Patent on selling photos on the web??? Please explain this to me

[Stormdancing]

Someone pointed this site out to me.
http://www.photocrazy.com/FAQ.html#Q1030

Look at # 3

Can I start a business like PhotoCrazy®?
The concept of offering event photos for inspection, selection and distribution via the Internet is protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,985,875 (http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf). We welcome others who wish to license the process from us. Kindly contact us by email or phone to discuss the details.

I'm confused. How can he claim that posting and selling your photos you have taken of an event is protected by a patent????????

Can someone explain this to me?

[bham]

All this says that he has submitted a patent application. He submitted it in 2000. If he was going to get a patent I think he would have received it by now.

Yeah and I am gonna patent a thing you take information like news and print it on paper and sell it to people who want to read it. I think I will call it a news paper.

[Stormdancing]

All this says that he has submitted a patent application. He submitted it in 2000. If he was going to get a patent I think he would have received it by now.

Yeah and I am gonna patent a thing you take information like news and print it on paper and sell it to people who want to read it. I think I will call it a news paper.

This patent was granted/approved or what ever they call it on Jan 10, 2006

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,985,875.WKU.&OS=PN/6,985,875&RS=PN/6,985,875

[Stormdancing]

Shay
I'm not sure if this should be here or in News. If you need to have it moved, sorry. Wasn't sure which one to post this in.

[bham]

I am watching there flash presentation now. I think the patented part of this looks like the cameras. Multiple cameras with sensor triggers to set off shutter. Also equipment maybe patented somehow.

Interesting idea.

[mercphoto]

This particular patent is getting a lot of attention on Sports Shooter and on Rob Galbraith. Some photographers have started getting registered letters asking to negotiate to license the patent or to cease and desist. I read this patent and go d'uh. I just don't see any idea in that patent that is remarkable enough to grant protection. It seems too obvious to me.

The US Patent Office: Protecting Obvious Ideas, 24/7.

Gotta love it. :( Glad I haven't quit the day job.

[wholenewlight]

Here's is photocrazy's president's comments. Clear as mud . . .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/icons/book.gif Re: Potential Lawsuit of all Photographers who pos [Re: Peter_Headland (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=396797&page=0&vc=1)]
#396874 - Thu Jan 19 2006 06:59 PM http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/edit.gif Edit http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/reply.gif Reply http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/quote.gif Quote http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/reply.gif Quick Reply (javascript:quickReply(7))
I have read with interest many of your comments and wanted to clear the air about the many misconceptions and worrisome concerns.

My intentions are to get a fair compensation (licensing fee) from anyone who wants to use my patented processes.

My rational is no different then each of you expecting copyright protection on pictures you might have taken that someone else wants to use for commercial gain.

Please be assured that the US Patent & Trademark Office did not simply "rubber stamp" my patent application back in 1999. It took six long years to receive this patent. The search for prior art was exhaustive! Any concerns about what is claimed in the patent should be carefully reviewed with a certified patent attorney.

You will find me friendly and courteous in negotiating a licensing agreement that fits your needs and mine. I'll be at the Imaging USA Conference from January 21 to the 24th in Austin, TX. Call or email me if you would like to meet personally.

Thank you,

Peter
(805) 492-0562

Peter Wolf, President
www.photocrazy.com (http://www.photocrazy.com/)
info@photocrazy.com (info@photocrazy.com)

[bham]

"The search for prior art was exhaustive!"

What does he mean by that? What art?


Is he expecting all photographers who photograph events, then upload to the internet for selection, distrubtion, etc to pay a licensing fee to him but not using his software, etc. That is kinda nuts. If he really had a patent on that wouldn't he go after companies that offer this service?

I read through the patent and still didn't understand the unique thing that he has patented. Is it how the information is taged or identified.

Also where are these messages? Maybe I can get the gist of what is going on from their.

Interesting.

[dragon300zx]

I highly doubt this would stand up in a court of law. Many, Many companies have been doing this for many years. I'm not going to worry about it.

Chrysler is using this exact technique at the NAIAS right now. Something tells me they aren't worried.

In particular the section regarding the images being digitized and displayed for the event particpant to see over a computer network.... Jostens was doing this back in '97 at events I attended in high school, like marching band competitions.

[flyingpylon]

"Prior art" in patent lingo basically means previously patented methods or processes. It's not "art" as most of us think of art.

I'm not a lawyer, and I admit that I didn't read the entire patent. But I've been through the process myself and have been awarded a patent in the past. The thing is, these patent lawyers have a way of taking a small method which may really be a unique idea and then broadening the definition of it with the language used in the patent application.

Seems to me that the patent is for the kind of event photography you see at marathons, etc. where a process is used to photograph contestants, identify them in a way other than visual inspection of the photo, and then get them to buy prints via the web. It doesn't seem to be a patent that covers "anyone that takes a photo at an event and then tries to sell it on the web". The specific process of getting the right photo to the right person is what seems important here.

But like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

[David_S85]

Getting a patent is one thing. Defending it is another altogether; and very very expensive. He will need to choose who to go after as a test case. If there are thousands of targets out there, the chances are very small any one person or company will be the first to get served. Then years might go by in the mean time.

However, if he wins just one judgement, then potentially everyone using whatever technology he is claiming to hold his own, will need to reconsider their next options.

iPIX theoretically holds several patents for 360º x 180º bubble panorama technology. They began to sue those offering up software to produce or view anything similar. One victim was Helmut Dersch, the programmer who brought us PTViewer and PTTools. Apple skirted around the issue by producing "cubic" panels and a new QuickTime viewer. The iPIX cases have died down, but it cost a lot of companies time and money. Drove some out of business. So there is existing precedent with something similar.

[Sam]

Someone pointed this site out to me.
http://www.photocrazy.com/FAQ.html#Q1030

Look at # 3

Can I start a business like PhotoCrazy®?
The concept of offering event photos for inspection, selection and distribution via the Internet is protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,985,875 (http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf). We welcome others who wish to license the process from us. Kindly contact us by email or phone to discuss the details.

I'm confused. How can he claim that posting and selling your photos you have taken of an event is protected by a patent????????

Can someone explain this to me?

This is interesting in a twisted sick, lawyer way. As I read this, there isn't anything new or unique involved. This seems to be someone taking a common business concept currently practiced by uncountable event photographers all over the USA and trying to obtain a patent on this common practice to extort fees from the unwary or timid.

My word for this would be scam.

Sam

[bham]

Yes Sam that is what it sounds like to me a scam, but a scam with a patent. From reading some of the forums about this at RobGalbraith.com it sounds like he is basically demanding marathon event photographers to pay the license fee or he is threating to sue. And not just sue the photographer but the event sponsor. Thereby scaring the event sponsor to only use his photographers (with his license).

[dragon300zx]

Well I took the time to read the patent. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. What a freak. He specifically stats in the patent that this is not a new technology, that it is already in use, and he is just adapting it to his use. The patent is on the method of identifying the participants of the event. So many loopholes around this, plus I really can't see it standing up in court. Could this be a headache for some company that he decides to try and sue.... Yes. But a good lawyer should be able to win against him. But keep in mind that it's a particular process he got a patent for. A process that is very easy to modify to make it different than his process. It's not about selling photo's on the web really, more about a way of identifying participants and directing them to the photo on the website. But also giving them particular data allowing them to search for the photo on the website. As far as the ordering process goes, he would have to claim to have a patent using online shopping carts. As a photograph is just merchandise, like a t-shirt, etc. Not to mention that the processes he is talking about where all invented by other people. Digitally transferring files to a computer, he didn't invent that, HTML, Online Shopping Carts, Secure servers, Etc. I hope he trys to sue a big company, or someone with a good lawyer, who can smack him around and put him in his place.

[Bodley]

Everyone knows that "Al Gore" invented this process - or was that the Internet :rofl

[Stormdancing]

My word for this would be scam.
My word is extortion. In reading up on this guy, he has money, but I doubt he will go after a "big" company with his threatened lawsuits. He will go after the "little" guys, just like he has already done with his cease and desist letters. The "little" guys will cave because they are just trying to make a living with their photography. They won't have the bottomless bank accounts that defending a breach of patent lawsuit will take.

It's been a few days since I read through the patent, but no where did it state marathon or runners. It said events. This could be widely interpreted in many ways. An "event" where participants wear numbers and you use those numbers to label your pictures for sale - horse shows, motocross, nascar, basketball, football, hockey on and on.

He stated he will be at ImagingUSA - I wonder what kind of reception he is going to find there. :huh

[mercphoto]

My word is extortion. In reading up on this guy, he has money, but I doubt he will go after a "big" company with his threatened lawsuits. He will go after the "little" guys, just like he has already done with his cease and desist letters.
Believing everything I read on Internet forums, of course, <sarcasm off> he has apparantly done worse. Apparantly he has written at least one event organizer telling them of his patent. The obvious implication is, of course, "be careful which photographer you hire because he might be in violation of my patent". If this is true, and I do not know if it is, then Mr. Wolf has definitely stepped over a very big line.

I'm sure Mr. Wolf is getting a very ugly reception at Imaging USA this week.

[dragon300zx]

Believing everything I read on Internet forums, of course, <sarcasm off> he has apparantly done worse. Apparantly he has written at least one event organizer telling them of his patent. The obvious implication is, of course, "be careful which photographer you hire because he might be in violation of my patent". If this is true, and I do not know if it is, then Mr. Wolf has definitely stepped over a very big line.

I'm sure Mr. Wolf is getting a very ugly reception at Imaging USA this week.

Makes me wish I had gone to Imaging USA.

[Stormdancing]

I'm sure Mr. Wolf is getting a very ugly reception at Imaging USA this week.
I'm envisioning eggs and tomatoes with numbers on them.:rofl

I'm also wondering, if he is calling event sponsors and scaring them off his competitors by using this patent threat, if he's not opening up a big can of worms he might not want to deal with. Someone just might decide to test this patent in court with a defamation lawsuit, and in doing so taking the ball out of his court and into theirs. Just a thought.

