USPTO Approves Amazon Patent For Taking Pictures

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Patent Office granted Amazon a patent in March that basically describes taking a picture with a white background. Amazon claims that their method is unique to current photography methods because they can achieve the effect of a true white background without retouching the photo or using any sort of post-processing technique. Some professional photographers disagree, claiming that plenty of prior art exists embodying Amazon's described method and furthermore that this pre-existing method is what the photography industry calls 'shooting against a seamless white backdrop.'"

Comments

Our patent system is totally broken

[Trailer Trash]

Seriously. Did the examiner on this even consider asking anyone who knows anything about photography? I'm not a photographer but I've had my picture taken for "promotional" reasons and already knew about this. I've even created a similar setup here when posting stuff online.

Took me 10 seconds to find this page:

http://www.raydobbins.com/phot...

What, exactly, are they trying to "patent" and why does this examiner still have a job? It's obvious that we need to have crowdsourcing prior art as an official part of the patent process.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[SuperTechnoNerd]

This is definitely an example of an examiner failing in their public duty.

They are doing their duty. They are making sure that large corps are making plenty of profit, thereby strengthening our economy! Win win for all!

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[ljw1004]

Seriously. Did the examiner on this even consider asking anyone who knows anything about photography? I'm not a photographer but I've had my picture taken for "promotional" reasons and already knew about this. I've even created a similar setup here when posting stuff online. Took me 10 seconds to find this page: http://www.raydobbins.com/phot... What, exactly, are they trying to "patent" and why does this examiner still have a job? It's obvious that we need to have crowdsourcing prior art as an official part of the patent process.

"What exactly are they trying to patent?" -- it says so right there in the first claim, and it's stupid that you spent more time looking up prior art of what you *ASSUMED* the patent was about, rather than actually reading the patent.

They patented the combination of a white cyclorama background, with the object on an elevated platform, the combination of four rear light sources in a particular geometry behind the elevated platform, and some technical tricks to make the elevated platform be imperceptible.

I sincerely doubt that your promotional picture was taken on an elevated platform with four lights behind you and some looking down onto the platform. The website you linked was nothing like what the patent is doing either.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[ColdWetDog]

Exactly this. You can, however, achieve exactly the same effect by dozens of minor variations on the theme. 72 mm lens, slower iso (really, 320, WTF?), differing positioning of lights, etc.

While it hardly seems novel or non obvious, it's also so narrow as to be essentially useless.

Color me confused. Or maybe it's just a black and white issue.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[thedonger]

I don't care if no one in history prior to know has taken a photo of someone with a white sheet behind them. Is that really worthy of a patent?

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[ljw1004]

Claims 2 and 25 aren't that specific...

It's a kind of patent-drafter's game, mixing specific claims (like claim 1) and general claims (2, 25) and then making progressively narrower claims from the general ones (3 -- 24). They do this to cover their bases, to make it more likely to have the patent granted, and to help them have something they can fight in court.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[AK Marc]

Great, but in practice, someone who does the same (and has done for 100 years) will be sued 5 years from now, though their setup doesn't include the elevated platform.

So it wasn't "prior art" because it didn't have the elevated platform, but is actionable because it's close enough to be infringing.

There's nothing wrong with patents. There's just something wrong with obvious ones. White cycloramas are common. Elevated platforms is common. Multiple light sources is common. Geometry is common. If they are patenting that *exact* combination of those common and non-novel devices, then they should also be banned from going after the guy doing the same thing with 6 lights, or any other geometry.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother is a patent examiner. When he uncovers something that invalidates a patent application (and he's hard pressed for time. The patent office is over worked, understaffed, and runs on quotas) he's supposed to help the company reword the patent to make it acceptable. Almost no patents are simply rejected. The examiners and companies tweak each patent until it fits.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[suutar]

Where's my "depressing but informative" mod option when I need it?

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[DRJlaw]

There should be an easy and open mechanism for objections. The process as it stands is broken and very obscure.

Translation: It should take no knowlege, cost nothing, and preferably involve some charitable group that carries out my wants, unbidden, before I've even appreciated that I have them. Just like in everything else in life.

