I did a little more reading, and it appears there are 3 patents (6985875, 7047214, 7870035). They all basically say the same thing, in fact the claims in the first 2 are worded nearly identically. This appears to be a case of someone patenting the obvious, and somehow or another it slid through the patent office partly because nobody else had bothered to try. IMO the patent office has tightened up in recent years and these wouldn't be issued today.
There was a case recently where a patent was overturned because it was obvious to anyone with technical training.... someone had patented the process of measuring the amount of medication in a patients bloodstream and increasing or decreasing medication based on the blood test result. This photocrazy patent is the same thing, unfortunately photographers don't have as many resources as pharmaceutical companies to fight litigation.
So unless this patent was filed at the advent of the internet, I'm not sure how or why the patent was even issued, or how it could be defended by the patent holder.
The thing that Photocrazy is counting on is that lawyers are very expensive. Most photographers or photography related companies will simply cave in and pay royalties rather than spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to fight it out in court.
You take photos at a parking lot club race. You upload those pictures into your computer, which has exif info including date and time. You designate the photos by car number and post them on facebook. your friends find their cars and want to order photos you took of their cars. Patent infringement?
Unfortunately it appears that it would be.
...just a heads up: Peter Wolf is a member of these forums:
I saw that... he has a total of about 7 posts. I guess he gave up trying to defend himself and moved on.