[Bodley]

My word is extortion. In reading up on this guy, he has money, but I doubt he will go after a "big" company with his threatened lawsuits. He will go after the "little" guys, just like he has already done with his cease and desist letters.

Not sure but seems as though the "BIG Guys" (Getty, etc..) may want to be involved (provide legal services) in any law suit against a "SMALL Guy" to protect their own rights. So the "SMALL Guy's" could very well have an Ace-in-the-Hole.

[Poindexter]

I could be totally wrong as this is the first time I've ever read a patent, but this:

A particularly preferred algorithm has the following formula: Tp=(Lp/Lc)(Tf), wherein Lp equals the distance from a starting point of the event to the photographer, Tp equals the minutes from the starting point to a photographer at location Lp, Lc equals the total distance of the event, and Tf equals the total minutes to finish the event by the participant. This algorithm could utilize the participant's starting and finish time as these times are commonly remembered or easily estimated by the event participant. The participant simply selects his or her starting and finish time on the computer screen in addition to selecting where along the event route the desired picture is to be located. Although the calculation assumes that the participant traveled at a relatively constant speed, such an assumption has proven to be reasonable from actual observations. The host computer will automatically display the photograph found based upon the calculation of the formula and allow the participant to conveniently search other photographs near the estimated ones in order to find the particular photograph in question.
sounds like the thing he's patented. It is simply a formula for determining who the event competitor is at a certain place and time. The rest of the patent sounds like explanation as to why this formula should be patented (why it holds meaning as a contribution to humanity)......the explanation could have also been strategically written this way to provide all the grey area to scare folks.

[StevenV]

sounds like the thing he's patented...is simply a formula for determining ...

patenting of business processes - especially ones that seem incredibly obvious to "everyone else" - has been a huge topic in the software arena in the past few years... including Amazon's "one-click" purchasing... "everyone" knew that storing customer data so that they could make a purchase simply was "obvious," but "nobody" said so until Bezos submitted for a patent... then "everyone" got up-in-arms (further reading (http://www.oreilly.com/news/patent_archive.html), and here (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,34670,00.html), and here (http://www.around.com/patent.html)).

[Stormdancing]

Thanks for the articles Steven

I found this statement jaw dropping
http://www.around.com/patent2.html
Although small companies can get patents, the big companies can afford to litigate — "when it comes into court, guess who's going to win." Absurd patents can be fought and overthrown, but, on average, to challenge a patent costs more than $1 million.
"Even under traditional patent rules, many of these software patents will turn out to be bad patents," says Lessig at Harvard, "but in the meantime they create these little mafia monopoly holders who can go around demanding, with a federal court behind them, that you pay up or we'll shut you down."

I wonder if Smugmug has had any thoughts, dealings or comments on this issue.

[Sam]

It is real simple what this guy wants. He has clearly stated the folowing:

Can I start a business like PhotoCrazy®?
The concept of offering event photos for inspection, selection and distribution via the Internet is protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,985,875 (http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf). We welcome others who wish to license the process from us. Kindly contact us by email or phone to discuss the details.
Go to top (http://www.photocrazy.com/FAQ.html#Top1)

As of now all event photographers are violating his patent rights. Next question, what is an event? A wedding? A picnic? A beauty contest? A dog show? A car show? Your kids soccer games?

Basicaly, this lazy scum looked out there and saw every one doing business in a simalar way. Taking photos, then offering them for sale on the internet. He observed that no one had a patent on this widely used method, and has succeeded in obtaining a patent on a process he did not invent, so he can make money by charging everyone that wants to continue to do business as they have in the past.

ps: I looked at his event site, and it's clear why he wants to extort money rather than earn it in photography. :D

Sam

[flyingdutchie]

It is real simple what this guy wants. He has clearly stated the folowing:

Can I start a business like PhotoCrazy®?
The concept of offering event photos for inspection, selection and distribution via the Internet is protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,985,875 (http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf). We welcome others who wish to license the process from us. Kindly contact us by email or phone to discuss the details.
Go to top (http://www.photocrazy.com/FAQ.html#Top1)

As of now all event photographers are violating his patent rights. Next question, what is an event? A wedding? A picnic? A beauty contest? A dog show? A car show? Your kids soccer games?

Basicaly, this lazy scum looked out there and saw every one doing business in a simalar way. Taking photos, then offering them for sale on the internet. He observed that no one had a patent on this widely used method, and has succeeded in obtaining a patent on a process he did not invent, so he can make money by charging everyone that wants to continue to do business as they have in the past.

ps: I looked at his event site, and it's clear why he wants to extort money rather than earn it in photography. :D

Sam

I have not read the entire patent, but it could be that he saw a way to automize (with soft- and hardware) a certain workflow that many event photographers follow. If this automization of the entire and workflow is unique and not wide (covering all event photography), getting a patent is not that strange.

On the other hand, i'm very very wary of frivolous software patents, like Amazon's "One click ordering" mentioned earlier. They stifle innovation and are mostly used only to 'extort' money. If this is the case for this guy, i hope some big company with big pockets takes him up on the patent... see what happens :D

[mercphoto]

I have not read the entire patent, but it could be that he saw a way to automize (with soft- and hardware) a certain workflow that many event photographers follow. If this automization of the entire and workflow is unique and not wide (covering all event photography), getting a patent is not that strange.
The problem is how broad his patent is (for example, it covers the "passive" means of identifying a participant by manually looking at a bib number and entering it as a keyword in the metadata, hardly unique or patentable).

Technically Smugmug might be a co-conspirator via their keyword search ability. How absurd is it to patent what amounts to a simple SQL query?

This guys is out to lunch.

[Obvious]

Please... The patent office has a back log and that's why it took six long years...

As for the exhaustive search, I did a search on the web. Here's what I found on www.morephotos.com (http://www.morephotos.com), "In June 1998, WD Web began development on MorePhotos, software that provides photography professionals with an Internet sales solution for their product. Since its launch in January of 2000, MorePhotos has become a lead innovator in the online photo proofing and sales market. The concept behind the product is a turnkey web presence for professional photographers to upload and sell their photographs to anyone with an Internet connection, anywhere in the world. The result of clients using the software is increased sales and exposure using simple to use tools and marketing concepts."

Peter Wolf's patent fails the prior Art test and the obvious test.

According to www.eff.org , the patent is a business method patent:

"About Business Method Patents

First validated by the courts in 1998, business method patents are highly controversial because they typically do not cover innovations that solve a particular technology problem. Instead, holders of business method patents are claiming to be the first to engage in a transaction over the Internet in a particular way. Examples of business method patents include Amazon's one-click patent and Priceline's reverse auction patent.
Business method patents are prone to abuse. A patent holder can sue or threaten to sue anyone or an organization that uses a similar business method and seek to collect licensing fees, effectively extracting a "patent tax" for common ways of utilizing the Internet."

One website, www.lawandtax-news.com (http://www.lawandtax-news.com), tracks several cases involving business process patents, including the case against Blackberry. Here's the posting from the site concerning Ebay.

"In the summer of 2003, a Virginia District Court ruled that with its 'Buy It Now' function, eBay had infringed upon a patent for direct online buying held by MercExchange founder and former CIA engineer, Tom Woolston. Federal Judge Jerome Friedman also stated that that auction portal had violated a patent held by Mr Woolston for searching the internet for merchandise from other vendors, but dismissed a violation claim regarding the entire online auction process, arguing that MercExchange had not made an effective case.
Earlier in 2005, an appeals court upheld the previous ruling on the direct buy patent, and recommended an injunction to prevent eBay from using it, meaning that the firm would either have to remove the 'Buy It Now' function, create a substantially different version, or license the technology from MercExchange.
In a partial victory for eBay, the court denied the validity of the search patent. The biggest surprise, according to observers, was the decision to reinstate MercExchange's patent on the entire auction process.
However, in an initial ruling delivered in March, the USPTO took a step towards overturning the appeals court ruling against eBay, suggesting that the auction-related patents held by the smaller firm could be invalidated by prior art, and by their obviousness.

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the matter in the spring of 2006."

Hopefully, the Supreme Court can inject common sense.





Here's is photocrazy's president's comments. Clear as mud . . .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/icons/book.gif Re: Potential Lawsuit of all Photographers who pos [Re: Peter_Headland (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=396797&page=0&vc=1)]
#396874 - Thu Jan 19 2006 06:59 PM http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/edit.gif Edit http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/reply.gif Reply http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/quote.gif Quote http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/reply.gif Quick Reply (http://javascript<b></b>:quickReply(7))
I have read with interest many of your comments and wanted to clear the air about the many misconceptions and worrisome concerns.

My intentions are to get a fair compensation (licensing fee) from anyone who wants to use my patented processes.

My rational is no different then each of you expecting copyright protection on pictures you might have taken that someone else wants to use for commercial gain.

Please be assured that the US Patent & Trademark Office did not simply "rubber stamp" my patent application back in 1999. It took six long years to receive this patent. The search for prior art was exhaustive! Any concerns about what is claimed in the patent should be carefully reviewed with a certified patent attorney.

You will find me friendly and courteous in negotiating a licensing agreement that fits your needs and mine. I'll be at the Imaging USA Conference from January 21 to the 24th in Austin, TX. Call or email me if you would like to meet personally.

Thank you,

Peter
(805) 492-0562

Peter Wolf, President
www.photocrazy.com (http://www.photocrazy.com/)
info@photocrazy.com (info@photocrazy.com)

[cabbey]

IANAL, but a significant portion of my day job involves patent analysis, and I've participated in the filling of a few patents. So here's 90 minutes worth of my take on this patent, and a couple things to keep in mind when reading these things.

