Personally I dont see this as a big deal. If you regularly work with money on your Photoshop, then email them and make them provide you with a work around because you have permission. If you dont, I dont see this as a big deal.
We all know why this is happening, do you really think that they will create a sensor that doesnt allow you to open a photo of your family or a tree. C'mon, I dont like to treat it lightly, but I dont think we need to worry about much additional censorship coming down the pike. Maybe we do, but if it happens, thats when we all stop using Pshop. Hit them where it counts.
I dont like the idea of censorship, but I also dont see this as a big deal in this case.
Interesetingly I used Firebirds "Copy Image to Clipboard" feature on the "nr22_" image then opened a new image in Photoshop, pasted in just fine. When I saved it locally from the link provided then tried to open I got the warning.
For the US bill, I tried the same thing, yet either copying from clipboard or fopening from local file gave me the warning.
This could be a royal PITA especially for designers.In my old job,(Multimedia Design) we used images of coins and bills quite often in various ways for both web and print ads and for web design elements. Quite a few of them we did literally scan then assemble comps in photoshop. Final output was always within sec treas guidance (I belive the limitation is you can't reproduce from 75% -- 150% actual size but other wise as long as it's one sided print it's legal. We had a phalanx of copyright/patent/regulatory lawyers to keep us up to date on legalities and keep us honest when we had final comps done. We hated them and cursed them half the time, but they kept us from violating some really obscure and convoluted laws too.
This goes beyond what the law (as I understand it) from Treasury states and effectively makes it impossible to use aquire and use images that the law maintains are allowed.
vwpilot thats the wrong attitude.
Why wouldnt they.
Your not complaning now.
So in their eyes they can do what they want. You wont complain then either.
Kudos for Adobe! I'm glad to see some company that's a little more interested in the needs of the country than the almighty buck. If you don't like it don't buy their product. That's what free enterprise is all about. Any descent photographer on this forum could come up with a dozen ways to work around what some see here as a problem.
I think the explanation from Adobe covers the reasons for the implementation of this restriction succinctly. Adobe apparently made the decision to implement CDS based on concerns from various central banks whose job it is to maintain the integrity of the currency of their respective countries. The US redesigned their currency for the express reason to make counterfeiting more difficult at what I assume was considerable expense for the taxpayer. It makes sense that the US central bank would want to do everything possible to prevent the problem from propogating to the new currency with the ease of scanning and reproducing in tools like PS and Adobe made the decision to help prevent an illegal activity - counterfeiting. Given that the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing will provide images that can be manipulated in PS it seems a logical workaround has been created for graphic designers and others needing to use images of currency for their work. It doesn't however address the problem of a collector of currency to scan their work which appears to be an issue that can be worked around creatively with some of the suggestions of other posters in this forum.
Bottom line to me is that technology has surpassed the ability of central banks to prevent easy copying of their currencies and this is a way for them to stem the tide of counterfeiters who cost all of us money in the long run. The caveat is - it probably only impacts the casual counterfeiter not the ones doing large scale counterfeiting.
Unfortunately, the CDS isn't going to deter the crooks. Dishonest people can always find a way around every deterent. Just look at all the identity scams and fraudlent use of credit cards.
Censorship in one area leads to the same in many others and eventually to our civil rights being affected negatively.
The first 45 years of my life I never locked the door to my home or took the key out my vehicles. However, the last 30 years have been a far different story. I wouldn't even leave my vehicle in the driveway today without the doors being locked. Even now locks don't stop all the theives.
Robert
No lock will keep out all thieves. But you still keep your doors locked. So even though it won't stop it all, you do keep trying, right? If this move, helps stop some of the problem, is it not worth it? Let the treasury authorities go after the real bad guys.
Nagash,
Lets not get the difference between "right point" and "an opinion that I agree with" mixed up please. There are several valid opinions here.
I would suggest that any moves to protect copyrights, be it duplication of a bank note, or copy of one of your really great pictures is a good thing. Copyright infringement is a serious problem for all the pros here.
I don't believe in censorship. Not at all. But, in my opinion, this is not a censorship issue. If you have a publication that for some reason needs a picture of a bank note. Get creative, use part of one, make a collage of several parts of bank notes. Use one that is doctored enough that it will pass the Adobe block (and can't be used to counterfeit the bill). I don't believe anyone who sees the material is going to say. "Hey I hate this work, it doesn't have a whole bank note."
Heck wouldn't it be cool if there was a way to "register" your copyright globally, then embed in all your pictures an encrypted copyright signature that only you could unlock. Not censorship, just copyright protection.
I know my opinions don't go lock step with the rest, but they are after all my opinions. (And trust me, I don't like it when someone tries to reduce my freedoms. I've spent enough time in the military prepared to lay down my life to protect them. Again, in my opinion, this is really a none issue. Oh, and the day counterfeited pictures of trees is a billion dollar problem, then I'll worry about not being able to take a picture of a tree. hah, back to the copyright issue again. )
Not sure we can really argue censorship here. If the statement is true - that Photoshop CS has such abilities, there are those who do not care about stealing and would love to be able to print their own bank notes -forgeries but they do get away with it sometimes. Forgory is a real problem too. What if someone bought a photo from you and when you go and try to spend or deposit the cash they(the bank or store) discover a forged note or notes. You are the one holding nothing. What if you find out that photoshop was used to fool you? The way our society is - this can be bad bad for Adobe... one could cliam they are responsible - just like many want to hold gun companys responsible with those who shot people. I think I would try to cover myself, that is what this sounds like.
