RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Over’

Nikon is the latest camera company sued by DigiMedia Tech over alleged patent infringement

01 Jul

DigiMedia Tech, LLC, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against yet another camera company, this time going after Nikon over its alleged infringement of three different US patents. This lawsuit follows similar infringement cases brought against Olympus, Fujifilm and JK Imaging, all of them also over the alleged infringement of digital camera technology patents.

DigiMedia Tech is a non-practicing entity (NPE) of IPInvestments Group, which received many US patents from Intellectual Ventures LLC in November 2019. Following the patent acquisition, DigiMedia Tech has filed lawsuits against several companies over their alleged infringement of these patents — in the latest one involving Nikon, the company claims infringement of US patents No. 6,914,635, No. 7,715,476 and No. 6,545,706.

The ‘635 patent was first filed in 2001 by Nokia Mobile Phones; it involves a microminiature zoom system designed for digital cameras. The ‘476 patent was first filed in 1999 and then again in 2005; it covers a ‘system, method and article of manufacture’ related to a digital camera’s ability to track a subject’s head. The third and final patent in the lawsuit, ‘706, was filed in 1999 and likewise covers head-tracking camera technology.

The infringement lawsuit specifically names Nikon’s Coolpix A1000 as a model that allegedly infringes the ‘635 patent and the Nikon P900RM ‘and similar products’ as allegedly infringing the ‘706 and ‘476 patents. Among other things, the DigiMedia Tech lawsuit wants Nikon to pay ‘damages in an amount to be determined at trial for Defendants’ infringement, which amount cannot be less than a reasonable royalty.’

It’s unclear how much this could amount to, financially speaking. Likewise, Nikon hasn’t yet commented on the infringement lawsuit.

DigiMedia Tech’s decision to sue Nikon isn’t surprising in light of its recent activity. On May 29, the NPE filed patent infringement lawsuits against Fujifilm and Olympus, alleging that both have used digital camera technologies in select camera models that infringe on its US patents. Following that, DigiMedia Tech filed the Nikon lawsuit referenced above, then a similar complaint against JK Imaging, the company behind Kodak PIXPRO cameras, on June 24 in California Central District Court.

A full list of DigiMedia Tech’s lawsuits, including related documents, can be found through the Unified Patents portal.

A summary of each of the lawsuits DigiMedia Tech, LLC currently has against a number of camera manufacturers.

The NPE practice of exploiting acquired patents has been heavily criticized for years. These companies oftentimes don’t actually practice the invention detailed by the patent and usually don’t sell processes or products related to them. These non-practicing entities instead enforce the patent rights against companies allegedly infringing them, doing so to obtain licensing payments or some other type of revenue, such as royalties or damages, on the acquired patents.

Though not all NPEs exploit acquired patents, there are those that do. Ones that operate aggressively and file large numbers of lawsuits in order to cast a wide net to see what they catch are colloquially referred to as ‘patent trolls.’

In 2011, the Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal published a large PDF document titled ‘Indirect Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights by Corporations and Investors’ that details NPEs and the ways they may be used. The discussion is extensive and ideal for understanding the reasoning behind these lawsuits, stating in part that patent infringement lawsuits from NPEs may be, among other things, used by:

…a sponsoring entity against a competitor to achieve a corporate goal of the sponsor. A corporation or investor, by serving as the sponsor for an IP privateering engagement, can employ third-party IPRs as competitive tools. The privateer, a specialized form of non-practicing entity (NPE), asserts the IPRs against target companies selected by the sponsor. The sponsor’s benefits do not typically arise directly from the third party’s case against a target, but arise consequentially from the changed competitive environment brought about by the third party’s IPR assertion.