Important point #1: Only the claims matter. The claims are what you are patenting, everything else is background material. The claims start in column 5 line 37 with the usual phrase "What is claimed is:"

Important point #2: Independent claims matter more. When it comes to trying to overtrun/defend/destroy/ridcule patents, those claims that are based on other claims in the patent are less interesting. If you can knock the independent claims out of the water then you've dealt with the patent by and large.

This patent has the following independent claims: 1, 16, 24, 29.

Claims 16, 24, and 29 are virtually identicle, the key difference between them stems from the specific type of meta data used to tag the photo (though the patent wording pre-dates or chooses not to use the keyword "metadata", that's really what it is, so that's what I'm going to call it.) The specifics are that 16 uses "the date and time", 24 uses "a number worn" and 29 uses "a component worn by the sporting event participant". Ok you can color me impressed by that last one... it's basically talking about RFID tagging participants. I think there are some large marathons, bike races, etc that use that type of technique for official timing, but a photog sitting on the side lines capturing the rfid and stamping it into the meta data so you can find their picture of *you* in the pile of photos their (probably automated, firing as fast as it can) cameras spewed out during the course of the marathon? that one does have me slightly impressed, if this really was written in 1999. An official file date of Aug 17, 2000, and a 399 day adjustment notice seems to me to imply that it was.

Claim 1 is a more generic catch all type of claim. The slightly different wording in it's opening paragraph seems to imply that it was intended as such, to abstract out the generic aspects of the other three core claims and provide a basis for future proofing. The stock phrase "is selected from at least one of" in the second item of claim 1 continues to support that, though the lack of any kind of open ended nature to the plurality of methods presented on that item shows either (1) a lazy pattent attourney (they're paid by the word, so, uh I doubt that.) or (2) a really good patent clerk that rejected and disalowed that (they're too over worked to be that nit picking.)

Important point #3: You have to infringe the entire claim. If you only practice 95% of a claim, you don't practice the claim.

Important point #4: You get what you pay for. You didn't pay me anything for this, I didn't ask anything for it, and you can't pay me for advice on this even if you wanted to, cause I am not a lawyer. If you think you have any fiscal jeopardy due to this patent, or if you think you have addequate documented prior art to over turn it and the time and cash to fight it, go get yourself an Patent Attourney.

Executive summary: Claim 1 scares me. If I was in the business of selling photos of any kind of sporting event (note that the claims never mention anything other than sports!) I would seriously be looking for a good lawyer. Beyond Claim 1, claims 16, 24 and 29 are specific enough that I think I could probably find ways to work around them, albeit at the cost of poor customer service, and likely decreased sales, since it would be harder for a potential customer to find themselves in the pile of images I've got to assume I would have taken. Claim 16 by not allowing search by timestamp, claim 24 by not allowing search by number, claim 29 by not collecting any data from rfid tags or the like that they had with them when they passed. Claim 1 however... pretty well rules out all but the silliest of search potentials. Can you imagine a search method of "my hair is curly red, my eyes are blue, my skin is pasty white with lots of freckles."? yeah, me neither... but then neither did this patent writer... so those metadata bits aren't covered by this one. (that's not to say there aren't some facial recognition patents that don't cover them.)

[mfryd]

There have been some questions raised as to what the patent exactly covers. I'm not a lawyer, nor a patent expert, but I do think I have something to add.

First some background:
I have a web site that provides photos from Beauty Pageants. Contestents wear identifiying signs (banners), which we read and enter into our database. Typically these are state or country names.

Web site visitors can search the site for photos by date (pageants can sometimes take weeks) or by state/coutnry name.

Our introduction of these features predates Mr. Wolf's patent application.

In my mind, there is a striking similarity to what I do, and what is covered by Mr. Wolf's patent. Mr. Wolf's web site (http://www.photocrazy.com/FAQ.html#Q1030) seems to claim his patent covers all events, not just sporting events. Obviously, the combination of a patent, and the broad claims on his web site concerned me.

I have spoken to Mr. Wolf on this matter, and he has assured me that his patent ONLY covers sporting events. He further assured me that Beauty Pageants are definitely not sporting events, and therefore not covered by the patent.

This suggests to me, that those not involved in sporting events, are not covered by the patent.

Those who find this matter interesting may wish to look up other patents Mr. Wolf has pending. I'm no expert, but one of them seemed to be a patent on using an electric eye to automatically trigger a photo (think of the finish line in a horse race, Application 20040036015 , Serial No.: 224674), and another on using remotely controlled cameras (think of a ceiling mounted TV camera used in sporting events, Application 20050117018 Serial No.: 008697). I find these patent applications to be fascinating reading.

[mercphoto]

I could be totally wrong as this is the first time I've ever read a patent, but this:


sounds like the thing he's patented. It is simply a formula for determining who the event competitor is at a certain place and time.
That formula is 5th grade mathematics at best. Its nothing more than a simple ratio. The ratio of the time to the camera versus time to end of event is the same as distance to camear as distance to end of event. That is all this formula says. That does not warrant patent protection. Its simple, obvious math.

[mfryd]

That formula is 5th grade mathematics at best. Its nothing more than a simple ratio. The ratio of the time to the camera versus time to end of event is the same as distance to camear as distance to end of event. That is all this formula says. That does not warrant patent protection. Its simple, obvious math.

Do not confuse confuse common sense with he law. Patent law is quite complex, and sometimes obscure. Simply becuase something seems obvious to you, does not mean it is not patentable.

[bham]

It sounds that if you the pics and a list of participants and their name then you could tag the pic with their last name and then if someone searched your site by the last name you would be violating the patent.

Is that correct cabbey?

Just in half interested bystander.

[mfryd]

It sounds that if you the pics and a list of participants and their name then you could tag the pic with their last name and then if someone searched your site by the last name you would be violating the patent.

Is that correct cabbey?

Just in half interested bystander.

Almost.

The participants would need to be wearing signs with their last names.

It would have to be a sporting event.

Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney.

[cabbey]

It sounds that if you the pics and a list of participants and their name then you could tag the pic with their last name and then if someone searched your site by the last name you would be violating the patent.

Is that correct cabbey?

Just in half interested bystander.
I'm having difficulty parsing that sentence. I can't figure out exactly what you're trying to ask. And man do I need to stop posting at that hour... just re-read my own post and oi! is that scatterbrained and muddled.

The participants would need to be wearing signs with their last names.
No. You only need a way to associate the identifying data (their last name) with the image. You could walk around a head of time and learn everyone's name in person and then later go through the pictures and key in their names, or any system you wish... it's the act of associateing the identifying data with the image that matters, not how you do it.

It would have to be a sporting event.
Yes.

Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney.
Ditto.

[Nikolai]

I was shooting the Amgen tour, where I met a pro photog with a very sophisticated setup. Motion sensors triggering the lights and cameras.. He said he took a thousand of pictures during a couple of minutes while the pack was flying around the corner we were set up, all automatically.
I spoke to him afterwards, I mentioned the smugmug, and he asked me if I had a license. I said "what license, it's a public event and a public place". He said that there is a patent pending, and referred me to his own site FAQ.

I checked it out and here' what I found (http://www.photocrazy.com/FAQ.html#Q1030): looks like this guy has a patent pending (http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf), which essentially covers any body's right to use internet for a stuff like what we all using smugmug for. I'm not gonna quote the whole thing here, but this is how it's titled:
Process for providing event photographs for inspection, selection and distribution via a computer network.
Filed in August 17, 2000.:rolleyes

I didn't read all the fine print, but from what I read and understood, anybody who's taking picture at any event and then use any kind of a digital process and any computer network in between is in violation of this patent..:scratch

From my personal stand point I could care less. I'm not making any considerable money on this type of shooting. Frankly, I'm not making any:-)
But I have a gut feeling that this patent is too broad to not affect anybody who's trying to make some money off *any* public event photography and then use smugmug, pbase, ofoto or *any* other website (including personal ones) to run some business. :dunno

What do you guys think? Those of you who actually run your business off your own website or off the smugmug-based one - are you "covered" by that patent? Did you get a license;-)? Do you care?
Baldy, OneThumb, Andy - have you heard of this? What's your (or, shall I say, smugmug's) take on it?

Thank you!

[DavidTO]

I've merged these two threads, so your post, Nik is now in the thread that was started earlier.

[Nikolai]

Nik:

I've merged these two threads, so your post, Nik is now in the thread that was started earlier.

I was so worried after meeting and talking to this guy in person (he lives same city as me and davidTO, as it turned out), that I rushed to post without checking the history first, for which I apologize. David, appreciate your friendly help!

It looks like I was dealing with a "legend" and didn't know it. And I was dumb enough to give this guy my business card (that was before he mentioned licensing:-), so I guess I will receive "cease and desist" letter from him on the next week or so.

Now I understand what we was saying about that I need a license. I need a license from him!!!

Here is a couple of shots I took of this setup while I was waiting (no, that's not Mr. Wolf, it's one of his assistants):

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/57668153-L.jpg

The first device on a left is (I think) a part of his sensor/trigger mechanism, while an array of cameras and battery powered lights (on the right) are triggered by it:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/57668143-L.jpg

Now, not only he has a far superior firepower (he took 1000 probably first class pics while I was able to take 10 mediocre ones), but with this patent he basically bans me off any opportunity to make any kind of money on this type of event in the future...

Well, I'll let you guys know if I hear from him...:uhoh

[flyingpylon]

Actually, if I remember correctly, you standing on the side of the street snapping photos and manually identifying the participants and selling them photos (even from a web site) would not violate his patent. His patent is based on the automation of the entire process (timing, etc.) to identify participants without relying on purely visual processes.

But then again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.

[Nikolai]

Actually, if I remember correctly, you standing on the side of the street snapping photos and manually identifying the participants and selling them photos (even from a web site) would not violate his patent. His patent is based on the automation of the entire process (timing, etc.) to identify participants without relying on purely visual processes.

