Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
  

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              7       8       end
  

Archive 2011 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent
  
 
John Korduner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Rags, I think your perspective may be blinded by anger. "Who Dat" was a trademark issue, and while the NFL backed off the matter, there's still a fine line between marketing items that combine the phrase in conjunction with the Saints color scheme, fonts, etc.

As for "public" property and "citizens rights," The most basic breakdown of property interests would be common (high seas, skies) Public (individuals cannot purchase), and private (ownership by individuals). Consequently, each has varying degrees of regulation and restrictions according to intended use and public interest. I've experienced scenarios like yours, and in those situations you have to recognize the opposing party is leveraging power and he really isn't considering the legitimacy of your actions.

From a strictly academic standpoint, depending upon the activity, you can often possess more personal freedoms on private property than public. Consequently, just because a road is publicly owned, doesn't mean it can't be closed to the public during a football game, and just because a street is the property of a homeowner's association doesn't mean they can restrict it's use as a throughway....given various scenarios.



Dec 03, 2011 at 01:04 AM
Mark Peters
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Here's more of the discourse: Just follow the links embedded in the letter.
http://www.photocrazy.com/Levi/Levi111021Ltr.pdf



Dec 03, 2011 at 01:46 AM
Rags Hef
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


James Broome wrote:
In this case, Rags, your point is moot since what we're discussing here is, in fact, a private property issue.


Sorry, without rereading the dispute, I thought "Sullivan Rd" was mentioned; hence I thought it was public.

Sorry to introduce a foreign issue

Rags



Dec 03, 2011 at 02:49 AM
Rags Hef
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


John Korduner wrote:
Rags, I think your perspective may be blinded by anger. "Who Dat" was a trademark issue, and while the NFL backed off the matter, there's still a fine line between marketing items that combine the phrase in conjunction with the Saints color scheme, fonts, etc.

As for "public" property and "citizens rights," The most basic breakdown of property interests would be common (high seas, skies) Public (individuals cannot purchase), and private (ownership by individuals). Consequently, each has varying degrees of regulation and restrictions according to intended use and public interest. I've experienced scenarios like yours, and in those situations
...Show more

In my case; if a park ranger would have ordered me out; I would have obeyed; I recognize your point and am familiar with it.

Rags



Dec 03, 2011 at 02:52 AM
pappawheely
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


It sounds like Photocrazy is trying to put a happy face on this but it sounds to me like they did not respect the promoter by showing up without permission then acted arrogant towards them.


Dec 05, 2011 at 03:17 AM
knight13
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


pappawheely wrote:
It sounds like Photocrazy is trying to put a happy face on this but it sounds to me like they did not respect the promoter by showing up without permission then acted arrogant towards them.


Agreed.

Seems like the bully picked on one to many promoter and got what was coming to him.



Dec 06, 2011 at 02:47 PM
wordski
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


I'm surprised no one mentioned the model release angle. I mean he's profiting of the images of those he has no permission from. In my experiences you the sponsor or event planner has the participants sign a release as part of the entry form so that their photographers have rights (or the organizer) to the images as they're taken.
Wolf obviously did not get that permission/release and is clearly using them for profit.



Dec 10, 2011 at 01:20 AM
Mark Peters
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Sale of prints is not considered commercial use and does not require a release. A release would be required if he were using their images to promote another product or service - which he is not.


Dec 10, 2011 at 01:35 AM
TAZorich
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Last year, I had the distinct displeasure of dealing with Peter Wolf. He contacted me out of the blue to demand that I start paying his company a licensing fee, as I had been posting my event photos in a manner that allowed my customers to click on a link bearing their (bike) number. Frustratingly, his US patents for organizing online photos by a visible (bib, number plate, etc) number - or by a time, are both valid.

My own opinion is that Wolf's tactics are deplorable, and if there is a hell, there's a special place waiting there for him. However, he is acting completely within his legal rights in terms of the patents themselves. As a result of my own interactions with Wolf, I immediately pulled all of the event photos I had online, re-posting them using a different organization scheme, and from the point of our correspondence forward, I never again posted photos on my site that were organized by participant number. I was clear in all my correspondence with him that I had no intentions of ever paying him a licensing fee, nor "thanking him" (his suggestion) for his supposed "inventing" the idea of sorting/organizing photos by competitor number. He was disappointed that I was not going to pay him, but he did not take any legal action.

I found it interesting to learn that Printroom (which I stopped using a couple months prior to my hearing from Peter Wolf) had been reporting sales of their own customers to Wolf, and paying a licensing fee for photos sold in cases where they infringed on Wolf's patent. When I was their customer, I had no idea Printroom was doing this behind the scenes. Peter asked me to confirm the number of sales I'd made, which Printroom had apparently reported to him. And at that moment it occurred to me: How could he ever know whether the reported number was accurate, unless a case went to court and records and payment checks were subpoenaed? Perhaps the folks at Printroom despise Wolf and his stupid patents as much as the photographer community...

