucks that my Sun Ultra 5 workstation won't work with my USB mouse -- damn Sun for not including USB in the system before it was widely available.
Basically, your 10D precedes the new flash metering system in the 580EX -- it's not reasonable to expect older cameras to know about and use features of newer flashes.
Look, the DMCA prevents reverse engineering of encryption methods that are protecting copyrighted data. Thus, hacking the encryption on the firmware of the X-box is illegal (though it shouldn't be).
The white balance data in an image is copyrighted by YOU. That's right, it's your data. It comes from the environment or your settings or whatever. But the data is yours.
Nikon is trying to encrypt data that is copyright to you. The DMCA does not apply.
White balance data is essential to get correct images. All digital cameras have it, one way or the other. There is nothing special or unique about white balance data.
As I stated in another post, it would be like Nikon encrypting your JPEG files.
~X~
~X~
I would liken it more to the chemical processes used to develop the film.
Take for example the simpler black and white processing method, since I have enough experience with it to speak about it knowledgably. D76 is a well-documented (but not obvious) recipe of chemicals, but Kodak also sells it. What Nikon is doing would be analogous to Kodak saying you must use only Kodak's branded D76 with your Kodak film taken in your Kodak camera, and protecting the recipe for the D76 with some sort of crazy law (not a patent) that makes it illegal to try to reproduce that very simple chemical recipe to develop the used roll of film into useful negatives.
Computer-related laws rarely make any sense when applied to anything else.
A "process" is a patentable item. Patents expire.
A "software program" is a copyrightable item, as is an "artistic work" (read photographic image in this context). Copyright, thanks to the bizarre and troubling majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, effectively does not.
Now, the trouble with all of this is that I do not see where this is really creating much of a burden for photographers. Yes, Nikon can prevent its image capture software from being copied, but it cannot protect its encryption algorithms from duplication for any longer period than that prescribed by patent law. For a prime example of this idea in action, you may refer to the RSA encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms are "processes" (as are chemical development processes and recipes), and as such, ineligible for copyright protection.
So, unless the international community (or the US Government, in particular) decides to accord patents the same effectively permanent protections they have granted to copyrightable works, the encryption algorithms in use in Nikon's format will eventualy be free for all to use or deconstruct (which has, in fact, already happened).
The interesting thing in this particular case is that Nikon's algorithms are being used to potentially deny the creator of an artistic work the ability to dispose of that work as he sees fit, which we can all agree is a natural right. The case hinges upon the interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, whose wording includes the phrase "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Now, the clear intention of the DMCA was to block circumvention of a mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copies of a protected work, not to allow companies to arbitrarily deny a creator the ability to dispose of his own work as he sees fit--but the text of the law was written in such a fashion as to seeming allow such an action, unless you make an argument based upon subsection 1201.a.3:
Now we need to ascertain the meaning of "copyright owner" in this subsection. The copyright owner of the encryption software, or the copyright owner of the image so encrypted? Which "work" is pre-eminent? Arguments could be either way, although I believe that the copyright of the creator of the image is clearly superior.
Then of course, we need to examine the effect of 1201.a.3.b on existing patent law. How can the DMCA be effective if the "technological measure" relys upon the "application of...a process or a treatment" which has clearly fallen into the public domain? Curiouser and curiouser...
I am a Nikon user. Professionally, I have used nothing but Nikon cameras. I may not continue to do so as a result of Nikon's actions described here.
Yes, the photographer will retain the right to use equipment other than Nikon's. However, the selection of Nikon equipment by a photographer does not give Nippon Kogaku the right to deny me the ability to dispose of my images created with their equipment as I see fit.
Actually, the software contained by the camera cannot be disassociated from the intended and actual function of the camera. As a result, it is difficult to justify the legitimacy of any associated software license that may restrict my ability to use the camera in its normal function, an idea which is clearly opposed to the doctrine of "first sale".
There's no way 80 percent of pro photographers use Nikon. With the current dismal crop of D2s they've released, photographers are dropping Nikon and moving to Canon as fast as they can afford it. I work for a major newspaper chain, and every paper is looking to find a way to switch to Canon. Why? The newer Nikon cameras have a reddish cast, and lots of noise in the shadow areas. If you want quality, use Canon, or better yet, stay with film.
Nikon is increasingly lagging behind Canon in terms of innovation. Just look at their respective current DSLR offerings, and Canon's stuff is better by any technical definition. Nikon's newest DSLR offerings are marginal improvements and little evidence of real innovation.
I see this as a clear indication that Nikon is top-heavy and full of staunch conservative bureaucrats unable to move with the times. Management sits in a high castle out of touch. The badly translated but clearly terse verbiage used in this press release further demonstrates Nikon management's mode of thinking sounding similar to what IBM's board was capable of in the 1970s.
The very notion of "bona fide" software developers is pretty ugly and necessarily implies that some software developers aren't good enough to be working with Nikon. While I'm not particularly worried about open source in this regard - although unlikely, Nikon could just make binary libraries and not share their proprietary algorithms.
No, my concern is that "non bona fide" developers likely include independent raw CCD photo processing software vendors like those making Bibble, Pixmantec Raw Shooter Essentials, D1SLR and other similar software packages. These applications are designed to decode the raw CCD data from digital cameras using algorithms and color science developed by their respective vendors independently of Nikon. With varied results, but in many cases producing better or at least equal results to Nikon's very expensive Nikon Capture software which is particularly awful in terms of workflow and cost.
Nikon Capture feels similar to Sony's proprietary software in terms of stability and design clarity. These japanese giants produce an incredibly poor grade of consumer software, light years behind the technical quality of their hardware and so obviously I'm interested in having 3rd party software support for their very good hardware.
The "official" Nikon mesage is that these measures exist to protect the quality of the decoded images. That's very nice of them. But the pictures belongs to the photographers and photographers should be free to choose the software they wish to use for processing those images even if that means the colors are decoded differently from what Nikon's own best lab technicians have come up with.
Just as an example, CaptureOne is one Nikon compatible application - it does a superior job of handling moire CCD color noise on Nikon D1x, far surpassing Nikon Capture. Bibble handles colors on Nikon D1 subjectively better than Nikon Capture. Locking out these competing products is simply an awful measure that will not benefit consumers at all.
There can be only one explanation for Nikon's decision, and that is to produce more orders for Nikon Capture and license revenues from libraries included in commercial products from vendors choosing to use Nikon's official way of doing things. That's purely selfish of Nikonand serves consumers interest in no way!
I don't know how those libraries work, but from this press release I'd at least assume that they essentially output RGB data processed the Nikon Way, so you'd have pretty much the same result as using Nikon Capture, even if the library is embedded in a different program. That just means you won't be getting a second opinion and photographers using Nikon hardware won't be enjoying much creative freedom.