Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the see-this-is-a-good-law dept.

Encryption 656

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."

cancel ×

656 comments

DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283159)

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.

Exactly... (3, Informative)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283194)

...but from what I understand, a large majority of hardcore professional photographers use Canon equipment anyway and Canon's RAW format is supported by Photoshop, The Gimp and likely other photo editing software as well.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (4, Insightful)

dmolavi (822749) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283340)

I wonder how much this will hurt Nikon. Of the professional photographers I know, they're split 50/50 between Nikon and Canon. All of them use Photoshop. None of them read /. , so I hope that Nikon makes this little crippleware feature glaringly obvious on their packaging, as I'd hate to see photographers get burned by this.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (2, Interesting)

ShaniaTwain (197446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283387)

Which would be fine if Nikon Capture was any good. I've been very dissapointed with the direction they've been going for the last few releases.. You have to hop through more and more windows and dialog boxes to get even simple things done, never mind that it doesnt have any strong retouching/editing tools.

the only thing I use Nikon Capture for anymore is to control the camera to take shots, and even that has gotten less straight forward starting with Nikon Capture 3.

I agree - this is a bad move for Nikon, not Adobe.

Agreed... (5, Insightful)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283398)

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'.

Probably no other option (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283400)

More likely they will use the Nikon software for dealing with RAW. It is amazing. As for people interested in buying the D2X/H cameras, shopping around probably isn't an option. These are system cameras. If a photographer is at the point where they need this level of camera, they probably already have an assortment of Nikon lenses and speedlights. Buying a Canon D2s MkII, which is probably the better camera (I haven't seen much on the Nikon) isn't an option. They are in the same price range for the body, but a Nikon user would have to spend several thousand dollars more for the Canon because the accessories are not compatible.

Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (5, Insightful)

cubase_dag (827101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283405)

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.

encrypted? (3, Insightful)

MankyD (567984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283160)

Why is it encrypted in the first place? That doesn't sound very much like raw data to me.

Re:encrypted? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283195)


You clearly don't understand what "raw data" means in this context, so please shut your gaping pie hole and let the adults talk.

Re:encrypted? (1)

MankyD (567984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283231)

Believe it or not, I do know what "raw" means. I know encrypting it doesn't technically change the fat that it's raw data. I guess I was just trying to be dramatic. Evidently it worked.

Thanks for the flame.

Re:encrypted? (5, Informative)

stilwebm (129567) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283202)

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.

Re:encrypted? (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283210)

RTFA, would you?

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.

It's obvious that they have their own tool that they want you to own in order to decrypt that data.

Re:encrypted? (2, Insightful)

MankyD (567984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283264)

I did read the article. I guess I'm just dissappointed.

Re:encrypted? (1)

metatruk (315048) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283226)

It's raw in the sense that this is the "raw" data from the CCD sensor in the camera. Normally, a digital camera does color correction and other preprocessing on an image before it saves it to its memory.

Re:encrypted? (0)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283367)

If you spend a million dollars developing a chip to do X, would you give the specs of the chip away or encrypt it's output?

License (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283163)

So why not license it from Nikon?

Re:License (2, Insightful)

Scuff (59882) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283243)

From my understanding, the format is only used in a very limited amount of very high end cameras, and appealing to the niche market that would be using this probably isn't worth the licensing fees, more so if you consider that it seems more likely to result in lost sales for Nikon than it would for Adobe.

Re:License (4, Insightful)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283355)

So why not license it from Nikon?

Because it always makes my hemerroids itch, when a manufacturer demands a toll in order for me to access my data.

I hope this helps.

Re:License (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283360)

There are likely to be many good answers but from where I sit, I think the issue is not only a financial burden for Adobe, but something of a moral/ethical problem as well.

While someone in the past had explained in this very forum why RAW format is important (essentially minimizing detail loss due to JPEG's methods) I think it's a very short-sighted move on Nikon's part and it should be answered with "we don't need you Nikon!"

What goes around... (2, Insightful)

stilwebm (129567) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283164)

...comes around.

Re:What goes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283219)

"What goes around......comes around."

Yeah because if Adobe hadn't gotten involved with Skylarov, Nikon wouldn't be filing this suit now.

