Canon Files For DSLR Iris Registration Patent

An anonymous reader writes "Canon has filed for a patent for using iris watermarking (as in the iris of your eye) to take photographer's copyright protection to the next level. You set up the camera to capture an image of your eye through the viewfinder. Once captured, this biological reference is embedded as metadata into every photo you take. Canon claims this will help with copyright infringement of photos online."

Comments

uh

[legoman666]

remove the meta data?

Re:uh

[fonik]

I'm guessing they'll use some kind of watermarking. But, do you really want every photo you take to be unambiguously traced back to you? On one hand, photos you take can be traced back to you. On the other hand, the watermarking or metadata could probably be removed by a third party. It seems lose-lose for the camera owner.

Re:uh

[fredklein]

Um, you fail.

As a result of the foregoing, biological information indicative of a photographer need not be acquired every time an image is taken and, hence, processing executed by the imaging apparatus is not subjected to a load in terms of the sequence of photography.

Re:uh

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

It's different because in one case, the watermark is an optional feature added for the benefit of the user, and in the other case, it's forced mark that has been added without consideration for what it best to the user.

Explain to me how this is any different? One day it's an "option" in the high-end DSLR firmware. Next year it's turned on by default in the midrange. Couple years down the road, it'll be standard. Year after that, it'll be illegal not to ship a camera with the iris-based tracking system.

There is no real reason to think this is true. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people here are so paranoid that they think everyone is out to get them. If watermarks on printers were announced as a feature before they were ever put into production, do you think it would have been as successful? And how can this be forced onto people anyway? There is no way for the camera to tell if the photo of your iris is really yours or not to begin with. Don't you think there might be a reason for that? If Canon really wanted to track you, don't you think a more simple UID watermark generated on the camera would be the best way to do it?

But hey, mod me down, because by the rating you seem to be getting, there must be quite a few others wearing their tin-foil hats today.

I have great concern about privacy and the use of technology in general. I used to be an EFF member in sunnier days of higher income, but what I really can't stand are "advocates" who overreact to these types of things without even considering if it's really a problem.

Re:uh

[Jeppe Salvesen]

flickr would become one.

... whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[Mantaar]

And also help to track down that pesky journalist/blogger/dissident always posting images the government doesn't like? No, I'm not referring to any government in particular.

So we'll have journalist's contact lenses if those things become the DRM of digital photography?
Like with most advancements in modern electronics, this one does not go down my throat without a huge grain of salt.

Is it really watermarking if it's in the metadata?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds pretty easy to strip out after the fact. Or, for that matter, to add in. What makes this any better than adding your name or email address to the metadata, as most cameras allow you to do now?

Proving an image is yours generally isn't even a problem. Online images are lower resolution versions of the originals, only the photographer will be able to produce an image with many times the quality of the online version. The problem is a) finding out that your images are being used without your permission, and b) getting it to stop. Both of these are made much more difficult by the global nature of the Internet, and neither of them are made any easier by this iris watermarking, as far as I can tell.

typicalslashdotkneejerkreaction

[SuperBanana]

And also help to track down that pesky journalist/blogger/dissident always posting images the government doesn't like? No, I'm not referring to any government in particular.

They'd be storing a *representation* of the iris image data. Useless for matching. Watermarking the actual image is only mentioned very briefly and in passing, in a sort of "oh, and you could watermark the image with this" kind of way.

Given Canon's bread and butter with pro cameras are the press (your cute digital rebel costs $700; a 1DMk3 is $4k), they're unlikely to do anything that will piss them off.