Of course, DigiMedia Tech’s own reasons for filing suits against these camera companies are unclear and it’s impossible to say whether there would be an indirect benefit for a competing company as a result of these allegations. As these cases are only days and weeks old, the outcome of each lawsuit is yet to be seen.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Nikon is the latest camera company sued by DigiMedia Tech over alleged patent infringement

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Mashable embedded image copyright case revived over surprising Facebook statement

26 Jun

The 2016 copyright infringement case against the media website Mashable that we last heard about in April is back again. Following a similar case with an opposite ruling regarding how copyright infringement may pertain to embedded Instagram posts, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York has reopened the copyright suit filed by photographer Stephanie Sinclair against Mashable.

Sinclair’s lawsuit is part of a copyright spat between the photographer and Mashable after the website embedded one of her Instagram posts in a 2016 article titled ’10 female photojournalists with their lenses on social justice.’ Mashable had first reached out to Sinclair and offered $ 50 to license the image, an offer that she rejected. As an apparent loophole to this matter, Mashable then simply embedded Sinclair’s public Instagram post featuring the same image.

A screenshot of the article in question. Sinclair’s Instagram photo has since been removed.

In her lawsuit, Sinclair had argued that Mashable did not have permission nor a license to use the image, while Mashable countered that it didn’t need the photographer’s permission because Instagram’s terms covered sublicensing. Instagram’s terms of service stated at the time that users:

…hereby grant to [Instagram] a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). You can end this license anytime by deleting your content or account.’

Based on its understanding of those terms, the court ruled against Sinclair, stating in April that, ‘Mashable was within its rights to seek a sublicense from Instagram when Mashable failed to obtain a license directly from Plaintiff…’

However, Instagram’s parent company Facebook introduced a plot twist earlier this month when it clarified in relation to a different but similar case against Newsweek that its terms do not cover sublicensing for embedded images. According to Facebook, and despite the fact that Instagram offers a ‘share’ function on public images by default, users must first get permission from the photographer before embedding their image.

This unexpected turn of events was a bittersweet moment, offering reassurance that Instagram users have more control over their images than previously thought, but with major implications for how future digital copyright cases are handled. Users who are unaware of the intricacies of Instagram’s terms could, for example, be liable for copyright infringement by simply using the feature made available to them by the platform.

Facebook’s statement has prompted the reopening of Sinclair’s copyright case, as the ruling in favor of Mashable was made with the understanding that Instagram’s terms covered sublicensing for embedded images. Sinclair filed a motion for reconsideration with the court in light of the new information, a request that has since been granted.

The case has been reopened because, according to presiding judge Kimba Wood, Mashable didn’t get ‘explicit consent’ from Instagram to embed the photo under its sublicensing terms. The lawsuit against Mashable can proceed, with Judge Wood stating in the court’s Opinion & Order that:

Revising its previous holding, the Court holds that the pleadings contain insufficient evidence to find that Instagram granted Mashable a sublicense to embed Plaintiff’s Photograph on its website … the Court did not give full force to the requirement that a license must convey the licensor’s “explicit consent” to use a copyrighted work.

The two new cases over Instagram embedding and how it pertains to copyright has renewed criticism of the platform for failing to give users more control over their content. Instagram automatically presents a sharing feature on all public Instagram posts, yet has made it clear that it doesn’t sublicense content shared with this feature, putting users at risk of liability.

Photographers are given the choice to make their images private, therefore removing the embed function, but with the consequence of reduced exposure to potential clients and customers. Enabling photographers to manually choose whether the sharing function is enabled on their public posts would remove this issue, but is not something Instagram presently offers.

In a statement to Ars Technica, Instagram had addressed this topic by stating that it was ‘considering the possibility’ of adding a new feature that would allow users to decide whether others can embed their public images. The non-committal nature of the statement, however, indicates that Instagram may never proceed to introduce such modification to this feature, putting the burden on photographers and users to sort out the copyright implications of using it.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Mashable embedded image copyright case revived over surprising Facebook statement

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The Sony a7R IV is the most capable mirrorless camera over $2000

10 Jun

We’ve updated our ‘best cameras over $ 2000’ buying guide, and the Sony a7R IV is now our favorite mirrorless camera in the $ 2000-4000 price range. It sits alongside the Nikon D850, which is our choice for those who prefer DSLRs.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The Sony a7R IV is the most capable mirrorless camera over $2000

Posted in Uncategorized

 

OnePlus is disabling the near-infrared ‘Color Filter’ camera on its 8Pro smartphone over privacy concerns

23 May

OnePlus has announced it’s working on an update for its OnePlus 8 Pro smartphone that will disable the 5MP near-infrared camera that was able to see through certain materials, including some clothing, when used with a ‘Photochrom’ mode in the native camera app.