Re:What goes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283254)

Nikon isn't filing any suit, RTMA man.

Re:What goes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283356)

what suit dumbass? There is no suit you fucking retard, are you stupid?

Putting things into perspective (5, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283167)

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

Re:Putting things into perspective (1)

Catskul (323619) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283307)

Nelson: Ha ha!

Re:Putting things into perspective (3, Insightful)

Kaa (21510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283333)

So I wonder if Adobe feels there's a lesson to be learned here...

Unfortunately, it's not Adobe who'll be suffering. This is a pure case of Nikon shooting themselves in the foot. With a bazooka, might I add...

Re:Putting things into perspective (2, Interesting)

ultima (3696) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283348)

Think about it from another perspective:

Adobe is using this to reinforce their stance on the issue; whereas the black hat Skylarov could break the encryption, did so, and released it (illegally according to US law), Adobe takes the white hat stance, saying they *could* break and release the encryption, but do not because it is wrong. This decision merely supports their previous stance -- that violating the DMCA is wrong.

It's not ironic that Adobe refuses to commit the same crime that was committed against them -- it's reaffirming of their principles.

Re:Putting things into perspective (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283451)

The difference is, if Adobe does make a plugin to bypass the encryption, no one on their staff is going to jail.

Good Grief! (5, Insightful)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283169)

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!

Re:Good Grief! (2, Funny)

Kaa (21510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283357)

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

Yes, I can assure you that you are not in the Twilight Zone.

You're in a Dilbert cartoon :-)

Re:Good Grief! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283370)

...prevent direct access to crucial parts of the raw data of my images?

See that is where you are going wrong, they aren't your images, they are Nikons. You only have a license to use the images that you take of things.

Well I can't buy a Nikon now... (1)

Nijika (525558) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283172)

Not like I was going to. I can't be happier with Canon's like of digital photography produts (I've been eyeballing a Rebel for months).

Re:Well I can't buy a Nikon now... (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283452)

Canon's good, I agree but their lens library sucks. There isn't a better camera with the extensive amount of lenses that Nikon has.

If you want a special lens, it will be available for a Nikon camera. For a hobbyist, that's key.

That was my dilemma 10 years deciding on what camera to get between Nikon / Canon / Minolta. Each were equally good as far as taking pictures, Canon had better electronics, Nikon had the more extensive and affordable lens arsenal.

hmmm (1)

mangus_angus (873781) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283177)

perhaps a "accidental" patch leak or something?

Hmmm (1)

killproc (518431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283182)

So I guess that rules out taking pictures of currency and then processing it. When will the maddness end?

Skylarov should laugh now (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283184)

Irony [slashdot.org] . How sad it is that nobody at Adobe is going to actually spend any time in jail over this. (Which "this"? I mean, either hacking the camera, because they're not going to do it, or over accusing someone of DMCA violations for producing a perfectly legal application in their home country.)

Adobe: this is another fine mess you've gotten yourself into.

The correct solution... (5, Insightful)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283185)

...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.

Re:The correct solution... (3, Insightful)

RaboKrabekian (461040) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283227)

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

Exactly. Or choose not to support the camera. I can't imagine Nikon not trying to get Photoshop support to be rock solid, but that's their choice.

Re:The correct solution... (1)

BlacBaron (875559) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283262)

I got the impression from the article that Nikon weren't interested in licensing the decryption algorithm

Anticompetitive practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283266)

Perhaps it is intended that company A is *SUPPOSE* to license the decryption algorithm from company B. But now suppose we push that even further and say that company A instead enter an EXCLUSIVE licensing agreement with company B such that no other company can ever LEGALLY support decryption algorithm created by company B?

In this case, let's say that Adobe has a thing out for (insert your favorite non-adobe image manipulation software company) and enters into an exclusive agreement with Nikon?

The correct solution...but to which problem? (4, Insightful)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283270)

There's a difference in principle between encryption to protect content owned by the corporation and encryption simply created to extract money from third-party vendors.

If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?

Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?

Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (5, Insightful)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283329)

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.

Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283456)

Now, Adobe's learning what a poison pill the DCMA really is.
No, Adobe knows full well that the camera manufacture has no copyright interest in the data produced by the camera. You can argue about whether the data is an objective fact about the photograph (not copyrightable) or a creation of the photographer (copyrightable), but either way it is not an original creative work of a Nikon employee or contractor.

Adobe is using the DMCA exactly like they did before: grandstanding to push people around. In this case they're punishing Nikon with bad publicity for making their jobs harder.

Or simply ask? (1)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283289)

It does seam stupid that Nikon is encrypting that data. Following the links, I can't find Nikon's stated reason for doing that.
Adobe is a big player in the photo and document arena and it would be resonable to assume that Nikon's customer base is using Adobe's products. Therefore, it would kind of stupid of Nikon to piss them off.
If I were Adobe, I would contact Nikon and just ask "What's the deal? How about giving us the alogrithm." and state exactly why it's in Nikon's best interest to do just that - give the alogrithm to them.

Re:The correct solution... (1)

parasonic (699907) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283310)

Should PNG be licensed as well? Your "solution" implies that we should pay a license fee for every type of file format that we use. And this is just RAW data. Something around 25MB for 5 megapixels, and they didn't compress it to any extent. When I pay for a camera, I should be able to use it to its fullest extent with no strings attached. It's like having to take your car in to the dealer to get your odometer checked.

Re:The correct solution... (1)

MoralHazard (447833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283339)

Not exactly. Assuming that Nikon actually owns the rights to the algorithm that they're using for the encryption (they might not, instead using someone else's or a public domain algorithm), licensing it doesn't get Adobe anywhere. The DMCA doesn't say you're not allowed to use an algorithm, it says you're not allowed to actually decrypt the data.

I think you meant that Adobe should get an agreement with Nikon that they're allowed to build and sell the decryption software, and that Adobe's customers are allowed to use it on their photos. That's not a licensing agreement, exactly... I don't know what you'd call it.

Re:The correct solution... (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283343)

And the GIMP, and Quark, and ... etc.

This is getting ridiculous (5, Insightful)

WD_40 (156877) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283189)

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:This is getting ridiculous (4, Insightful)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283292)

Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?

How about by buying a Canon camera?

Re:This is getting ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283391)

Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?

Vote the bastards out of office.

Re:This is getting ridiculous (1)

thebdj (768618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283414)

overthrow the government?

*gets dragged away by men in black suits*

Re:This is getting ridiculous (4, Insightful)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283432)

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.

Bullshite. They knew exactly what the law would be used for and by whom. This law was drafted for the sole purpose of kissing the collective asses of big business.

The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.

Which is why they just keep writing new laws to do the same thing as older laws ( just adding new "technologies" ) rather than changing the old laws to be more technology neutral.

Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?

We can't. In general, we don't have enough clout to get the politicians to even listen to us, let alone to get them to actually hear us.

Re:This is getting ridiculous (2, Interesting)

bitmason (191759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283449)

> 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.

And it's made worse by the fact that we don't even REALLY know what the effects of the DMCA are. The headline implies that the DMCA is preventing Adobe from supporting Nikon's format. In fact, Adobe is saying that it doesn't really know whether it would be a DMCA violation or not. But it doesn't want to chance it.

To be sure, a lot of things in copyright law, such as fair use, are often ambiguous and dependent on how the specific facts of a specific case get interpreted. However, the DMCA provisions around decryption aren't even resolved at the level of "fair use". (i.e. fair use in a given case may not be clear, but the factors that are weighed to determine whether there's a violation or not are at least understood.)

Re:This is getting ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283450)

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.

Maybe the drafters didn't but I firmly believe the authors (i.e. corporate copywrite holders) had exactly this in mind...

What's good for the Goose (2, Interesting)

fwr (69372) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283199)

If I recall, wasn't Adobe responsible for some DMCA silliness a while back? Seems that things have come around and bit them. Be wary of what you wish for...

Decrypt it? Nikon are probably using ROT13 :-) (1)

weeble (50918) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283206)

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=857/byt20010816s00 03/0820_pournelle.html

They did not like it when Sklyarov did it :-)

FUCK THEM (5, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283207)

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.