I understand Dave's point and Nagash points but I don't think they are doing this on the basis of censorship.
Sorry you guys feel this way. When Adobe decides that you are a probably software pirate (Activation) and now you are a probable Counterfiter (This CDC I think they call it) this is the last straw. '
Whats next? I guess you wont scream or holler until it affects you.
Thats why they got away with activation People are just complacent.
What will they do next?
BTW it is NOT illegal to scan/edit/print banknotes as long as you go by the law.
I think its here: http://www.treas.gov/usss/money_illustrations.shtml
Qoute
"
the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
the illustration is one-sided; and
all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.
Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less than three-quarters or greater than one-and-one-half times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made. This policy permits the use of currency reproductions in commercial advertisements, provided they conform to the size and color restrictions. "
In my opinion, this is another step in the wrong direction for Adobe. Their software activation process makes the assumption that if you purchase their product your intent is to pirate it, and now with their self-appointed censorship coming to light, they obviously think their customers to be counterfitters as well. I wonder just how much insulting customers take at $599.00 per copy? It appears that Adobe intends to find out...
I write software for a living. I've lost millions because of piracy. I do scream. I want it stopped. I work very very hard at figureing out how to stop people from stealing my software. Seems the only people that would scream about locking down software would be the people that are trying to steal the software? There was a study done a few years back. Sorry I don't have a link to it. But if every copy of a program was actually paid for, the cost of software could drop by 60%-80%. Just like stores have to increase the price of [insert what ever here] to cover the cost of shoplifting, so do software companys raise the cost of software to cover piracy.
No one screams when Robert locks his door. But it's ok to complain when a developer locks his programs?
How much money does the US government spend trying to stop couterfeiting? Wonder how that money could be spent. Maybe on schools? Maybe on .....
The sad part of all this is that on-line registration and banknote detection are probably unable to stop a pair of determined 12 year old delinquents, but do possible inconvenience a larger group of law abiding people.
Gentlemen (and I do believe everyone that's responded so far is male - forgive me if I'm wrong):
This is NOT about the fact that PSCS prohibits the copying/opening/editing of (images of) new issue US and Euro notes. This is about:
1. Adobe included a "feature" it did not disclose in any of its documentation - despite the fact it, regularly, discloses every nit-picky, piddly new "enhancement" it makes to its software;
2. When "confronted", Adobe did not provide an adequate explanation of this feature - and why it chose to include it - and why it did not disclose it prior to Kevin Connor's forum message of yesterday (anyone else notice how Kevin did not include his title or department - - and anyone else notice how no press release has come forth, despite the controversy of this topic - ).
It's not the feature that's of controvery - it's the lack of disclosure.
Over the course of the past 14 years, I have been responsible (directly or indirectly) for the purchase of millions of dollars worth of Adobe products. I have always trusted Adobe, championed its products, etc.
This is interesting. I wonder how they do it? Some sort of pattern recognition perhaps?
Imagine if instead of recognising a Banknote perhaps it could recognise ... a face ( not necessarily an American President) or a number plate for instance.
In England, they use number plate recognition software to read video images from a series of Video cameras placed by the roadside. They use this information to charge people £5 to drive into certain parts of London. The so called "Congestion Charge".
At airports we are told that it will be possible to check how peoples faces are constructed, ie distance between the eyes and the nose etc, as they pass a video camera and check to see if they are wanted or known.
If personal imaging software could be used to do the same thing and report back, even covertly, what a powerful intelligence tool it would become.
Everyone with a digital or video camera would be gathering data.
With the current interest in Biometric information how useful could this be?
The software could send back information about the time, date and filename of the picture, the IP addess of the User etc. After that a follow up visit from a Law Enforcement officer to gather more information perhaps?
Interesting? Science fiction? Science fact? Total BS probably.
I agree that this isn't really a "censorship" issue, but so what if it were? Why is it that everyone is afraid of censorship. We need it and censorship has been required by the laws of this land from the beginning and will continue to be so. We protect ourselves (hollering "fire" in a dark theater is against the law) or protecting our children (child pronography laws) or some of the new "hate" laws protecting certain groups. We as a society decide to limit free speech and use censorship when we deem it more important to protect the safety and welfare of the majority rather than the rights of a single or few individuals. Join the military you'll encounter a lot of censorship as well as loosing a lot of your free speech protection. The issue isn't censorship per se but where to draw the line. Are there any of you that would say we are living in the same kind of world that we lived in 3 or 4 or 10 years ago? Do you really expect everything to remain the same.
Another statement has suggested that "Thats why they got away with activation". Adobe has every right to do with their product whatever they wish. It belongs to them. They aren't getting away with anything. Like I said before, if you don't like "activation" or their protection of US currency then exercise your right to buy someone else's product and thus promote competition. I suppose you would consider it censorship if Adobe decided to totally stop producing and selling Photoshop. Do they have the right to do that? Of couse they do!
) 
- and anyone else notice how no press release has come forth, despite the controversy of this topic - 