The Color Filter camera onboard the 8 Pro has been known since the smartphone’s announcement back in April. However, not much was shared about the particular camera module at the time. It wasn’t until 8 Pro units started hitting the front doors of reviewers when it became clear what the 5MP near-infrared camera could see.

Last week in particular, a number of high-profile reviewers and pundits shared examples of just how much the Color Filter camera onboard the 8 Pro could reveal. Most notably, the below video, shared by YouTube channel Unbox Therapy, showed that beyond being able to see through the plastic IR shields built into numerous electronics, it could also see, at least to some degree, underneath certain clothing when stretched unusually thin.

Unsurprisingly, the see-through capability of the 8 Pro brought up privacy concerns, not unlike those that led to Sony recalling more than 700,000 ‘HandyCam’ camcorders back in 1998 when it was revealed the ‘Nightshot’ mode on its TRV 615 XR camcorders was revealing more than the general public was comfortable with.

OnePlus heard the response loud and clear and in an effort to get ahead of any further controversy, OnePlus announced, via Weibo, that it is temporarily disabling the Color Filter camera via a software update within the next week. In the post, OnePlus writes (machine-translated, edited with brackets for clarity):

‘When planning the [color] filter lens of OnePlus 8 Pro, we hope[d] to use this lens to perceive the characteristics of infrared light to provide users with a unique texture photography style effect. But recently, based on user feedback, we have found that under very specific environmental conditions, the filter lens may have a slight perspective effect on special materials at very close distances […] In order to eliminate the impact on user privacy under possible extreme circumstances and eliminate everyone’s concerns, we decided to temporarily disable the filter function through software upgrades.’

OnePlus doesn’t elaborate on how temporary this solution is or what the long-term fix will be, but it’s a start. It’s also unknown whether this will be a forced update or something optional users can opt out of to keep the near-infrared capabilities.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on OnePlus is disabling the near-infrared ‘Color Filter’ camera on its 8Pro smartphone over privacy concerns

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The Associated Press criticized over social media rights requests for free content

20 May

Lawyer and self-professed ‘copyright geek’ Mike Dunford recently drew attention to the Associated Press’s controversial requests to use content posted on social media. He shares a copy of the social media release form the AP asks social media users to agree to, breaking down each part with an explanation and issues related to them. Though some of the AP’s presumed concerns are legitimate, according to Dunford, he ultimately claims that the release terms are ‘abusive across the board.’

The controversy started when lawyer Jay Mashall Wolman shared a tweet from Associated Press editor R.J. Rico, which has since been deleted, bringing attention to the AP’s social media release form. Wolman then shared several other similar content requests made by the Associated Press and its employees, each asking different social media users whether they took the content that caught the AP’s attention, as well as whether the AP could use it for free.

The requests are joined by an image of the AP’s social media release form, which asks the person who captured the content to read the message, then to respond to the message containing the form with an agreement to the terms. The AP’s social media release form claims for itself:

…world-wide, non-exclusive right to (and all consents to) use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, edit, translate, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display the content throughout the world in perpetuity by any and all means now known or hereafter created in all media now known or hereafter created; an AP shall further have the right to license these right to others…

In addition, the social media release form includes a section that requires the user to agree to be responsible for any copyright matters that may result from the use of the content by AP or any entity it licenses the content to, stating:

[The social media user agrees that] you are the copyright owner or the copyright owner’s authorized agent and that you are fully entitled to grant these rights in favor of AP and that there is no agreement or other restriction preventing this grant of rights. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the AP and its licensees from and against any claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses arising from any breach or alleged breach of these representations and warranties.

