Amazon Patenting Lighting Techniques in the USA?

Yv

Yv

TPer Emerita
Messages
25,725
Name
Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
Edit My Images
Yes
This just got promoted onto my farcebook t/l and whilst I wouldn't usually click on anything promoted, I decided this might be worth a nosy so had a quick look at the link and if nothing else, it makes for interesting reading/discussion perhaps? ONLY based on the comments under the blog post, it seems the patent is very restrictive but I have little understanding of how patents work anyway. Thought I would share with you all and see what people think anyway. Could of course be utter rubbish designed to get the site clicks, so there is the caveat, it's a commercial site aimed at photographers, your choice if you go there ;)

https://shootthecenterfold.com/amazon-technologies-attempts-to-patent-lighting-techniques/
 
Seems to be that if you throw in enough numbers and technicalities you'll get anything past a US patent examiner. There must be a substantial amount of prior art. If this stands how are amazon going to police it? Indeed why do they want it?

Extract from the patent claim:-

Therefore, the following is claimed:
1. A studio arrangement, comprising:
a background comprising a white cyclorama;
a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama;
an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6;
.....................................................[more]


The full patent is here:-
http://www.google.com/patents/US8676045
 
Amazon specified an 85mm lens but did they specify the distance from the subject and sensor size?
 
That is so weird. The weirdest thing though, to my eyes, is that the patent is extremely specific in some respects: ISO 320, f/5.6, 3200K, and so on. I wonder why? Do they have a particular target in mind?
 
johnnypanic said:
Nothing to worry about - diyphotography explain it well here:

http://www.diyphotography.net/amazons-new-patent-probably-chill/#more-6847
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The worrying part is not that Amazon applied for the patent but that the US Patent Office granted it. There is nothing new here. To quote from the patent the purpose is :-

More specifically, embodiments of the disclosure can allow images and/or video of an item placed in a studio arrangement as described herein to be captured with a background that appears, when captured with an image capturing device, as a near perfect white without the need for post-processing, retouching, or other image manipulation.

In other words getting the shot right in camera. There is now a possibility that we are going to get patent trolls applying for patents on a multiplicity of lighting set ups, with varying focal lengths, ISO's, colour temp etc. using this as a precedent. If a patent can be granted on this why not on, say, a Hollywood Glamour lighting set up. Will US photographers have to check their lighting set ups against a list of patents ?
 
There is already a patent for combing over your hair to hide baldness so anything is possible!

zednini said:
Will US photographers have to check their lighting set ups against a list of patents ?
Click to expand...

No. If this got as far as a court it would be laughed out of the room.


Steve.
 
How can you patent a lighting technique? LOL There's so much irrefutable evidence that the very same lighting has been used for decades upon decades that it's actually laughable. Half of my portfolio from around 1990 to 1996 is lit like that :)

Idiots.
 
Last edited:
white cutouts? there's obviously a million tonnes of prior art there - but frankly, imo they're welcome to it. Will let the rest of us shoot something more interesting! ;)
 
I'd like to know how they are going to decide with any certainty how images have been lit in order to determine if their patent has been abused :)
 
Every day, the US patent office makes themselves look more ridiculous.

The very idea of patenting something stupid so somebody else doesn't patent it and sue you is utter nonsense. Why don't the US office just throw out frivolous and "obvious" patents like most other offices do? Then (quite rightly) nobody could own a patent on this.
 
I searched for amazon and NOTHING came up, I should have used mk1 eyeball I guess, thanks.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'd like to know how they are going to decide with any certainty how images have been lit in order to determine if their patent has been abused :)
Click to expand...

that was the first thought that crossed my mind when I first read it... "prove it". I wasn't sure when I first posted this thread if it was real or a wind up, but seems to be a genuine and is certainly getting about on the internet. or as Missy MWAC said, just paint everything white ;)
 
Carlh said:
thats it, im off to patent sunlight.
Click to expand...

In the good old USA you just may be able to do that :)

For an example of US patent trolls and what they can do:
http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/what-is-a-patent-troll/

A company even patented the use of a FAX machine (long after it the FAX was invented), they didn't have anything to do with developing the FAX or anything, just lodged a patent for the use. Any companies using a FAX machine then have to pay for it, :sneaky:
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
Every day, the US patent office makes themselves look more ridiculous.

The very idea of patenting something stupid so somebody else doesn't patent it and sue you is utter nonsense. Why don't the US office just throw out frivolous and "obvious" patents like most other offices do? Then (quite rightly) nobody could own a patent on this.
Click to expand...

Why not? They get paid to patent it, then the make more $$$$$ when it gets challenged and retracted. That sounds fine if you are a greedy lawyer.
 
No doubt that Apple will start doing the same with their i-esque imagery
Click to expand...

They're already experts of patent trolling and one of the worst offenders there. Several hundred patents on incredibly vague concepts, all of which have been done before but will be granted due to the utterly broken US patent system. Their case with samsung involved several of these all of which had been in common use long before the patent was granted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top