Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nikon Responds to Encryption Claims

Posted by Zonk on from the thanks-for-your-interest-but-please-leave dept.

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."

7 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Bona - fide by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Widely used by photographers, but not Kodak by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. IANAL,... by karlandtanya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Illegal under the DMCA by rookworm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Nikon could have that entire project shut down for violating the DMCA

    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
  5. Completely deranged? by Cecil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Completely deranged? by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So basically you're saying that its totally ok with you if I went around and put padlocks on all your stuff and you wouldn't cut them off because, hey, its my lock, my property, and you wouldn't want to go around "abolishing a whole class of property rights" now would you?

      Just to sweeten the deal, I'll even give the key for free to any "bona fide locksmiths" who ask!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  6. Re:not that it matters... Windows DLL? by Genom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.