Wolman tagged multiple people in his tweets, including Dunford, who gave a long commentary on the release form in a tweet thread of his own.

Dunford points out that though Twitter’s terms may allow the Associated Press to embed these tweets in its online articles without getting prior permission, he ‘wouldn’t want to rely entirely on that.’ There have been examples of controversy over publications embedding tweeted content without getting explicit permission to do so. Dunford also points out that embedding isn’t useful for the AP when it comes to video and printed content.

Requesting that a social media user allow a major news company to use the content for free is problematic when it comes to paying content creators for their works. However, Dunford zeroes in on the social media release form terms, claiming that they are ‘MUCH more of an issue’ than simply asking to use content without paying for it.

Dunford points out that the AP and its lawyers are at ‘a substantial advantage’ over the unrepresented social media user when it comes to securing content rights. Digging into the actual terms, Dunford points out multiple concerns, including that the AP’s release form gives it the right to license the social media user’s content and it gets the non-exclusive right to forever use the image as if it owns it. ‘It’s abusive,’ Dunford says.

The biggest concerns start with the second paragraph, however, with Dunford stating in his tweets:

National Press Photographers Association (NPAA) General Counsel Mickey Osterreicher weighed in on the matter with a tweet of his own, encouraging content creators to refrain from agreeing to terms like this:

Wolman found examples of AP employees tweeting the social media release form dating back to 2015.

For social media users who fail to see the potential harm in accepting terms like this, an anonymous legal Twitter account allegedly belonging to an Australian lawyer detailed some of the problems users may encounter, including the fact that owning the copyright to the content doesn’t protect the user against potentially being sued over it in the future.

Wolf points out, among many other things:

You’ve heard of bots that do automated DMCA takedowns. Imagine that there’s an automated DMCA takedown of your video. Imagine that results in legal action over who has the rights to the video. You don’t have to imagine too hard, it happens all the time.

Now imagine that you’ve agreed to indemnify the AP for the costs of bringing/defending those proceedings.

Wolf concludes his commentary with a solid point, stating, ‘Can’t afford a lawyer? Then you definitely can’t afford to grant indemnity.’ The Associated Press has not commented on the criticism and concerns.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The Associated Press criticized over social media rights requests for free content

Posted in Uncategorized

 

GoPro and VSCO lay off employees, change business models over COVID-19 pandemic

18 Apr

Amid ongoing social distancing efforts, both VSCO and GoPro have announced major business changes resulting from the economic downturn. In a post on his LinkedIn account, VSCO CEO Joel Flory revealed that his company had to lay off 45 employees this week. The announcement was followed by a similar message from GoPro, which revealed that it will be reducing its number of employees by 20%.

Many companies are struggling to stay above water as a number of states and countries implement lockdown measures. Many businesses have been forced to temporarily close down, and while others remain in business, a drop in consumer purchasing has left some companies struggling to keep their revenue up.

In a post on his LinkedIn account, Flory said that VSCO had expected 2020 to be ‘a year where we would continue to forward invest into our business.’ However, things didn’t go as planned and Flory said, ‘Overnight our environment changed. We realize that we would need to shift towards running a self-sustaining business.’

The company is giving its laid-off employees a minimum of two months of healthcare coverage and seven weeks of severance pay, according to Flory, who says that the company is also assisting them in other ways. VSCO plans to continue releasing new features this year, though details on what the company has planned weren’t revealed.

GoPro, meanwhile, published its preliminary Q1 financial requests on April 15 and withdrew its 2020 guidance in light of the pandemic. The company said that it is restructuring its business model to focus on direct-to-consumer sales and that as part of its global restructuring, it plans to lay off more than 20% of its workforce.

These layoffs will contribute to a $ 100 million reduction in operating expenses for the year, according to GoPro, which plans to shed another $ 250 million in operating expenses next year.