But then again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.

If you intend to sell your work and have, in any way, associated your images with any bib#, jersey number, name or any other easily identifiable pieces of information (obviously a must for people doing mass shooting and putting up their work on the web in hope somebody would buy it), you *are* in violation of this patent. In my case - dozen pictures, no names , no tags, etc. - it really does not matter. But for a (semi-)pro who, for instance, shoots high school/college sports - it's a stab in the back...:dunno

[Mike Lane]

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130)

[Sam]

If you intend to sell your work and have, in any way, associated your images with any bib#, jersey number, name or any other easily identifiable pieces of information (obviously a must for people doing mass shooting and putting up their work on the web in hope somebody would buy it), you *are* in violation of this patent. In my case - dozen pictures, no names , no tags, etc. - it really does not matter. But for a (semi-)pro who, for instance, shoots high school/college sports - it's a stab in the back...:dunno

Now, not only he has a far superior firepower (he took 1000 probably first class pics while I was able to take 10 mediocre ones), but with this patent he basically bans me off any opportunity to make any kind of money on this type of event in the future...

Well, I'll let you guys know if I hear from him...:uhoh

Oky Doky.............I have looked at this patent, and truly believe a first year law student could eliminate 90% of it. It's shear nonsense!

I did go to this guys photo event site, and from what I saw his only hope of making any money in photography is to bully the unsuspecting, and gullible into paying some outrageous license fee.

I don't do, or have any thoughts of photographing any events for money, but if I do, I will not hesitate to post the photos for sale, or viewing online. Actually I think he is claiming any distribution at all on the internet, even if no money is involved is a violation of his not very original idea to offer photos on the internet. :D

Please let us know if he sends you a cease and desist order. I would be very interested to see the exact wording.

Oh and how about a look at one of the photos you took at the event?

Sam

[Jamoke]

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130)

I love it. I realize it's the onion, but I think this is simliar. Microsoft Patents the Base 2 Numbering System. Oh - I think I'll Patent the Base 10 system. I'll bet nobody has applied for a patent on that one. Then anytime that anybody uses real numbers for any type of production or commercial use then I can claim the money.

I'm considering using that analogy to submit a patent of my own. I'll propose to take pictures, Then modify the pictures with a watermark, and provide a cool interface to display the pictures using stylesheets. Then the users will have the option of buying a variety of products based on the watermarked pictures. There - One Thumb - Now Smugmug will be the only ones who can post watermarked photos for preview or purchase over the internet.

Geeze - I can't believe the Patent office actually approved this. I seriously doubt they would uphold it. I guess one way would be to say that instead of keywording your images, you could allow user accounts, with specific login, etc. The other thing - Have all of their subjects signed a photo release form? I'd bet at least one person who's picture is being sold hasn't signed a release...

Whatever :huh

[Jamoke]

Their page format is seriously lacking. Even the Basic account in smugmug (without customization) looks better :thumb then their crap. Looks like a site from the late 90's. White backgoround, with a couple forms, and a couple half act pictures. This has got to be a joke, :scratch they can't seriously be claiming this.

[Nikolai]

Oky Doky.............I have looked at this patent, and truly believe a first year law student could eliminate 90% of it. It's shear nonsense!

I did go to this guys photo event site, and from what I saw his only hope of making any money in photography is to bully the unsuspecting, and gullible into paying some outrageous license fee.

I don't do, or have any thoughts of photographing any events for money, but if I do, I will not hesitate to post the photos for sale, or viewing online. Actually I think he is claiming any distribution at all on the internet, even if no money is involved is a violation of his not very original idea to offer photos on the internet. :D

Please let us know if he sends you a cease and desist order. I would be very interested to see the exact wording.

Oh and how about a look at one of the photos you took at the event?

Sam

You're correct, in fact.

I looked at his website, pictures shot at the same spot at the same time I was there (Amgen Nike Race 25 Feb).
Well, considering he had 4 cameras set at fixed angle, all the settings on manual, triggered with his sensors and prolly in jpeg mode - no wonder he got way more pictures than I did all by me lonesome.
Are they better? They might be, but it's *really* hard to say. With all his patents it's really hard to see the level of the details on those tiny thumbnails.
Would I buy my own picture from there? I highly doubt it..
And his website itself... Seriously, I would consider spending some efforts on the web-design and less on the patenting BS if I were in his shoes. But.. oh well, every man to his taste...

Sam, my post about this event is here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28803

Also there is a link to the gallery.

Thanks for the fresh look!:thumb

[Mike Lane]

Someone's got a site covering the latest on this issue.

http://www.crazyphotopatent.com/

[Sam]

Someone's got a site covering the latest on this issue.

http://www.crazyphotopatent.com/

Good info Mike! I am glad to see there are groups that have the resourses looking into this crap.

Sam

[Sam]

Once again, I hope the common sense will rule, and this "patented approach" will not ruin anybody's life or business...

If common sense were able to rule we wouldn't need half, well ok, 85% of the lawyers we have, and armed conflict around the world would come to a halt.

Nice dream, but it ain't happening in the real world.

Sam

[StevenV]

the scary part, as I read it (and I'm no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination), is this
A process... associating identifying data with each photograph taken, wherein the identifying data is selected from at least one of: a number corresponding to a number worn by a participant, a participant's name, a code acquired from a component worn by a participant, and a date and time, including hour and minute the photograph was taken;

It doesn't say automated process, it just says process. To me, that means that the process could be a human looking at photos, matching jersey or bib numbers with a team roster or other printed reference list, and typing the athlete's name into the photo's EXIF data.

(yea, like people haven't been hand-comparing photos to rosters for ages)

The summary is written to imply automation, talking about "a particularly preferred form of the invention, an active or passive component is worn by the event participant" and that "camera can be triggered automatically when the component passes a sensor," but if I understand correctly the summary's not what gets brought up in court - the claims are.

but hey, what do I know. :dunno

[Sam]

You're correct, in fact.

I looked at his website, pictures shot at the same spot at the same time I was there (Amgen Nike Race 25 Feb).
Well, considering he had 4 cameras set at fixed angle, all the settings on manual, triggered with his sensors and prolly in jpeg mode - no wonder he got way more pictures than I did all by me lonesome.
Are they better? They might be, but it's *really* hard to say. With all his patents it's really hard to see the level of the details on those tiny thumbnails.
Would I buy my own picture from there? I highly doubt it..
And his website itself... Seriously, I would consider spending some efforts on the web-design and less on the patenting BS if I were in his shoes. But.. oh well, every man to his taste...

Sam, my post about this event is here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28803

Also there is a link to the gallery.

Thanks for the fresh look!:thumb

Nikolai,

I went and took another look at what this inept photographer / buisiness wanabe calls a website. I can't believe my eyes! I saw photo after photo of cars, motorcylels, emergency vehicles, city trucks, and oh yeah a couple of bicycles. The photos are so small I can't judge the quality at all. If he sells one photo I will be amazed.

But there lies the rub. He isn't interested in selling photos. His business model is to force other to pay him to take photos.

Be aware he has other patents pending. I think one of them is a patent on light. So if you capture, or use light in any way, you will need to be licensed.

My plan is to take whatever photos I want and share them with whoever I want.

Sam

[Nikolai]

Nikolai,

I went and took another look at what this inept photographer / buisiness wanabe calls a website. I can't believe my eyes! I saw photo after photo of cars, motorcylels, emergency vehicles, city trucks, and oh yeah a couple of bicycles. The photos are so small I can't judge the quality at all. If he sells one photo I will be amazed.

But there lies the rub. He isn't interested in selling photos. His business model is to force other to pay him to take photos.

Be aware he has other patents pending. I think one of them is a patent on light. So if you capture, or use light in any way, you will need to be licensed.

My plan is to take whatever photos I want and share them with whoever I want.

Sam

Well, to be totally honest, it's more than a couple:-). I went through in a 5x4 mode and counted 11 or 12 pages filled mostly with bikeriders photos. Which, in turn, gives about 220..240 pictures taken during those 20 seconds. Split between 4 cameras, it gives essentially 2..3 fps.

Other than that - yeah, I kinda get relaxed about him living next to me.
I read what others said about his "business model", I'm not involved and hopefully will not be.

So, essentially, "I'm sticking with your plan":thumb
Cheers!:1drink

[Nikolai]

Someone's got a site covering the latest on this issue.

http://www.crazyphotopatent.com/

At least some serious folks are looking into this, because all my persolnal photo-initiated proceedings would not cover even two hours of a good patent attorney..:dunno

BTW - this thread is on that site, too:-):thumb

[Nikolai]

It doesn't say automated process, it just says process. To me, that means that the process could be a human looking at photos, matching jersey or bib numbers with a team roster or other printed reference list, and typing the athlete's name into the photo's EXIF data.

(yea, like people haven't been hand-comparing photos to rosters for ages)


I looked at his site, and he offers a low-paid job for people to look at the pictures and try to identify the participants in them.
Extremely automated process :wink

[Nikolai]

Well, what do you know - I did receive a letter...
..
....
......
........
..........
............
..............
:hide

However, it was not "C&D" we were talking about :D .

On the opposite, it was rather kind and open. He said he has read all our rather heated discussion here and made an invitation for me and DavidTO (the two people are known to live nearby) to meet and talk, in a more relaxed and professional manner. Since we all live in the same town - I don't think it would hurt to have a chat and some :beer.:):
David, let me know if you're interested. I'm open pretty much all the evenings after 6 pm (except this coming Friday)...

[Stormdancing]

Someone's got a site covering the latest on this issue.

http://www.crazyphotopatent.com/

I looked at that website and the forums where this is being discussed.
I don't understand the one forum totally closing the thread and not allowing discussion on this topic.