Re:FUCK THEM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283304)

"They only threw him in the can when he entered the US."

They couldn't do it without the help of a crummy law.

"So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all."

You're angry at the wrong entity.

Re:F*** THEM (1)

lpp (115405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283311)

Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think it will be Nikon that loses here. Photoshop is the digital photo processing tool for professionals, bar none. On the other hand, there are many top notch digital cameras to be had. You will probably find more pros opting not to go with Nikon rather than avoiding Photoshop.

In other words, Adobe isn't likely to come out of this the loser.

Re:FUCK THEM (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283375)

"So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all."

This isn't karma, it's a stupid fucking law! No DMCA? No Skylarov case. No DMCA? No prevention of Photoshop support.

It's fun to hate companies that use the DMCA and all, but you're hate is misdirected.

A high end digital camera without Photoshop? (2, Interesting)

intmainvoid (109559) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283208)

Surely Nikon aren't going to sue, they can't possibly expect to sell their top of the line camera if it's not fully supported by photoshop.

Isn't it in Nikon's best interests (3, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283225)

to allow Adobe to decrypt the white balance information? This is a very high-end camera, one that many of its users will by to shoot in raw mode. If the #1 tool for post-processing (PS) isn't going to do the job, that will cut into camera sales, will it not?

foolish? (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283229)

I would think maybe Adobe could send an email or something to Nikon and work this out. If I were a digital camera manufacturer, I think I'd take the call if the people in charge of Photoshop wanted to talk.

Nikon is run by a bunch of idiots for letting this happen. Amazing.

Re:foolish? (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283328)

um, how foolish you are :) This story *IS* that email to nikon :) And by email you are free to assume "shot across the bow"

Re:foolish? (3, Insightful)

spicyjeff (6305) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283381)

Adobe is trying to strong-arm Nikon. Nikon does license the encrypted format infomation. Adobe either doesn't like the terms or wants to try to get something for nothing and releases this story to the media saying its not their fault they can't break the law. Hoping that everyone will scream at Nikon for allowing this to happen, in turn Nikon will need to fold to save public opinion.

Lots of people have file formats that are DMCA protected, including Adobe. And I bet Adobe wants you to pay their licensing fees...

This is because of Judge Kaplan (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283239)

In the MPAA's Anti-DeCSS case, a very poor judge decided the specifically written exclusion of inter-operability from DMCA enforcement did not exist. Somehow, he reasoned, it created a "suicide pact" with the Constitution. Thanks, Kaplan, former employee of a firm representing the MPAA, for abusing your position, ignoring the law as written, and turn back progress once again for the sake of a corporation.

GOD BLESS AMERICA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283244)

Suck IT ADoBe

Bye, bye DNG support. (1)

raile (610069) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283245)

Something tells me they won't be supporting the new, open, raw-replacing Digital Negative [adobe.com] format either.

No less than they would deserve. (1)

YoungHack (36385) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283255)

In my estimation, Adobe should be concerned. Given their history of using the DMCA to oppress others, a suit that burned them would provide delightful irony and karmic balance.

Stifles Innovation (1)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283256)

This just proves that laws like the DCMA will stifle innovation. Frankly, America has too many laws written by large special interests with $ to lobby Congress. The rest of us suffer because of their greed.

Alternative? I think not (0)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283261)

Well, unless Canon can come up with a better application than Photoshop, for high-end, professional image editing, then they're going to loose a lot of professionals who need Photoshop to get their work done.

Re:Alternative? I think not (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283384)

Well, unless Canon

Um.... Nikon, dude.

Re:Alternative? I think not (1)

CuCullin (551104) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283434)

You mean Nikon. Canon isn't the subject of this one, its Nikon's closed raw file format not being able to be used in Photoshop.

Oh great (1)

JBjornsson (876689) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283265)

Yet another great use for the DMCA...

Good thing we don't have it in Europe (yet!)]

--
perl -e '$??s:;s:s;;$?::s;;=]=>%-{-|}&|`{;;y; -/:-@[-`{-};`-{~" -;;s;;$_;see'

LOL (5, Funny)

Kaa (21510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283267)

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!"