Company CEO Nicholas Woodman said that GoPro’s distribution network has been hit by the novel coronavirus pandemic and that as a result, the company must expedite its shift to a ‘more efficient and profitable direct-to-consumer-centric business’ model this year, something GoPro had already been pursuing. ‘We are crushed that this forces us to let go of many talented members of our team,’ Woodman said, ‘and we are forever grateful for their contributions.’

Though GoPro will primarily sell directly to consumers, the company says it will continue to make its products available through ‘select leading retailers’ in only ‘key regions’ for consumers who prefer to buy items indirectly and at physical stores. Other planned changes include reducing office space in five different locations, reducing its sales and marketing throughout this year ‘and beyond,’ as well as cutting spending in other unspecified ways.

Despite the changes, GoPro said that it still plans to move ahead with its 2020 product roadmap, which will include releasing new software, subscriptions and hardware targeted at action camera and smartphone owners. Woodman has voluntarily decided to skip the remainder of his 2020 salary, according to the company, which says its Board of Directors has also made the decision to avoid any additional cash compensation throughout the remainder of the year.

Via: PetaPixel

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on GoPro and VSCO lay off employees, change business models over COVID-19 pandemic

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Moment Pro Camera for Android discontinued over platform difficulties

03 Mar

Moment has revealed it’s discontinued the Android version of its Pro Camera mobile app. The reason, according to a statement shared on Moment’s help website, is the difficulty involved in supporting a wide variety of Android devices from different manufacturers, otherwise referred to as fragmentation.

A number of issues compelled Moment to discontinue Pro Camera for Android, the company said in a statement. ‘The short is that phone makers like to create their own flavor of Android, each with different amounts of access to select camera features,’ Moment said. ‘The result has been a random compatibility list where each phone has different features in the app by phone model.’

Moment explains that it repeatedly asked phone manufacturers to make their camera features available to the developer and to share the list of the changes they made to the devices. On top of that, each new Android update released by these companies ‘breaks these custom modifications,’ making things more difficult for developers.

Ultimately, Moment says that it does not have ‘the engineering bandwidth’ to continue supporting this app, but that it will continue to make it available in the Google Play Store, where it is sold for $ 4. The app currently has a low rating of 2.4 out of 5 stars, with users complaining about bugs and missing features.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Moment Pro Camera for Android discontinued over platform difficulties

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Sony World Photography Awards receives backlash over alleged censorship of Hong Kong protest images

20 Feb

Update (Wednesday, February 19th): it appears that the galleries are available to the public again. However, Chung Ming’s more sensitive images are not displayed.

The 2020 Sony World Photography Awards recently removed active links to images from three separate finalists due to their ‘sensitive nature.’ Ko Chung Ming’s Wounds of Hong Kong, David Butow’s Battleground Hong Kong and Adam Ferguson’s Hong Kong Protestors series are still in the running to win an award. However, links to their work have been deactivated on the World Photography Organization’s (WPO) website, a move that’s raised concerns about possible censorship.

‘We have temporarily taken down the images as part of a standard process which we have to put in place for these type of cases, until we are able to review everything in further detail,’ the WPO said.

Chung Ming first noticed the link to his series, which was nominated in the Documentary category, was broken on Friday. Initially he thought it was a site error. It was only when he tried to view Butow and Ferguson’s series, and received the same ‘404 Page not found’ message, that he realized the WPO was purposely concealing imagery that revealed the brutal reality of the Hong Kong protests.

“We have temporarily taken down the images as part of a standard process which we have to put in place for these type of cases, until we are able to review everything in further detail.”

‘I don’t know who’s complaining and what their concerns are. But why should any ‘concerns’ not be addressed by the judges at the judging phase?’ asked Chung Ming in a response to HKFP. ‘As long as the final result is up to the jury’s professional judgement, I wouldn’t say there’s censorship,’ he added.

As of Tuesday, the ‘404 page not found’ error was still popping up on Chung Ming’s series. On Wednesday, the link was redirected to a ‘Protected Page’ where login credentials were needed in order to view his work. A recent post on Chung-ming’s Facebook account elicited uniform comments of disappointment in the WPO.

