amazon wins patent taking photos against a white background

heartyfisher

Something is seriously wrong here ...

http://agbeat.com/business-news/amazon-wins-patent-taking-photos-white-background/

[Deleted User]

What a world, opened the road to patent against every single background color.
Therefor we have governments of course.

sevencrossing

This is nothing, compared to what the pharmaceuticals industry is up to

ThomasHorton

Not quite sure I understand why Amazon gains from this.

PB_PM

Keeping other competitors from using their method of posting product photos.

Photobug

Really? Are they kidding? Unbelievable. Think about all those tents people use for photo shots on eBay.

spraynpray

Surely this has to be turned over? People have been shooting stuff on a white background longer than Amazon have even existed. What exact shade of white have they 'patented'? I smell BS.

proudgeek

I just patented black. So I've got that part of the market cornered.

PB_PM

I just patented every background colour, other than white and black. Suck it!

Golf007sd

WTF? This is pure BS!

Ade

It's probably a defensive patent.

I.e., not a patent filed because they intend to sue others -- but to deter others from suing them.

Ade

@PitchBlack

Likelihood of confusion applies to trademarks, not patents.

donaldejose

With all due respect I think those of you who thought Amazon patented a white background are quite mistaken. Read the patent and look at the diagrams.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=08676045&OS=PN/08676045&RS=PN/08676045

No patent is granted for something obvious or in common usage. It has to be a unique device before it can be patented. In this case the device is an "arrangement" of objects and lights in certain way. The patent is quite specific. If you use those exact objects, arranged in that exact way with those exact lights you would violate Amazon's patent. Otherwise you don't. If this arrangement does indeed create a "unique look" than it can be patented. Apparently, the patent office thought it did. I would like to see some comparison photos.

Ade

That's right PitchBlack.

My opinion / speculation only on what probably happened:

I think Amazon like many companies has a patent team, and an in-house patent program which awards employees who come up with patents. The reason is not only having additional patents in the portfolio, but a lot of jurisdictions will give incentives (tax breaks) based on R&D activities.

In this case, a bunch of Amazon staff photographers are tasked to take hundreds if not thousands of routine product pictures each year. Through many trials and errors they found a specific arrangement which gives them good results without any post-processing. Not having to Photoshop saves them tons of hours. They are just doing this as part of their daily work.

On a periodic basis, Amazon's patent team likely asks employees if they have done any work in recent past that required "problem solving". One of the photographers probably replied that they spent a lot of time coming up with this specific arrangement that works for them. Alternatively, one of the photographers might have contacted the patent team directly, hoping for an award.

A consultant (lawyer) from the patent team then interviewed the photographers, and decided that the work they did -- i.e., the arrangement they came up with -- is patentable. They then created and filed a patent application, which the USPTO in all of their infinite wisdom granted.

The patent team gets another patent for their quota. The photographers get their award (and maybe a year end bonus). Amazon possibly gets a (minuscule) tax break. And all of the hours the photographers worked on the arrangement get to be expensed.

I speculate all this because I've had that task of interviewing employees for patentable ideas and other work which can be considered "research". Where I am in Canada, some companies are very aggressive in issuing patents because of a government tax credit incentive program called SR&ED. I believe the State of Washington, where Amazon is based from, has similar programs.

TaoTeJared

I bet this all comes from something much simpler - like a photographer, buying items, stock shooting them and labeled with something referring to the "amazon way" and trying to sell the photos to Amazon or businesses that sell on amazon.

OR

Second possible occurrence is that someone started selling a "studio kit" or a book/manual/video that made claims that one could get the Amazon look.

Either way Amazon could sue someone who made these claims to get their name off the product.

Why do I think that? In the patent they are referring to 10 &12 Kilowatt lights, and even down to the materials of staging.

I agree with what @donaldejose said, this is very, very specific set up. Down to the lights, kelvin temp, exact distances, material the stands and backgrounds are made of. This is something that is filed to target a very specific something else or someone who they want to stop.

I think they want to get their name off of some product or service being sold as "the amazon way." If they went after anyone who used the generic set-up they would loose in court in a very short time - even if could make it that far.

Ade

@TTJ

Again there's confusion between patent and trademark.