I also found it interesting that the lawyer for the (GranFondo) race organizer dismissed Wolf's patents as "neither novel or non-obvious". He is, in essence, challenging Wolf to take them (or their hired photographers) to court. To my knowledge, the patents ARE valid, and while most photographers cave and reach a financial settlement (and/or licensing agreement) with Wolf before it ever gets to court, I believe Wolf has won at least two cases that did go to court. Challenging the patents is something that really needs to be done, but no one photographer or group is likely going to be able to take it on as a solo effort.

I would love to see a class action get underway. I bet hundreds or thousands of photographers would be willing to participate, and share the burden of the enormous expense it would take to fight the patents. But you know what? My own gut feeling is that EVEN THOUGH the idea of looking for one's photos by participant number is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS (how else would you identify one competitor in a field of dozens or hundreds or thousands?), the patents would be upheld, because apparently no one can produce evidence that someone was doing this before Wolf filed for his patents (versus the date the patent was granted, which was several years later).

At least a year ago, I had read on another forum that there was a Supreme Court case pending which would have affected (among other things) the validity of Wolf's online photo search-related patents (he claims to have many other patents than the ones we're questioning here). My understanding about that particular case is that if Wolf's patents were in fact overturned as a result, the bigger issue is that it would have somehow negatively affected the pharmaceutical industry, and as such, they (of very deep pockets) were extremely keen to fight the case. I have no idea what that case was about, and whether it was ever resolved...and I must apologize for any mis-information - again, this is based on a year-old memory of what I'd heard was going on.



Dec 12, 2011 at 05:11 PM
James Broome
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


His patents are valid because they haven't been found invalid yet. Every patent is valid the minute it is approved. The only way to make them invalid is to challenge their validity in court - and win. Until that happens to Mr. Wolf, yes, his patents are valid.

My post wasn't so much about the validity of his claims, but his methods of doing business. However, speaking of his patents, I will absolutely concur that he has every right to fight in the name of his patents. If someone infringes, he has the right to take legal action.



Dec 12, 2011 at 06:10 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mill4570
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Hmmmm, MaxPreps must owe him a fortune.

Richard K.



Dec 12, 2011 at 06:59 PM
BioBanker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


I dont understand why people wouldnt just set up an offshore company and hold the database offshore.

Who cares where the purchaser is; the action, albeit on a computer screen in the US, would be outside of USPTO.

I think that his ip would also be unenforceable, and with that *poof*.

And, I just filed a patent on being a douchebag. Im filing papers as I type because clearly he infringes.



Dec 12, 2011 at 07:10 PM
James Broome
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


mill4570 wrote:
Hmmmm, MaxPreps must owe him a fortune.

Richard K.

I'm not sure MaxPreps uses methods that would violate the patents in question. Do they allow users to search for photographs based on jersey number or finishing time?



Dec 12, 2011 at 07:23 PM
TAZorich
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


It's possible that MaxPreps already has a licensing agreement in place with him.


Dec 12, 2011 at 07:54 PM
Mark Peters
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


His patent has been challenged - not sure where this is at now.

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



Dec 13, 2011 at 01:46 AM
gschlact
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Not sure what had happened since their July 2010 in the link above. But, what I don't get is the Obvious test and prior methods- a reunited file names to enable search and distribution has been used for ever. What is being searched and by who seems to be irrelevant since the patent is about theactual info used to perform the search. When attributing files, content of time, place, person, ,time, date, version number, address, offset, before, after, name, season, and just about any noun, verb, or adjective has been used and incorporated into electronic file names for archive and search. these methods have been used for all different type s of files. applying these methods to a new file type (jpeg photos) is no different than the previous N file types, across N' different systems, searchable by N'' different people.

Guy
gschlact

PS-in one of the dpreview threads, an Australian claimed archive and search for event photos back to the mid 90s scanning prints before digital camera s.



Dec 13, 2011 at 03:51 AM
mill4570
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


James Broome wrote:
I'm not sure MaxPreps uses methods that would violate the patents in question. Do they allow users to search for photographs based on jersey number or finishing time?



Photographers enter jersey numbers of players in the image at upload. Many supporting schools will upload team rosters and team stats. This allows customers to locate pictures by team and player. A very good system in my opinion.

Maxpreps may have an agreement with him, but it is difficult for me to imagine any system that allows customers to locate by uniform number would be an infringement on his patent.

Richard K.



Dec 13, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Ralph Thompson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Wolf's patent involves searching for your photo by time and/or bib number, jersey number etc...I used to be a Printroom customer, they had an option to opt in for your customer to search by time & number... If you opted in, there was a $1.00 license fee for each sale. I didn't opt in, therefore, you couldn't search....

Though I'm a MaxPreps photographer and have spent some time at the MaxPreps "mothership" I'm pretty certain they are above board on what they do. As photographers, we enter by jersey number or by name on a roster. When we enter a jersey number, it is linked to the player's data by name on the roster. Customers can scroll through the galleries or search by player's name, not by jersey number. Wolf's patent would not apply to searching by a person's name...



Dec 13, 2011 at 05:41 PM
pappawheely
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


I'm going to patent the sandwich.


Dec 17, 2011 at 05:28 AM
WestCoastSnapp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


I guess Peter Wolf.......cried Wolf?




Dec 18, 2011 at 04:20 AM
1      
2
       3              7       8       end






FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password