‘Photos taken during a war right in the war zone has won numerous awards, but I’ve never seen any of those labeled “sensitive nature.” Anyway thanks so much for your effort and your truthful recording.’ said Sam Si. ‘Worse and much more “sensitive” stuff has been put on WPO before, and the fact that they’re on targeting Hong Kong related photography seriously calls into question the integrity of the organisation.’ adds Galax Chen.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Sony World Photography Awards receives backlash over alleged censorship of Hong Kong protest images

Posted in Uncategorized

 

DynaLite Lighting company shuttered after 50 years over struggle to remain competitive

23 Jan

DynaLite Lighting, the New Jersey-based company founded in 1970, has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and will shut down operations. The company’s CEO Peter Poremba revealed in the news in a statement on the DynaLite website, saying, ‘It is with sincere regret and heavy heart that I announce that DynaLite…has closed its doors.’

Poremba cites the ‘decline in the photography market’ as the reason for shuttering the company. His full statement reads:

It is with sincere regret and a heavy heart that I announce that DynaLite Inc. has filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy and has closed its doors.

For over 50 years, DynaLite has been providing lighting solutions for photographers. We are extremely proud of what we have accomplished and the careers we have helped. Unfortunately, due to the current decline in the photography market, we have found it difficult to remain competitive.

I want to thank you all for the years of support. It has been a pleasure servicing the photographic community.

DynaLite sold a large variety of products during its time, including power packs, mono lights, heads, lighting kits, portable lights, light modifiers and more. The photographic lighting industry has seen a large uptick in companies offering affordable products over the years, no doubt making it harder for some businesses to stay afloat.

Though many products are still listed on the DynaLite website, it doesn’t offer a way to directly purchase them. However, existing inventory remains available to buy from third-party retailers like Adorama.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on DynaLite Lighting company shuttered after 50 years over struggle to remain competitive

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Photojournalists won’t be allowed to capture the handing over of the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump

18 Jan

Image US Capital, West Side. Captured by Martin Falbisoner used under CC BY-SA 3.0

It’s been revealed the United States Senate will be cracking down on the press corps for the Senate impeachment trial of U.S. President, Donald J. Trump, severely limiting photojournalists ability to document the monumental moment.

Later today, when House leaders hand off the articles of impeachment to the Senate, still photographers won’t be allowed to document the monumental moment, an unprecedented move that’s raising concerns over credentialed reporters’ and photographers’ ability to exercise their First Amendment right to the freedom of the press.

According to a report from Roll Call, Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael C. Stenger are putting in place restrictions that will allow just a single video camera to be present in the room. No still photographers will be allowed to press the shutter and no audio recordings will be allowed.

Even after today, the remainder of the trial will see only a single press pen set up on the second floor of the Senate, where legislators will enter and exit the chambers. Reporters and photographers won’t be able to move outside the pen, except for before and after the processions when they’re escorted by proper authorities.

Following news of these restrictions, The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a five-member panel of journalists representing the credentialed press in Congress, fired back saying the restrictions ‘fail to acknowledge what currently works on Capitol Hill, or the way the American public expects to be able to follow a vital news event about their government in the digital age.’

Roll Call reports the ‘planned restrictions […] rejected every suggestion made by the correspondents,’ regarding press access during the trial and The Standing Committee of Correspondents has rejected the claim these planned restrictions are being put in place to protect the lawmakers, saying Capital Police have implemented these rules ‘without an explanation of how the restrictions contribute to safety rather than simply limit coverage of the trial’

Other individuals chimed in on the matter, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a U.S. Representative for the NY-14 district, who shared the following tweet:

Photographer and teacher David Hobby also shared his thoughts on the matter, saying:

Unfortunately, these restrictions likely mean photographer David Burnett won’t be able to use his now-iconic 4 x 5 film camera to capture the transfer of articles for the third impeachment in U.S. history.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Photojournalists won’t be allowed to capture the handing over of the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump

Posted in Uncategorized

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »