# Amazon issued patent for white background



## ShaneF (May 5, 2014)

Pulled this post of MM


Article

https://shootthecenterfold.com/amazon-t  echniques/ 

link to the actual patent: 

Patent Images


----------



## 480sparky (May 5, 2014)

In my shoot, I put the light to the subjects' left, not to their right.  Therefore, no infringment exists.


----------



## ShaneF (May 5, 2014)

i really dont understand the reasoning behind them doing this


----------



## tirediron (May 5, 2014)

Mehhh..  their technique appears to involve a key light with about a 30" reflector; I don't have one of those, and further, since they refer to video, that, IMO, implies continuous lighting, I used strobed lighting, therefore no issue.


----------



## timor (May 6, 2014)

Quickly let's patent to TPF rights to photograph landscapes, portraits, animal photography, kids photography, wedding photography... Let's patent photography in general only to members of TPF. Or maybe I should patent this all to myself. Once the gate of American stupidity is open, everything is possible. But wait, did they patent *THIS*&#8203; in Canada ? Not yet ? Soon ?
And you wrong, Tirediron, it refers to taking images and video.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 6, 2014)

I'm calling dibs on sunset portraits with fill flash.  Y'all better pay up.


----------



## Stevepwns (May 6, 2014)

This was a post on the article.  It seems its basically BS, but I'm not shopping at Amazon anymore nonetheless.  Ill stick with Ebay and Newegg until they do something just as ignorant. 





> When reading the patent, be sure to ignore everything not in the Claims section. Theyre not protected. Note also that all subsequent claims depend on claim 1 or 2, so if you do anything not covered in Claim 1  Thats not covered. So this patent claim 1 only applies if you have ALL of4 rear light sources, in a 10:3 intensity ratio, in exactly
> An 85mm lens at f/5.6
> ISO 320 set
> An elevated platform with the object on it, and a reflective top surface on that platform
> ...


----------



## limr (May 6, 2014)

You portrait or product photographers should read the actual patent application, specifically the claims, to see just how common or uncommon this arrangement and process is (it's not a long application, all things considered. 9 pages, and 2-3 of them are pictures. The claims are on the last two pages.)

They are patenting essentially three things that they say make their method unique: a very specific arrangement of certain elements, the material of the background, and the process of taking the picture. So, there have to be specific lighting arrangements in relative distance to each other and to the subject, a platform of a certain height, and the background, which is to be white cyclorama. The effect of the type of lights/background, plus the arrangement apparently renders post processing unnecessary. Finally, the lights are to be activated in a certain order before the model gets on the platform and the "image capture device" is activated.

So it's not just the arrangement, but it also specifies the equipment, the material of the background, and the order of the actions involved in lighting, posing, and taking the picture.

Whether or not this is truly 'unique' and warrants a patent, I can't say. Obviously the good folks at the U.S. Patent Office decided it was. They went through a couple of revisions and it was filed in Nov. 2011, which means it's only going to be an active patent for 17 years. Unless they discover something even newer and apply to extend it.


----------



## spacefuzz (May 6, 2014)

I've read thousands of patents and written a few.....and this is one of the more rediculous ones I've read. 

It is so obscenely narrow in scope for all intents and purposes its useless.....the only winner here was the lawyer who made at least $10k off this.


----------



## hamlet (May 6, 2014)

I find it disturbing that techniques can be patented. If i invented a technique all i would want is some recognition, but i would let others use it for their work free of charge. When you restrict someone from doing things a certain way, you prevent them from discovering possible other ways that could have flourished out of the initial process. The camera itself used to be nothing but a pinhole, people are very shortsighted and greedy.


----------



## weepete (May 6, 2014)

Well, it may be the case of the people at the patent office couldn't refuse it as it complies with the rules about patents which is a slightly different thing than thinking it's worthwhile


----------



## limr (May 6, 2014)

hamlet said:


> I find it disturbing that techniques can be patented. If i invented a technique all i would want is some recognition, but i would let others use it for their work free of charge. When you restrict someone from doing things a certain way, you prevent them from discovering possible other ways that could have flourished out of the initial process. The camera itself used to be nothing but a pinhole, people are very shortsighted and greedy.



Actually, the patent process is designed to _encourage_ innovation and creativity. If someone knows that they will have control over their work and can get recognition AND compensation, they're more likely to create something. And patents aren't forever; once that patent runs out, then that product/process/formula is up for grabs and people are free to riff off of it to their hearts' content.


----------



## Overread (May 6, 2014)

It wouldn't surprise me if some companies are taking out these almost frivolous cases just to get the media attention to anger the population enough to get them to ask for copyright/patenting to be removed or reduced in power. Because many companies could make a fortune because once they already dominate a market segment any material that  they can get to publish within that segment is pure profit for them - they don't worry about any competition because they are already "the" name every one goes to anyway. 

OF course on the other side you've groups like Disney trying to extend copyrights so that they can hold works in limbo under their licence and deny competition in the market that way. 


It's messy and the sad part is most people don't understand these things even at a basic level. All they know is because of "copyright" and "patenting" they can't download movies for free legally on the internet.


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2014)

Well presidents are being set. Soon all creative content will be controlled by corporate patents.

Want to sing a song and play a guitar? Sony owns the patent on singing with a guitar.

Paint a picture? Viacom patented the process if putting paint on canvas.

And so on. Seems crazy but my company recently got sued for the same insane patent trolling behavior.


----------



## spacefuzz (May 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> Well presidents are being set. Soon all creative content will be controlled by corporate patents.
> 
> Want to sing a song and play a guitar? Sony owns the patent on singing with a guitar.
> 
> ...




There are new laws to help curb patent trolls, such as if you force them into court they have to pay if they lose type of deals.  Provides more incentive for people to fight.


----------



## snerd (May 8, 2014)

*No, the Patent System Is Not Broken*



> But what about those patent litigants who file frivolous cases against  deep-pocketed businesses in an effort to extort settlements? It&#8217;s true  that the patent industry has a few participants who take advantage of  the legal system to drive settlements, just as the personal injury field  has its ambulance chasers and corporate law has its &#8220;shareholder rights  trolls.&#8221; But these few outliers are hardly the norm in the $500 billion  annual global patent licensing trade. They are the price we pay for a  democratized legal system that allows everyone unfettered access to the  courts............


No, the Patent System Is Not Broken - Forbes

Interesting read.


----------



## photoguy99 (May 9, 2014)

limr actually went and read the patent like I did. That makes two of us in the world. She has it right. The materials and angles are the interesting part and are the actual IP here.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 9, 2014)

At least 3 of us - we seem to have two separate threads going on this. (Well, 2 1/2 maybe, I skimmed thru - didn't exactly read _all_ of it!) I thought it seemed pretty specific about where the lights are set up, behind the subject and aimed up thru the plexiglass platform (or something along those lines). 

I don't do studio work to know if this is particularly unique or clever or extraordinarily nitpicky in being patented. Of course it being a large company it's getting attention in the media that most patents wouldn't get - that patents would hardly ever get at all I don't think. 

Today I was looking at auction listings that included patent drawings for shutters from around 1930. I can't say that any of them looked all that much different from others of that era, but the designs apparently were different enough in some way from other shutters for them to be patented.


----------