Rebuttal:

Citation of prior art and written statements

"Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing... prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent... [and] If the person citing prior art or written statements... explains in writing the pertinence and manner of applying the prior art or written statements to at least 1 claim of the patent, the citation of the prior art or written statements and the explanation thereof shall become a part of the official file of the patent."

That seems easy, open, to cost nothing (but time and a stamp), and not particularly obscure. But then, if you can't be bothered to Google how to submit prior art and then read one of the top 5 links, everything is obscure.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[Khyber]

"Maybe you should at least skim through all the patent claims before saying it's just a camera in front of a white sheet."

As a photographer (and someone that build light boxes) it's a fucking light box with a light BEHIND and AROUND it.

Which I've been building and selling for over a decade. In fact I'm making one for one of my forum admins right now.

Perhaps you should be a photographer before you open your mouth, eh?

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Frobnicator]

Actually, Amazon claims it was for defensive purposes only.

They noticed that there was very little prior art and they used the process for a huge number of photos on their site. Amazon claims they were concerned that a patent troll would get a patent and then sue Amazon.

In some ways that is a good thing. If their patent was denied for prior art, then it means the patent system (or at least one clerk) understood that there was prior art, and Amazon could have said "We tried to patent it, USPTO denied it, so the troll's patent is invalid."

Instead, since the patent came through, it means the USPTO could have just as easily given the patent to a troll, so it was a hopefully correct action to prevent them from fighting a patent battle later.

Time will tell, but considering the nature of how Amazon has been using its patents, this is probably fairly safe.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[kegon]

Actually, Amazon claims it was for defensive purposes only.

In that case they only had to publish a blog post to generate prior art. And it would have been a lot cheaper. Or are you suggesting that Amazon don't know how patents work ?

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[molnarcs]

I'm a pro photographer (mostly portraiture and travel) and I'm doing product photography on the side - just basic products, nothing fancy. What Amazon claims is complete bullshit. They imply that white background product photos need retouching to make the background completely white. This is definitely not the case. Even with the simple setup I have for products (completely DIY setup - a cardboard box, a white roll of paper clipped to the a piece of plastic) I can get completely white background in camera without any retouching. Most cameras have a playback screen that shows white clipping - blown out highlights flashing in red indicating areas completely white. I play around with my lights (2 lights plus reflectors) until I get everything blinking except the product I'm shooting. Been doing this for years. With a proper plexiglass shooting table, this is s cinch. And let's not forget those $25 shooting tents that are designed precisely for this, and allows even amateurs to do it easily (well, with some practice in light placement and power levels).

for the love of god

[log0n]

Is it going to take violence to get things fixed?

Seriously. The only thing that's going to accomplish anything anymore is outright violence. Maybe then 'the people who need to know' (whoever they are) will start taking notice at the bullshit that's going on in our patent system (hell, any dysfunctional system). Talk doesn't work. Diplomacy doesn't work. The democratic process no longer works. Peaceful protest doesn't work. What else is there? These patents are directly attacking damn near everyone in commercial and professional photography. And when a bullshit patent is used to attack a person's livelihood or their means of supporting their family or their passion, and the result can leave them destitute, how is that any different than a violent attack against that person?

Patenting something like this with this much prior art (fuck photography, anyone who has ever applied 3 point lighting and used the plain white background in 3d studio project preferences has prior art) is outright bullshit.

Re:Hmmm... I did this for Christmas pictures at ho

[BigSlowTarget]

I'm sure you could mail your payment to Amazon or possibly use a credit card but don't use a 1-click system or other charges may apply.

Slashdot troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The formula for trolling slashdot is simple.

1) Find a recent patent given to a big company
2) Dumb down the claims to the point of being trivial and nearly unrelated to the actual legal bounds of the patent
3) Sit back and enjoy the endless stream of people claiming prior art exists while:
      c) not actually pointing out anything specific
      b) the prior art is comically NOT prior art

Please, let's not feed the trolls by following this formula.