I think it's very important for photograhers to be aware of the legal implications in the business be it copywright, invasion of privacy or supposed patent infringement.

[cabbey]

I understand correctly the summary's not what gets brought up in court - the claims are. Correct. Only the claims matter... everything else is "educational" to help explain the claims and put them in context. But only the claims are protected, if something isn't spelled out in the claims, then it's not afforded patent protection.

[Sam]

Well, what do you know - I did receive a letter...
..
....
......
........
..........
............
..............
:hide


However, it was not "C&D" we were talking about :D .

On the opposite, it was rather kind and open. He said he has read all our rather heated discussion here and made an invitation for me and DavidTO (the two people are known to live nearby) to meet and talk, in a more relaxed and professional manner. Since we all live in the same town - I don't think it would hurt to have a chat and some :beer.:):
David, let me know if you're interested. I'm open pretty much all the evenings after 6 pm (except this coming Friday)...

I hope you do go and talk to him. It would be interesting to hear exactly in his own words what he laying claim to.

As an example, if he is only laying claim to the auotmated photo taking and customer search by time, he might have a valid point, :dunno but if it's anywhere near what I have read, "the taking of any event photos and offering them via the internet" then that's waco.

Sam

[StevenV]

I hope you do go and talk to him. It would be interesting to hear exactly in his own words what he laying claim to.

take a tape recorder

[Sam]

take a tape recorder

I would counsel against taking a tape recorder. Legal issues aside, just approch him staight up, and talk.

You, we may not agree with his stance, but we can learn more about the person, clarify his position , and see where he is comming from. If he's nuts, so be it, but there is nothing to gain by tape recording him. This is just a conversation.

Good luck Nikolai

Sam

[Nikolai]

I would counsel against taking a tape recorder. Legal issues aside, just approch him staight up, and talk.

You, we may not agree with his stance, but we can learn more about the person, clarify his position , and see where he is comming from. If he's nuts, so be it, but there is nothing to gain by tape recording him. This is just a conversation.

Good luck Nikolai

Sam

Spend the whole Sunday preparing a project plan for an important client of mine...

Well, honestly I don't think tape recording is a good idea. I'm not a fed agent, not even a reporter. It's gonna be just one human being talking to another human being. And I think we'll have some other topics to chat over apart from this infamous patent of his. He seems to be quite passionate about photography in the first place, anybody who saw his setup gets it as a proof. So we'll definitely have some positive mutual things to talk about.. And the patent.. well, we'll most likely chat about it, too:-)

Cheers!:1drink

[Andy]

Guys - let's keep this debate civil - without disparaging this fellow in any way at all, OK?? Some of you have already crossed that line. Personal attacks are wrong, period.

[docwalker]

I wonder if he is going to take this internationally? The Olympics just ended. I wonder how many infringement cases occured there?

How about photo finish cameras? Horse racing and NASCAR are using them. NASCAR is even using telemetry tied to the camera to determine who is being photographed. Or is he only claiming the sale online part?

And the best for last.... I got hit with a speeding ticket from DC metro police. A vehicle with similar tags to mine was photographed speeding. From what I can tell from my research, a camera was placed near a road. The camera uses speed and timing devices to determine speed of the vehicle and trigger the photo. Photo interpretation software reads the license tag. That information is posted on a website for collection of fines. A letter is mailed to the owner of record directing them to go to that site and pay the fine. Luckily I was able to prove that the software was incorrect and the QA person did not do their job.

Elements of this sound really familiar.???

I do not photograph races so I am not as worried as some of you are. But the part about online sales does bother me.

[onethumb]

You can read all about it on my blog (http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/).

Don

[Seefutlung]

His patent seems to be some sort of tagging and tag recognition. So if ...say 20 performers are at an event ... say ... The Rose Parade ... then those performers get tagged by his system. Those tagged participants can now do a quick search on the internet and the patented hardware/software/firmware can scan all the images and pull up just those images which correspond to the ID of the tag.identify.

This doesn't infringe upon photography or freedom of speech but there are two patents ... I'll check out the second.

The patent holder may be trying to scare photogs into buying his system or when particpants sign up to be tagged they may also be signing an exclusive release to this guy.

[Seefutlung]

Believing everything I read on Internet forums, of course, <sarcasm off> he has apparantly done worse. Apparantly he has written at least one event organizer telling them of his patent. The obvious implication is, of course, "be careful which photographer you hire because he might be in violation of my patent". If this is true, and I do not know if it is, then Mr. Wolf has definitely stepped over a very big line.

I'm sure Mr. Wolf is getting a very ugly reception at Imaging USA this week.

You gotta remember that Freedom of Speech trumps any patent. And just because some participants are wearing his "tag" doesn't mean you can not photograph them in a public arena.

[LeDude]

Can I start a business like PhotoCrazy®?
The concept of offering event photos for inspection, selection and distribution via the Internet is protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,985,875 (http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf).

Err-concepts aren't patentable. Not that this has any bearing on the issue at hand, but hey... such a statement indicates he may not really understand patent law. I don't want weigh in too much here, but I'm not particularly concerned about doing what I had been doing before hearing of this patent/business. I certainly don't have one of those fancy rigs he's got--say, that looks like a patentable device!

[Seefutlung]

I got hit with a speeding ticket from DC metro police. A vehicle with similar tags to mine was photographed speeding. From what I can tell from my research, a camera was placed near a road. The camera uses speed and timing devices to determine speed of the vehicle and trigger the photo. Photo interpretation software reads the license tag. That information is posted on a website for collection of fines. A letter is mailed to the owner of record directing them to go to that site and pay the fine. Luckily I was able to prove that the software was incorrect and the QA person did not do their job.

Just a FYI... in Fullerton, CA (as in many cities) the City has contracted out to Boeing traffic cameras at busy intersection. A man was sent a photo of his car along with a demand to pay a fine. He sent back a photo of money. The police sent back a picture of an arrest warrant.

[nowa]

Is there any interest in an article on business method patents for photographers? What magazine/web site should it go in? I'm a patent agent specializing in this area.

I've enjoyed browsing this thread. There seems to be a lot of strong feelings about patents and I thought perhaps an article or two on the subject might help professionals such as yourselves see where the real threats and opportunities might be.

For example, a patent isn't really much of a threat if you can clearly show that the invention was public before the patent was filed. You can send your evidence in to the patent office and request a "reexamination". The patent office will then reopen the case, and if your evidence is persuasive, the inventor will loose some or all of their patent coverage.

On the other hand, if you figure out a new way to make more money from photographs and you want to start a business based on it, you might want to consider patenting it. Investors are a lot more comfortable funding start up companies that have patent protection than those that don't.

Are these the sorts of topics that might be of interest?

[mercphoto]

Is there any interest in an article on business method patents for photographers? What magazine/web site should it go in? I'm a patent agent specializing in this area.
Are these the sorts of topics that might be of interest?
Yes.

[jchin]

So what happened with the meeting? I feel like you left us all hanging. I just read through this entire thread and wanted to know what happened.

[nowa]

So what happened with the meeting? I feel like you left us all hanging. I just read through this entire thread and wanted to know what happened.

I'm confused.

What meeting?

[jchin]

I'm confused.

What meeting?

There was a mention of 2 people living in the same town as the guy who has this patent, and that they were going to meet up.

Andy even commented on keeping the debate civil.

Go back to the posts around Feb.2006.

[Nikolai]

There was a mention of 2 people living in the same town as the guy who has this patent, and that they were going to meet up.

Andy even commented on keeping the debate civil.

Go back to the posts around Feb.2006.

You're talking about me :wink

1) There are more than two+ dgrinners in Thousand Oaks.
2) We've met
3) No comments, since it was a private meeting

[swampshutter]

Reviewing the claims sections 1-15 and 16-40

Does this patent only apply to sporting events with competitors?

I see the use of participants in claims 1,2,3,11 and competitors
16, 17, 24, 29 in 29 w/ 29 also using participant competitor


Looking at two sections 1-15 and 15-29 was the intent to include participants general and competitors as well.

Thoughts?

It sure got quiet....

[Nikolai]

Reviewing the claims sections 1-15 and 16-40

Does this patent only apply to sporting events with competitors?

I see the use of participants in claims 1,2,3,11 and competitors
16, 17, 24, 29 in 29 w/ 29 also using participant competitor


Looking at two sections 1-15 and 15-29 was the intent to include participants general and competitors as well.

Thoughts?

It sure got quiet....

Welcome to DGrin! :lust

I'm not a patent expert, so I don't have much to say except "welcome":-)... But you're right, it sure got quiet after all the initial explosion...:dunno

[swampshutter]

Thanks...

I shoot pets, people, sporting participants, equestrian, and competative team sports.

I don't shoot races, marathons, century rides, or large fundraising walks/rides.

I feel I am a semi-professional photographer who is trying to become a full time professional.

I want to be better as a person, photographer, peer professional and business person.

It has gotten to the point I can't sleep.

Its affected my drive, my ability and enthusiasm.

I've thought about quitting.

But I won't.

Ever hear of William Wallace?

There are allot of fine Scotts out there.

Remember the speech in Braveheart Mel Gibson gave in front of all those Scotts getting ready to leave the battleground.

Fight and maybe die... or live and you will surely die.



No smiles or icons are necessary.

Your silence is defening.

We don't have to be a lawyer to read what the claims say and look at the elements break them down do we?

There is nothing cryptic about it.

If you shoot sporting events, the essence of all the claims filed in this Patent is that there is no way anyone can sell images of anyone who is a participant of any competative sporting event over any network using a server.

It seems that the patent is so broad that anyone who attempts to sell sporting event photographs over a network or the internet or on the web without a license is in violation of the patent. Does it not?

