I bet you did not realize that categorizing photos on a website by race number (bib number) appears to violate a patent. This issue has been the focus of several lawsuits and discussed many times here on FM. This might seem like a joke, but even sites such as SmugMug have been forced to make some changes based on this patent claim.
mdude85 wrote:
Things are not always as they appear
In what way? All major photo sites (SmugMug, etc) have now agreed to pay licensing fees to PhotoCrazy for the right to present photos online.
The following is on the SmugMug site
Notice for Professional Account holders:
Uploading more than 500 photographs of participants in a single
sporting event may require a License from PhotoCrazy, Inc.
To avoid patent infringement, please contact:
PhotoCrazy, Inc.
Attn: Peter Wolf
509 Raindance Street
Thousand Oaks, California 91360-1219
Email: [email protected]
Because "categorizing photos on a website by race number (bib number)" may appear to violate a patent, but does not necessarily by itself violate (infringe upon) a patent.
mdude85 wrote:
Because "categorizing photos on a website by race number (bib number)" may appear to violate a patent, but does not necessarily by itself violate (infringe upon) a patent.
I think we have totally hijacked this guy's thread and I apologize for that. I will start a new thread for some further discussion of this.
Not necessarily,but probably...at least in the eye of Peter Wolf. I called him last year and asked some questions. He view of this is pretty simple. If you post the photos from an event, you owe him.
smbisig wrote:
anyone know how photoshelter is dealing with this? searched their forum and didn't see anything.
steven b~
Tough to say -- this workflow from one photographer using Photoshelter software could be infringing on a patent, but is not necessarily infringing on the Wolf patents since this particular workflow does not include using the computing system to inform the players of their identifying data, and the workflow where Photoshelter is implemented seems to fall outside the workflow that might be considered infringing. There are certainly some similar elements, however.
One thing to keep in mind is that most patent owners or companies having a direct interest in a patent usually will not pursue an infringement claim unless the infringement claim causes a loss of profits or other damages. For instance, if I am just using iPhoto to tag my friends, upload the photos to Facebook and alert my friends that their photos have been tagged, it may be infringing on a patent, but there would be little cause for Photocrazy to pursue a claim to infringement since I'm not really making any profits from my actions and Photocrazy is not really losing any profits per se. This should help answer the OP's original question. I suppose Photocrazy could pursue Apple or Facebook, but it would be difficult to prove that either of them directly infringed the patent.
Edit: to respond the post below mine, Photoshelter would never disclaim that they may be infringing a patent, since that could be considered self-incriminating.
i searched both photoshelter and exposure manager (im a member with both) and couldnt find anything about this. you would think they would have a disclaimer somewhere being that they are hosting the photos and they could also me infringing on the patent.
i searched both photoshelter and exposure manager (im a member with both) and couldnt find anything about this. you would think they would have a disclaimer somewhere being that they are hosting the photos and they could also me infringing on the patent.
steven b~
I have been told that the disclaimer on the SmugMug site is a requirement of their settlement with Wolf. Not sure if it applies to others.
