# Amazon files patent showing studio lighting technique ?



## pedro (May 6, 2014)

Well, this is as crazy as it gets...
Quotation:
"Is Amazon attempting to patent an age old photography lighting technique? A recently published patent seems to suggest that, and it’s getting some photographers up in arms. Multiple readers have sent us (rather angry and bewildered) tips about the patent, which was first reported on by Shoot the Centerfold. The document itself was published on March 18, 2014, is titled “Studio Arrangement,” and features the diagram above showing a lighting setup."

http://petapixel.com/2014/05/05/amazon-files-patent-showing-seamless-background-studio-lighting-technique/


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2014)

First, seems like there should be 'prior art' on this. 

Second, based on the output (an image), how the heck is Amazon going to be able to claim infringement on the specifics?

Third, WTF?


----------



## J.R. (May 6, 2014)

At first glance it appeared that someone was having an extended April 1, but no, it's true 

Patenting a technique that people have already been using for ages seems a crazy idea altogether. What is the intention of Amazon is something I am unable to fathom. 

It sure isn't possible looking at a photograph to determine precisely what lighting equipment was used. Burden of proof lies with Amazon if they are going to contest the photographs, so what are they going to argue? Is Amazon going to raid every studio in the world to see who all are violating the patents?


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

People (including a jacka$$ named Bikram Choudhury) have tried to patent/copyright much, much older techniques - check out this Wikipedia article:
Yoga Piracy


----------



## tron (May 6, 2014)

So let the descendants of Gutenberg establish patent copyrights for hard copy books and then sue the Amazon for selling books!!!! : ;D


----------



## nostrovia (May 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> First, seems like there should be 'prior art' on this.
> 
> Second, based on the output (an image), how the heck is Amazon going to be able to claim infringement on the specifics?
> 
> Third, WTF?



This is most likely a purely defensive patent - one that they have absolutely no intention of ever attempting to enforce against an infringer. But with likely tens of thousands of product images on Amazon's site taken with this very specific lighting setup, they have a solid defense against anyone claiming to infringe on a separate patent.


----------



## jdramirez (May 6, 2014)

I like Amazon, but this is silly. I want to patent bike riding technique... no one can use a seat unless they buy a license.


----------



## Orangutan (May 6, 2014)

Might just as well file a patent on a Python-esque "silly walk."  

Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks (Full Sketch)


----------



## tolusina (May 6, 2014)

*U.S. Patent Office Issues Patent to Amazon.....*

It all seems quite absurd. 
1st, that Amazon would conceive of and file such a patent.
2nd, that the U.S.P.O. would approve. But they have, and granted it.


neuroanatomist said:


> .......Third, WTF?


 
---
No worries though, the patent spells out in excruciating detail a very very specific lighting set up, specifies distances, light specs, materials, f-stop, ISO used.
Claim 25 regarding method gets rather generic, but 25 gets nailed down to specifics by 26 and 27.
Full text of the patent.
It's pretty unlikely anyone would ever duplicate this exact set up.

I'm guessing it's a staged lighting configuration specifically intended to create a specific look to be used as a signature style.


----------



## EdB (May 7, 2014)

This is ridiculous. Sad thing is, so is the US patent office, they will probably grant it. *sigh*


----------



## wsmith96 (May 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> People (including a jacka$$ named Bikram Choudhury) have tried to patent/copyright much, much older techniques - check out this Wikipedia article:
> Yoga Piracy



The company I work for filed for a patent on one of the computer virus delivery mechanisms (don't remember which one) so that if they caught the creators of said virus they could also hit them with patent infringement.


----------



## tolusina (May 7, 2014)

EdB said:


> This is ridiculous. Sad thing is, so is the US patent office, they will probably grant it. *sigh*


No probably about it, they already have.
Brief description
Full text

_"Filed on Nov. 9, 2011, as Appl. No. 13/292,359."

"United States Patent
8,676,045
Sawatzky , et al.
March 18, 2014 "_

Go read the claims in the full text, there's nothing to worry over, the patent is so very specific it's unlikely anyone would duplicate the set up unless they intentionally wanted to.





.


----------



## agierke (May 7, 2014)

the truly inane thing about this is how does one enforce this? 

if i create a set up that uses the same configuration of lights but i change the positions by a foot or two and the angle by a foot or two i will effectively get the same lighting result but technically not infringe upon the patent. and even if its argued that i did infringe...how in the heck would you ever prove that i did?