When you read all the claims it is clear...

all identification and association of image to particpant
any method of taking the photograph and triggering it known and unknown
identification of means to locate the photograph to the participant
electronic storage of the photograph on a network
use of the network using identifier associating participant to image
cataloging of images using identifiers
any means of using identifiers to inspect and select the image
any means with which to distrbute the image once selected
distribution and sales of any means

Not every event photographer but every photographer shooting sporting events posting images for any type of review and distribution is affected.

The only possible glitch I see is if its competative sport only or all... but still.

Let me say "my curiosity" has me extremely giddy at this moment like the Irishman in Braveheart.

Again no Icon/Smiles do justice to this post.

Anyone who sits idle not acting in some proactive fashion to help preserve our freedom as photographers will some day face that decision in some way.

Either because you lacked the initiative, courage, or fortitude to put forth the effort or you were to stupid to realize what was going on in front of your face.

We slept while the patent was filed and had six years to act.
The price may be greater now

Or do you continue looking over your shoulder everyday... looking at a mailbox

Or do you reach into your pocket and see it only as another expense

Yeah let someone else shoulder the burden... take the hit.

Silence here is fine... Understood. Not much can be done here nor should it be.

Hi Peter.

But reading this and not researching this patent in detail for your own business sake, doing your do dilligence, networking with others outside of public domain, talkng to the patent office, getting you own legal advice on the matter. You won't it doesn't apply to me? What is that? It won't happen to me? It will just go away right.

Please don't be foolish.

We are a community of photographers who should be able to act in common interest of one another wheher or not issues effect us directly or not because they really do.

[claudermilk]

I think it got quiet because we all realized there's not much substance behind all the smoke. I skimmed the patent documents (not going to spend the time right now to read everything), and Dragon pretty well outlined the conclusion I came to in post #14 in this thread. In a nutshell: it relates to a very specific method of triggering the cameras and embedding additional data and a very specific workflow to present those images (most likely limited to the specific coding in his own website).

Just because the patent was awarded does not mean it will automatically be upheld if challenged. There's so many apparent loopholes it may very well be overturned if someone does challenge it.

Ultimately, the way we market our images at a service such as SM I think is well outside this patent.

[Mike Lane]

Ever hear of William Wallace?

There are allot of fine Scotts out there.

Remember the speech in Braveheart Mel Gibson gave in front of all those Scotts getting ready to leave the battleground.

Fight and maybe die... or live and you will surely die.

What would you do without your online photo selling? Eh ... :scratch

Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR right to sell images online! Eh ... :scratch

Sorry, but this patent fracas hardly lives up to fighting for your freedom and your country (and your life for that matter).

Just a little perspective.

[RogersDA]

Patents are enforceable to the extent of what is claimed. The written description will provide support for the claims, and can be used to help define terms in an issued patent. However, if the limitation is not in the claims then there is no protection for it in general.

For all that may be interested in this there are ways to invalidate patents, or to try to inform the USPTO of pertinent "prior art". Some are more costly than others. For example, filing a protest, Ex parte reexamination, or Inter partes reexamination.

Also, if the "prior art" exists then you can feel free to submit the information to the applicant and his/her attorney/agent. They under under obligation via 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose to the USPTO any information that my affect the patentability of their application. Failure to disclose information to the USPTO can invalidate any patent that might issue on the application. If they have an issued patent then they, too, can request reexamination of their own patent based on the inforamtion they discover.

Finally there are at least 3 co-pending applications that claim priority to the issued patent. They are 11/008,697, 11/259,821, and 11/261,747. You can obtain a detailed prosection history of the issued patent and at least two of the pending applications online at USPTO Public PAIR (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair). This is an online file inspection tool.

[mercphoto]

Old thread I know but new information from Sports Shooter's forum (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25315):


Printroom settled with Peter Wolf.

Printroom user now have an option in a gallery to participate in the printroom sports license program.

Printroom paid Peter Wolf a substancial fee to license for the technology/workflow, and as part of the agreement now Printroom sellers, can select this option if they feel they fall into the area covered in Peter Wolf's license.

Printroom has three questions:

* Do you shoot participants in sporting events?
* Do you associate a unique identifier (such as bib number, name or time) with each image?
* Do the participants find the images using a unique pre-determined identifier?

If your answer is yes to all the above printroom suggests you enable the licensing within that gallery.

Any image sold will have an additional fee of $1.50 added to the end user (customer buying the a print or prints from one image). (excluding photographer orders, and ordering all images in a gallery).

Just some information I received tonight from my contact at PR.

[RogersDA]

See also:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txedce/case_no-2:2007cv00238/case_id-103594/

Note the defendants listed.

[mercphoto]

There is something seriously twisted with our Patent and Legal system when someone can patent distance = velocity * time. :(

[RogersDA]

...when someone can patent distance = velocity * time. :(

Citation? :ear

Granted you are probably being a bit sarcastic, but that type of statement is atypical of those unfamiliar with the patent system, the plethora of laws and rules regarding patent application examination, and the time provided for examination, the number of applications needing to be examined, and the resources available for examination. Sometimes examiners just do not have a specific resource/citation needed to obviate a claim. Does that mean the system is broken? No...it may mean that the necessary resources just were not available at that time. With the overall amount of information available on a global level it certainly is plausable that key references are missed becaused someone didn't decribe something in a prior patent or Googling didn't easily turn up a quick reference. I am not saying that Mr. Wolf patents are invalid. That's not for me to comment on. All I am saying is that there is more to it than simply looking at issued claims and saying that the claims are obvious without more.

And things certainly do change, especially with Supreme Court descisions such as KSR v Teleflex that help to establish obviousness of claims (or to establish patentability of claims).

[mercphoto]

Citation? :ear
Part of the patent involves a participant in a distance event (for example, a 5K run) inputting when they started and what their total time was. The patented system knows how far from the starting position the camera was located. It knows approximate participant average speed. The patented system thus knows what time-stamps of photos to show the runner.

Hence, he's patented distance = velocity * time.

Does that mean the system is broken? No...it may mean that the necessary resources just were not available at that time.
This system is broken because the patent office was changed to give an economic incentive to the patent office for the granting of patents faster.

I work in the semiconductor industry, and we generate a lot of patents. Many of them we *know* are useless and silly. Its an inside joke.

[RogersDA]

Part of the patent involves a participant in a distance event (for example, a 5K run) inputting when they started and what their total time was. The patented system knows how far from the starting position the camera was located. It knows approximate participant average speed. The patented system thus knows what time-stamps of photos to show the runner.

Hence, he's patented distance = velocity * time.

No - they have not. They have patented a method or appartus to perform specific calculations in a specific way. A patent for distance = vel. x time would be only that. As far as I know nobody has a patent of that. The situation you describe is far from accurate.

This system is broken because the patent office was changed to give an economic incentive to the patent office for the granting of patents faster. Really? Thr patent office has never liked holding onto applications. In fact we try to hire a lot of examiners in attempts to reduce the backlog. What economic incentive was given to the patent office?

I work in the semiconductor industry, and we generate a lot of patents. Many of them we *know* are useless and silly. Its an inside joke.I work for the patent office. We issue a lot of patents. It doesn't matter if the inventor thinks that its silly.

[bham]

See also:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txedce/case_no-2:2007cv00238/case_id-103594/

Note the defendants listed.

I am curious to the answer that Smugmug will provide by Oct 29, 2007.

[bham]

When I read the patent application threw thoroughly, I got the feeling that patent was tied specifically to sporting events with large number of participants that are involved in some type of competitive race, where there is a start and finish and multiple cameras are used to document the event and participants at various static locations along the route of the race. Since I don't shoot any of those and don't really have a want to then I really don't want to then I figured I really had nothing to worry about.

I am not worried about it affecting me at all. The part about the use of a network, etc to view, purchase, etc I don't see it realistic for this to be restricted with a patent. Jet engines all intaking air and then pushing it out the other end of a mechancial device, and I imagine all are patented, but exactly how they do it could potentially be patented, but I doubt you could just can't patent the concept of a device that accelerates air, and then any device that accelerates air would violate your patent. If so, then I need to start submitting some patents for everything.

[mercphoto]

So what you're saying is that even though d=v*t is not patentable, using that formula to aid in searching for photos is a patentable idea. Very odd...

It doesn't matter if the inventor thinks that its silly.
Actually, it does.

A patent was issued and granted some years back because a patent lawyer was able to get a patent for a particular method his young daughter used to swing on a swing. The fact the patent office found this to be a patentable item goes to show how easily manipulated the office is. In fact, its the very reason the lawyer filed for the patent in the first place, to expose how silly things can get. Silly patents get granted. And protecting silly ideas is in nobody's best interest.

A better example is the Research In Motion patent issues with Blackberry over the last two years. A silly patent granted for an idea that really wasn't all that novel that threatened to stifle creativity.

Wolf's patent is not only silly, its obvious, its not a novel invention, and people have been doing exactly what he has done for years now. I actually expect Kreutz to be able to show prior art and get the patent invalidated for the simple fact that Wolf is not the only person to come up with this idea.

Granting patent protection for truly great thoughts is a very good idea. But like anything it can be taken too far.

You'll excuse me, though, while I go and start drafting up some patent applications...

[bham]

See also:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txedce/case_no-2:2007cv00238/case_id-103594/

Note the defendants listed.

I wonder what the status of the lawsuit currently is. I haven't seen any new info post on that link.

I imagine many photographers are watching this case closely.

[Baldy]

I wonder what the status of the lawsuit currently is. I haven't seen any new info post on that link.

I imagine many photographers are watching this case closely.My understanding is PrintRoom settled with them a month or two ago. Someone posted this on SportShooter.com. Apparently they sent the following out to their customers:

---
Printroom user now have an option in a gallery to participate in the printroom sports license program.

Printroom paid Peter Wolf a substancial fee to license for the technology/workflow, and as part of the agreement now Printroom sellers, can select this option if they feel they fall into the area covered in Peter Wolf's license.