How about a DMCA opinon, here? (4, Interesting)

MoralHazard (447833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283269)

(I personally think that would be a bogus interpretation of the DMCA, since I think the copyrighted information inside the NEF file belongs to the photographer, not Nikon. But Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF).

This is a little strange, isn't it? If a photographer takes a picture, it's pretty clear that the photog owns the copyright to that photo. Nikon couldn't possibly claim any rights on photos taken with their camera, least of all because it would make it impossible for professionals to use that equipment. And with $5K cameras, you're really only looking at the professional market.

So if the white balance information (the encrypted stuff) is a part of the photograph, the photographer owns the copyright on that data, too, right? That seems pretty straightforward, but I could be wrong...

Can the DMCA be applied to prevent you from decrypting something that you own the copyright on? This isn't even like owning a DVD and wanting to decrypt the data, because in that case the movie company owns the copyright.

If the DMCA can be applied that way, that's some fucked-up shit. It's just absurd.

Re:How about a DMCA opinon, here? (0)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283395)

So if the white balance information (the encrypted stuff) is a part of the photograph

And this is where your argument fails. You're assuming the white balance information is considered "part of the photograph". However, this is just calibration information. The photograph itself is made up of the signals received form the CCD, which you have complete access to... it's just useless without the white balance data. In fact, in the very quote you provided, Nikon claims to own the copyright on that information, and assuming they are correct (and there's no reason to think otherwise), the DMCA very much applies.

Re:How about a DMCA opinon, here? (1)

kccricket (217833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283418)

This is all AFAIK:

The photographer can do whatever the hell he or she wants to with the data, including decrypt it.

Nikon is not trying direclty to restrict photographers from doing that. They are restricting *indirectly* by preventing third parties from distributing the means to decrypt the raw data.

Makes absolutly no sense from Nikon... (2, Insightful)

mrRay720 (874710) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283281)

With the professional imaging market essentially BEING Photoshopm I'd expect that the camera guys would be falling over themselves to have increased support from Photoshop? Sure they might gain a few $s this way selling their own cruddy software, but look at it this way:

-Photoshop pros looking for a camera - lots.

-High end Nikon owners looing for an imaging app other than Photoshop - few.

Nikon use your brain - Photoshop IS the high end imaging market. Preventing improved Photoshop support is pretty much the same as preventing more profit.

A brief summary. (3, Funny)

KILNA (536949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283298)

First, Adobe has a guy arrested [slashdot.org] , and then tried [eff.org] under the DMCA, for having the gall to crack the PDF format, which Adobe voilated the DMCA [slashdot.org] by embedding other font vendors' information into.

Now, even though someone has broken an ineffective [planetpdf.com] encryption method, they can't use the files due to the DMCA. Maybe they'll just keep buying companies [google.com] until they have all the IP they need? :)

Adobe would be sued... (1)

KrackHouse (628313) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283299)

Nikon sells software that can manipulate those raw files for $100 on top of the cost of the camera. A quote from a CNET Nikon camera review:
"Cons: Nikon's RAW-file editing software costs extra"
So it's a way for them to lower the retail price of the camera, similar to the way rebates work.

This is as it should be (1)

As Seen On TV (857673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283300)

This is entirely appropriate. Closed formats should remain closed, because that's what their authors want. And if that means that those formats won't be supported by important tools, then those formats will not be widely adopted.

Nikon needs to get off their high horse and start writing files in DNG format anyway.

Agreed. (2, Insightful)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283332)

Because if they stick to their own format, there's always: Cannon, Pentax, or some other company that will use a standard format.

Ho hum, the simple answer (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283312)

Adobe should simply say "go fuck yourselves Nikon". Word will soon get around that Nikon cameras suck because they force you to use their crappy software because of proprietary formats rather than industry standard tools.

Ok, an obvious question but I'll ask anyways (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283313)

What's from keeping Adobe from sending off a simple letter and asking if they can include support? I'm sure that any digital camera maker would be overjoyed if Photoshop had native support. I can't imagine anyone saying no.

(...and before I get flamed, yes - I know that you shouldn't have to send a letter or even worry about getting in a lawsuit for doing something as obvious and simple as supporting a camera's file format. It is another good example of how busted the DCMA is.)

What a shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283315)

It's a shame Adobe doesn't go ahead with this ... and then get sued out of existence under the DMCA. They deserve it; they used this law on Skylovar, you seem to be quick to forget, and they lobbied hard for this law back in 2001 (about $2mil in donations to both parties). Get them sued, let justice be done.

On another note; Americans, wake up, your supposedly democratic government is selling out your freedom to the highest bidder. Either revolt (if you like the 2nd Amendment), or move to Europe ;-)

I'm a sys-admin for a pro lab (4, Insightful)

genner (694963) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283319)

Nikon is going to take the hit for this one. Adobe is basically a monopoly when it comes to image processing. If they leave support for Nikon out of their product they won't sufffer a bit, but Nikon will.

This will get resolved. (3, Insightful)

stlhawkeye (868951) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283320)

This PR blows for Nikon, who is marketing a high-end camera to elite users. That's a fickle market of people who weigh purchasing decisions carefully. I bet Adobe and Nikkon resolve this problem within 3 weeks. Save this post so you can see if I'm right!

I don't understand... (1)

geneing (756949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283359)

A few month ago I read a posting by Chris Cox (one of Photoshop developers) that they basically had to reverse engineer all the raw formats (Canon, Kodak, Pentax).

Could anyone explain to me why? Camera OEMs are not making money on their own raw conversion software. I would've though they would be begging Adobe to include raw conversion for their cameras.

When I was writing software OEMs would "loan" us computers, printers, anything - just to make sure that our program is compatible with their hardware. And I worked in a small company (20 people when I started, ~50 when I left).

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283438)

Actually they ARE making money on their own RAW formats as each company sells it's own photo conversion and manipulation software :(

I'd like to take a moment to ... (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283363)

personally thank Orrin Hatch. [senate.gov] Thank you for blighting the world with the DMCA.

Nikon run by ex-Sony execs? (1)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283382)

Seems like the sort of brilliant strategic move that Sony's hardware division has mastered over the last 6-8 years or so. How are those NetMDs selling, Sony?

Whatever (1)

Foolomon (855512) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283388)

The few professional photographers that I know (the majority of them are "high-end" shooters) tell me that, if they were ever to go digital as their primary camera, it would be from Canon.

The point seems to be moot, however, as I cannot recall ever hearing any of them say that they would abandon their medium- or large-format film-based camera for digital.

Obligatory ... (1)

gaj (1933) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283389)

<nelson>ha ha!</nelson>

Nikon has its own RAW plugin for Photoshop (5, Informative)

technoviper (595945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283390)

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)

Attention Consumers / Voters! (1)

tilleyrw (56427) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283417)

You made your bed, now lie in it!

Europe (1)

bkubi (834026) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283420)

Hey, then they should just do an european version with full support. And restrict import to the US, the ONLY country where DMCA is valid. Thats could be our revenge for the strong encryption ban a few years ago.

Afraid of getting sued? (3, Insightful)

fsck! (98098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12283439)

I think they are more interested in not looking like a bunch of hypocrites. Remember the Adobe eBook fiasco? If they look at this problem and say (by their actions) that the DMCA is stupidly getting in the way of getting perfectly legitimate work done and break the encryption, they loose.

The Big Picture (pun intended) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12283440)

I think what we're seeing here is Adobe's opening shot in what they hope will be a publicly visible dispute.

As many noted, this hurts Nikon. And hurts them plenty.

Why wouldn't Adobe simply license the technology? Why should they? Why should they pay Nikon for the ability to decrypt information that has no business being encrypted in the first place?

More to the point, Adobe is simply not going to open the floodgates here. If they pay the license fee here, they've told every camera manufacturer "hey, build in some pointless encryption and we'll pay you money!"

Adobe's putting Nikon, and by extension the industry, on notice here. They're not going to be blackmailed into licensing pointless technology for DCMA issues. They'll drop your product first. And, as Nikon is sure to learn, they've got a lot more to lose than Adobe.

Looks like Nikon gambled here that Adobe would pay up to keep support for Nikon's product. And lost.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...