The Amazon name is already protected by trademark. A patent is not relevant to getting any names off any product.

Rx4Photo

I've read enough to determine that this is nothing that most have to concern themselves with. Just as "there's more than 1 way to skin a cat" I think that this "Amazon" look can be attained in many ways without the specific setup that the patent details. Considering the creative aspect in photography what if all well known photographers out there tried this - to patent their methods so that you couldn't do exactly what they do to create their look. Insert snob factor there. There was a time when jazz musicians wouldn't dare teach you their techniques for fear that you'd go out and imitate their style and take away from thier business and popularity. That slowly changed over the years. Maybe that's the mindset here.

ThomasHorton

Could it be that the purpose of this is to prevent a photographer, who was contracted to Amazon to photograph their products, from quitting, forming their own business and using the "amazon" system for their own profit?

But I agree with the other posters, this would be a hard thing to successfully prosecute in civil court.

Ade

Possible but doubtful, @ThomasHorton. There's no business case for Amazon to stop others from making pictures with seamless white background...

Sometimes another use of patents is for marketing. E.g., if Amazon wants to provide a new product photography service to some of its 70,000+ suppliers & over 2 million merchants, they can now say that they have this wonderful patented process (implying some sort of superior quality). But, I doubt that also.

TaoTeJared

@TTJ

Again there's confusion between patent and trademark.

The Amazon name is already protected by trademark. A patent is not relevant to getting any names off any product.

I wasn't confusing anything nor did I write anything about Amazon's name being an infringed trademark.

My whole post is that they did NOT Patent shooing on a white background - they patented a whole process, parts, materials, settings, actions, etc. of the creation of their product images. It is akin to patenting any other process where things must be done a specific way.

Could it be that the purpose of this is to prevent a photographer, who was contracted to Amazon to photograph their products, from quitting, forming their own business and using the "amazon" system for their own profit?

But I agree with the other posters, this would be a hard thing to successfully prosecute in civil court.

I willing to bet this or something very similar is what happened.

My other guess is that this is a result where they have inside a contract agreement to sell products, that companies must use their studio services for images. I sure someone fought it, won due to the fact they could reasonably recreate the "look" that wasn't specifically laid out and didn't have to pay for the service. Now it is laid out specifically what must be done. 10,000 kw light is what keys me off. Those are not in abundance at your local hardware store nor are they cheap. It is too specific for such a generic result.

ThomasHorton

My other guess is that this is a result where they have inside a contract agreement to sell products, that companies must use their studio services for images. I sure someone fought it, won due to the fact they could reasonably recreate the "look" that wasn't specifically laid out and didn't have to pay for the service. Now it is laid out specifically what must be done.

I never thought of that. Interesting idea. Makes a lot of sense.

Ade

Um, no, that doesn't make sense at all. A refresher on what patents are (and what they are not) might the helpful.

Amazon has 70,000+ suppliers and 2 million+ merchants. They're not about to force anyone to use their staff of 4 in-house photographers as a condition for selling products.

Amazon is in the retail business, with $75 billion annual revenues. Do you really think they will choke their own supply-chain by requiring companies to use their in-house photography business so they can make a few measly bucks? That would be a monumentally stupid move.

sevencrossing

They could grant a license to their suppliers, to use their patented light set up themselves
As a condition of the license, they could require any supplier, who uses the patented light set up , not to use those photographs elsewhere
They could offer suppliers an incentive to use there patented light set up

Ade

Do you know how bizarre that sounds, though? Why would Amazon bother at all?

They can just tell their suppliers to provide acceptable images and be done with it. No need to patent, no need to provide licenses, no need to provide incentives, etc.

sevencrossing

@Ade They could indeed

Having all you catalogue photographs to the same standard and requiring the minimum amount of PP would be a big advantage

Once Amazon have dictated that exact standard, any rival company could then do exactly the same, by copying Amazons specification

One of the biggest problems in a successful business, is trying to prevent other people from copying you ( you will never stop them, but there is no point in making it easy for them)

Anything you can do to hinder your competitor, is advantageous, especially if you are a multinational and can afford expensive law suits

Ade

But again, you're talking about Amazon specifying standards or specifications, not the use of methods in certain patents.

I.e., the mechanism prevent other people from copying specifications is copyright, not patent.