Printroom has three questions:

* Do you shoot participants in sporting events?
* Do you associate a unique identifier (such as bib number, name or time) with each image?
* Do the participants find the images using a unique pre-determined identifier?

If your answer is yes to all the above printroom suggests you enable the licensing within that gallery.

Any image sold will have an additional fee of $1.50 added to the end user (customer buying the a print or prints from one image). (excluding photographer orders, and ordering all images in a gallery).
---

Source: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25315

I haven't been in touch with PrintRoom so if that information is incorrect, I'm incorrect.

We settled a few days ago. Our responsibility is to let our pros know that the uploading of more than 500 photographs of participants in a sporting event might require a license from PhotoCrazy. Their contact info is:

PhotoCrazy, Inc.
Attn.: Peter Wolf
509 Raindance Street,
Thousand Oaks, California 91360-1219
Email: peter at photocrazy dot com

We'll be including that info in marketing and info pages written for pros on our site, in welcome emails to pros, etc.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Baldy

[xris]

I'm thinking maybe I'll patent the way I capture air every time I run into a story like this. Teeth together, lips apart, inhale...

:humungus

[claudermilk]

Well, that's kind of disappointing. I have no dog in this fight as I don't do that kind of event photography, but I hate ridiculous lawsuits. IMHO this one fall in that category because after reading (most) of the patent, IMHO it's far too broad. Some of what's covered makes sense--the devices he came up with for taking the shots, the time-coding, etc. But the simple act of adding bib numbers in the metadata then running a generic database search on them should not be under that protection. I cannot believe he was remotely the first one to come up with that common-sense idea. Obviously just about all photographers except Mr. Wolf think this patent needs some serious review & revision.

[bham]

Well, that's kind of disappointing. I have no dog in this fight as I don't do that kind of event photography, but I hate ridiculous lawsuits. IMHO this one fall in that category because after reading (most) of the patent, IMHO it's far too broad. Some of what's covered makes sense--the devices he came up with for taking the shots, the time-coding, etc. But the simple act of adding bib numbers in the metadata then running a generic database search on them should not be under that protection. I cannot believe he was remotely the first one to come up with that common-sense idea. Obviously just about all photographers except Mr. Wolf think this patent needs some serious review & revision.

I agree some parts of the patent is way to broad, but the parts with the devices, etc like you said is what I think is a very ligitimate patent.

[aj986s]

soooo.....has SmugMug responded yet? :scratch

[Andy]

soooo.....has SmugMug responded yet? :scratch
right above, 3 posts up:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=680285#post680285

[tsk1979]

So I guess instead of contesting this patent, most companies are conceding to they guy.
From what I understand is that if you shoot photo events where each image has a different name(which is default out of camera) you need to get a license from this guy?

[claudermilk]

My understanding, at least of the part why he's named SM, and the other online services (I'm not real familiar with them though) is the act of adding bib number to the IPTC keywords, then running a search on photos to pull up just those images of interest to the customer. This is the part of the patent that I see is causing eveyone heartburn and the part that needs to go away. It's far too generic of a concept & IMHO does not deserve any protection. The settlements are a shame from an interested bystander's viewpoint in that idealistically it ough to be fought to the bitter end; however financial realities probably intervene to where it makes more sense to just pay him to shut up and go away. But remember that this is all guesses, conjecture, and opinion on my part.

[mercphoto]

My understanding, at least of the part why he's named SM, and the other online services (I'm not real familiar with them though) is the act of adding bib number to the IPTC keywords, then running a search on photos to pull up just those images of interest to the customer. This is the part of the patent that I see is causing eveyone heartburn and the part that needs to go away. It's far too generic of a concept & IMHO does not deserve any protection.
He's basically patented a data base search that has been done for decades. Its idiotic that the patent office granted this patent in the first place. Worse that he's getting money from it.

[RogersDA]

He's basically patented a data base search that has been done for decades. Its idiotic that the patent office granted this patent in the first place. Worse that he's getting money from it.

Here's the link to file (https://sportal.uspto.gov/secure/portal/efs-unregistered) for a reexamination of the patent.

Let us know how that works out.

[mercphoto]

Roger, I get it. You're tired of people bashing your employer for granting silly patents.

[claudermilk]

It's a stupid patent, we all think so, and there is nothing to say we cannot express our opinions. Don't like it? Don't open the thread, simple as that.

[RogersDA]

Roger, I get it. You're tired of people bashing your employer for granting silly patents.
It does not bother me that you bash my employer. I am merely suggesting that if you have the ability to invalidate the patent then there are resources for you to do that. That's a lot better that standing on a soap box and complaining about how "silly" the patent is.

It's a stupid patent, we all think so, and there is nothing to say we cannot express our opinions. Don't like it? Don't open the thread, simple as that.Chris, I never said the people shouldn't express their opinion. Rather, it is suggested that if you have the information to invalidate the patent then by all means go and do it rather than sitting back and complaining.

[mercphoto]

I don't really like quoting encyclopedias, but here goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office#Criticis ms

I'm not sure which one I like better, the exercising a cat patent, or the crustless sandwhich patent. I'm surprised they didn't mention the method of swinging on a swing patent, or the patent on the Cheesehead. Seriously, someone has a patent on the Greenbay Packers Cheesehead.

In a perfect world challenging patents would indeed be better than griping about them. I don't like Wal Mart, so I do what one should do in that case, I make every effort possible to shop elsewhere, even if inconvenienced or if it costs me more money. I don't like coal power, so I voluntarily pay more for wind generated electricity. I pay attention to fuel mileage ratings when I shop for automobiles and it influences my purchase decisions. But I can't do everything. I'm sorry if I don't have the time to battle the patent office outright.

[StevenV]

I...if you have the ability to invalidate the patent then there are resources for you to do that.

I don't know anything about the patent-invalidation-and-revoking process, and I may be talking completely out of my asa (called "iso" these days) here, but that sure seems like a process that would take time. And lawyers. And money. Gobs of it, if one believes common knowledge about things that involve lawyers. (incidentally, complaing in forums takes none of those things, which is why there's so much of it.) Gobs of money, lawyers, and time are three things which most photographers (read "individuals, not companies with legal teams in the back room waiting for something to do") don't have. Instead we have governmental institutions ("of the people, by the people, for the people," or somesuch) which we'd like to trust do the right thing. [insert pause] Or maybe I should apply for a position as a writer for The Daily Show.

Rogers, this is - in my case anyway - not intended as an attack on you or any other individual in particular*, rather the overall process and lack of staffing / funding / oversight / training that has put "us" (for is "the government" not part of "us," and are we not also part of "us?") in this incredibly awkward position.

* well, ok. Maybe on the bozo-for-brains who actually stamped "ok" on this one while moving it from the inbox to the outbox. But we're assuming that wasn't you.

[brandofamily]

Just found this in the pro help section...

Notice for Professional Account holders:
Uploading more than 500 photographs of participants in a single
sporting event may require a License from PhotoCrazy, Inc.
To avoid patent infringement, please contact:

PhotoCrazy, Inc.
Attn: Peter Wolf
509 Raindance Street
Thousand Oaks, California 91360-1219
Email: peter@photocrazy.com


What is PhotoCrazy, Inc. and can anyone here shed some light on this notice?

[Andy]

Just found this in the pro help section...


What is PhotoCrazy, Inc. and can anyone here shed some light on this notice?


Photo Crazy's patents, as well as their ramifications, have been the topic of an ongoing thread on DGrin.com for two years: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=26266&highlight=photocrazy. Please feel free to confer with your peer Pros in this forum.

Essentially, if you are a Pro account holder and have at this time, or may have in the future, photos of /participants/ of sporting events available for sale on SmugMug, and the number of photos from any /SINGLE/ event totals 500 or more, you /may/ require a License from Photo Crazy in accordance with their pending *U.S. Patents No. 6,985,875* <http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf> and *No. 7,047,214* <http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/US7047214.pdf>. All inquiries should be directed to:

PhotoCrazy, Inc.
Attn: Peter Wolf
509 Raindance Street
Thousand Oaks, California 91360-1219
Email: peter@photocrazy.com <mailto:peter@photocrazy.com>

[brandofamily]

Photo Crazy's patents, as well as their ramifications, have been the topic of an ongoing thread on DGrin.com for two years: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=26266&highlight=photocrazy. Please feel free to confer with your peer Pros in this forum.

Essentially, if you are a Pro account holder and have at this time, or may have in the future, photos of /participants/ of sporting events available for sale on SmugMug, and the number of photos from any /SINGLE/ event totals 500 or more, you /may/ require a License from Photo Crazy in accordance with their pending *U.S. Patents No. 6,985,875* <http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf> and *No. 7,047,214* <http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/US7047214.pdf>. All inquiries should be directed to:

PhotoCrazy, Inc.
Attn: Peter Wolf
509 Raindance Street
Thousand Oaks, California 91360-1219
Email: peter@photocrazy.com <mailto:peter@photocrazy.com>

I'm glad I never post that many :)

[mercphoto]

Saw this on a SportsShooter forums. The ability to patent business processes is taking a big hit (a good thing, in my opinion). And its possible it could render Mr. Wolf's silly little patent invalid:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN3026126020081030?rpc=44&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

One can always hope a little sanity returns to the Patent Office....

[Andy]

Saw this on a SportsShooter forums. The ability to patent business processes is taking a big hit (a good thing, in my opinion). And its possible it could render Mr. Wolf's silly little patent invalid:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN3026126020081030?rpc=44&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

One can always hope a little sanity returns to the Patent Office....Yeah, we saw that good news, too. I immediately started talking to our attys :D We'll see!

[du8die]

"Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances," added the opinion written by Chief Judge Paul Michel.

Hmmm. Does this open the door then to getting rid of software patents? One could argue that software is not a physical object or substance since in essence, it is 1's and 0's that are stored magnetically on physical devices... But the software itself is not physical.