----------



## tolusina (May 7, 2014)

agierke said:


> the truly inane thing about this is how does one enforce this?
> 
> if i create a set up that uses the same configuration of lights but i change the positions by a foot or two and the angle by a foot or two i will effectively get the same lighting result but technically not infringe upon the patent. and even if its argued that i did infringe...how in the heck would you ever prove that i did?


YES, you get IT. To be safe, use an f-stop other than approximately 5.6, an ISO setting other than 320.
This patent is so specific, it's meaningless to anyone, everyone but Amazon.
It's their specific product photo set up and that's all and only what it is.
---
Although, there's nothing stopping anyone from improving on that specific set up, applying for another ridiculous patent.



.


----------



## Zv (May 7, 2014)

What's to prevent other companies from patenting their lighting secrets? Pretty soon we'll have no way to legally light a subject!

I mean, does the DMV have a patent for ugly and harsh lighting? If not I'm taking that one. Think of all those on camera pop up flash shots that are taken every day! I could make a fortune! 

What about the sun?


----------



## jdramirez (May 7, 2014)

tolusina said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > the truly inane thing about this is how does one enforce this?
> ...



How much does it cost to get a patent? I'd like to purport that I use a patented lighting technique that no one else on the planet is allowed to use without my permission.


----------



## mackguyver (May 7, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> How much does it cost to get a patent?


Between filing and legal fees, it usually costs between $70,000-100,000+ and is currently running 3-5 years for full approval (the current Administration has not made US innovation a high priority so there is a massive backlog of applications). The legal fees are the biggest part because they have people that do exhaustive searches for conflicting patents and "prior art' that could derail the application. Also, for a patent, you must be able to demonstrate/let them test the item/technique you're seeking to patent, with the exception of explosives. Really.


----------



## Maui5150 (May 7, 2014)

Amazon will likely get the patent

After all the courts originally approved for Bio-tech companies to patent genes.

Yes. Genes...

Those DNA strands

Created by nature...

and in YOUR BODY...

The patent was finally overturned after several years, but in short a biotech company had patented a gene so that they would have exclusivity for a test for the early detection of breast cancer and were forcing people to pay for their over priced tests. While the court got it right... eventually, what is sad is the patent should have been rejected in the outright from the beginning.


----------



## Joe M (May 7, 2014)

It's an interesting world, isn't it? I do wonder though exactly how they will enforce any perceived infringement. Just by looking at someone else's photo they'll be able to tell that the copyrighted setup was used, exactly?


----------



## Skirball (May 7, 2014)

Zv said:


> What's to prevent other companies from patenting their lighting secrets? Pretty soon we'll have no way to legally light a subject!



I think that's the only interesting part about this. Defensive patents are filed and granted all the time. There's plenty more silliness coming out of the USPTO if you have a look. But theoretically there could be an infinite amount of patents on every permutation of lighting setup.


----------



## tolusina (May 7, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> Amazon will likely get the patent...


Amazon _has already been awarded_ the patent.
---
Fixed it for you, past, not future tense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2014)

http://www.photographybay.com/2014/05/15/colbert-report-takes-on-amazons-seamless-white-background-patent/


----------



## Skirball (May 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> http://www.photographybay.com/2014/05/15/colbert-report-takes-on-amazons-seamless-white-background-patent/



Man I love Colbert, sorry to see the show go. Can't wait to watch this clip tonight.


----------



## jdramirez (May 19, 2014)

Skirball said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.photographybay.com/2014/05/15/colbert-report-takes-on-amazons-seamless-white-background-patent/
> ...



I didn't think the Amazon joke was his best, but I'm sad to see it go as well. There are so many talk shows all doing the same thing... entertaining yes, but the Colbert report was just a sublime parody that truly felt ground breaking. It is sad to see the character go. I'm more upset by Colbert than Letterman who I grew up watching.


----------



## Skirball (May 19, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> [There are so many talk shows all doing the same thing... entertaining yes, but the Colbert report was just a sublime parody that truly felt ground breaking.



Totally agree. I don't watch much of the late night shows; they're entertaining enough, but all kind of the same. If for some reason I happen to be watching TV when they're on I'll watch them, but that's rare. Colbert show I made a point to watch.


----------