:dunno

[mercphoto]

Hmmm. Does this open the door then to getting rid of software patents?
Quite possibly. Though software patents have traditionally been hard to get anyway, and most software people I know of are against the very idea of patenting software (the exception being those programmer's employers of course!).

[Kalrog]

Quite possibly. Though software patents have traditionally been hard to get anyway, and most software people I know of are against the very idea of patenting software (the exception being those programmer's employers of course!).

I'm looking forward to that - or at least making them more meaningful. Just like you can sue a ham sandwich, the patents aren't much better. If you really want an education in this matter, I have been following groklaw at http://www.groklaw.net/ for a few years now and it is a great place to learn and be entertained about this type of thing. And I am a programmer.

[RogersDA]

One can always hope a little sanity returns to the Patent Office....One can hope that sanity continues to return to the Federal Circuit. The patent office has been quite adamant about not allowing software are business method claims. However, the office is above all bound by the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President, and as interpreted by the courts. It is the court's past decisions, made as a result of attorneys zealously representing their clients, that argued for the software- and business method patents. The federal circuit essentially agreed with these attorneys, and the office was bound by their interpretation of the existing laws. In this case, however, the office indeed rejected Bilski's claims, the office's board of appeals affirmed the rejection of Bilski's claims, and the federal circuit agreed with the office that Bilski's claims were not patentable. Sounds like a rather sane office to me.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Bilski case does not and will not eliminate business method or software patents at all. The Bilski decision only really requires a patent claims to be tied to a specific machine (among other criteria). This is where Bilski failed. So, the office will undoubtedly issue guidelines consistent with the federal circuit's interpretation so as to try to ensure that software and business method claims are sufficiently tied to a specific machine.

[TexPhotog]

Essentially, if you are a Pro account holder and have at this time, or may have in the future, photos of /participants/ of sporting events available for sale on SmugMug, and the number of photos from any /SINGLE/ event totals 500 or more, you /may/ require a License from Photo Crazy in accordance with their pending *U.S. Patents No. 6,985,875* <http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/Patent6985875.pdf> and *No. 7,047,214* http://www.photocrazy.com/Patents/US7047214.pdf

Ok, so I have a silly question and I know Andy will get this right cuz he knows it all...

Maybe I'm not understanding this right... what is the patent about... is it the algorithm of the search? Is it the way that the computer uses a database to search for "bib" numbers and match them to people? Or is it the while gear kit that he sets up on a marathon route???

Also... what is a "sporting events"???

And yes... I've read the whole 12 pages of posts... but my question comes up from this observation...

Most of the discussions have been about marathon type events... but what about like a football game/soccer/hockey...

If you shoot any of those events... and you enter "identifiable" information... would that also infringe on the patent???

And what about if just for the hell of it... a photographer decides to be awesome, shoots a marathon, uploads 501 photos but doesn't charge for the photos... will that also infringe on the patent???

Hopefully my questions make sense... :scratch

[mercphoto]

Hopefully my questions make sense... :scratch
Your questions make sense. Its the patent that doesn't.

[wolfpatents]

I’m researching the validity of two patents issued to Peter Wolf (U.S. 6,985,875 and U.S. 7,047,214) that cover event photography. It seems like these processes have been around for a while across a number of industries, including marathons, ski resorts, graduation ceremonies, amusement parks and other miscellaneous sporting events. If Peter Wolf wasn't the first pioneer, then he probably shouldn't own a monopoly on these processes.

For those of you who haven't heard of Peter Wolf, he claims to have invented processes that involve taking event photos, uploading pictures to a database, categorizing the photos (e.g. by name or bib number), and making those photos available for online search (by the name or bib number) and purchase by individual participants.
For a more detailed description of these patents, please visit wolfpatents.blogspot.com

If you have any information that might help prove that all or some of the steps covered by these patents were actually invented or in use by individuals or businesses across any industry before 2000, let me know at wolfpatents@gmail.com. All communications will be kept confidential.

[BMMImages]

Bumping this, as this nonsense patent was just brought to my attention (somehow, I missed it completely). Andy, has there been any update on your end for Smugmug?

There appears to be one person who's decided to push back and bust this scam:

http://santabarbarapix.com/pixblog/?page_id=953

The last update is May of this year, but it sounds promising.

[mercphoto]

I thought this patent had been invalidated already, but I could be wrong. I still contend the patent was ridiculous from the start and should have never been granted.

[Andy]

Bumping this, as this nonsense patent was just brought to my attention (somehow, I missed it completely). Andy, has there been any update on your end for Smugmug?

There appears to be one person who's decided to push back and bust this scam:

http://santabarbarapix.com/pixblog/?page_id=953

The last update is May of this year, but it sounds promising.

Nothing new from us, no.

[essaytee]

Ok, so I have a silly question and I know Andy will get this right cuz he knows it all...

Maybe I'm not understanding this right... what is the patent about... is it the algorithm of the search? Is it the way that the computer uses a database to search for "bib" numbers and match them to people? Or is it the while gear kit that he sets up on a marathon route???

Also... what is a "sporting events"???

And yes... I've read the whole 12 pages of posts... but my question comes up from this observation...

Most of the discussions have been about marathon type events... but what about like a football game/soccer/hockey...

If you shoot any of those events... and you enter "identifiable" information... would that also infringe on the patent???

And what about if just for the hell of it... a photographer decides to be awesome, shoots a marathon, uploads 501 photos but doesn't charge for the photos... will that also infringe on the patent???

Hopefully my questions make sense... :scratch

Ok, I'm bumping this as I have received correspondence from Peter Wolf regarding this issue. Anything new on this front? Does anyone have answers to the above quoted questions?

I've subsequently checked the terms and conditions (http://www.smugmug.com/aboutus/terms/) at the Smugmug site which was kindly pointed out to me by Peter Wolf. The particular paragraph is at the very end which is as follows:

Notice for Professional Account holders: Uploading more than 500 photographs of participants in a single sporting event may require a License from PhotoCrazy, Inc. To avoid patent infringement, please contact:
PhotoCrazy, Inc.
Attn: Peter Wolf
509 Raindance Street
Thousand Oaks, California 91360-1219
Email: peter@photocrazy.comI believe the operative word in the above paragraph is 'may'. If, as users of the Smugmug site, we don't obtain a licence then we are still complying with Smugmug's terms and conditions. Yes, on the surface of it we may be in breach of patent infringements, but is that my concern or Smugmug's?

Another question. How does this apply to me as an Australian resident photographing Australian events?

[goldenballs]

Interesting: spending most of this week and most of next trying to value a patent portfolio this is fascinating stuff.

The event patents can be read via http://santabarbarapix.com/pixblog/?page_id=953. They cite applications in US and Japan, although other filings may have been done in the meantime. So for Australia you should check the current situation locally. As I read it, Smugmug is moving eventual liability to the individual member. Interesting is the 500 photo limit which I don't see reflected in the patents and which is presumably agreed with Mr Wolf and sets a precedent. Essaytee, get a patent lawyer to respond to Mr Wolf. Smugmug cut their deal already, apparently, and it likely includes a commitment to keep certain matters confidential. You are on your own unfortunately.

The difficulty with valuing patents is that you don't know what they are worth until they are challenged in court. Should Mr Wolf win the case with santabarbarapix his position will be stronger Likewise, if he loses he will be weaker. Everytime a company in this business concedes even by recognizing his position or paying him money, he becomes stronger.

In the patent world there is an abundance of "trolls". Trolls make an income by intimidating the weak, but also by greenmailing the strong. Applying for a patent typically costs <50k$ and is relatively easy. A patent case can take years to resolve and meanwhile your company is bleeding cash for lawyers and there is a shadow over your business. The photography business is tempting for a troll because it is 99% small companies who cannot afford to object. On the other hand the pickings are lean compared to the legal costs the troll is paying when somebody objects. A patent troll would either try to settle with santabarbarapix out of court for a nominal amount, thereby strengthening their position via a big player, or take them slowly to the wire which will scare anybody else wanting to go to court.

I don't say that Mr Wolf is a troll. He claims to have a genuine case - the courts will decide eventually.

The SBP case is being fought on prior art - which is tricky seeing that the granted patent makes a multiplicity of claims. Any attack on prior art is likely to be a partial victory only, leaving substantial parts of his patent intact. There might have been stronger tactics available had SBP contacted a patent attorney immediately instead of shooting from the hip and including an acknowledgement that they might be prepared to pay a license under certain circumstances (cheap enough?) and therefore implicitly recognizing some part of the Wolf case before they had even gotten started. By now getting professional legal advice might have been cheaper too.

So, if you are getting threatened, you better get some proper legal advice or settle on the best terms available. Like many here I believe the patents will NOT survive a serious challenge but this needs to be properly organized and funded. Whatever you do, don't react directly to Mr Wolf however friendly he appears. He is not your friend and seeks a percentage of your business.

[Sam]

Well written Christopher.

The crux of this is simple, and has little to do with the legitimacy of the patent.

As an example If Peter Wolf were to demand I cease operations pay a licensing fee, or face litigation. My only options in the real world would be the first two options. I would exhaust my entire net worth plus a bank robbery or two and still would run out of money before I could have my day in court.

Hence small individually owned photography businesses do not have an option to dispute Wolf's claims regardless of how outrageous they may be.

Larger companies who have the wherewith all to fight will typically try and find the least expensive option as opposed to disputing the patent. Wolf will understand if a company has the financial ability to fight and provide an cheap out for them.

We all lose with this system.

Sam

[essaytee]

How many $$$$$$$ is the licence fee?

[Sam]

How many $$$$$$$ is the licence fee?

This will depend on many factors, but if your business falls into the sports shooting events, and you want to open a can of worms go ahead and contact Photo Crazy.

Please let us know what you find out.

Sam