Wolf Patents on selling any event photos... any updates?

I did a search on this site about Wolf Patents and it would have been interesting if someone did mention something about these patents on this forum. If you are not sure about it, here is some info on it here is an excerpt from his patents. This is also covered in smugmugs Terms of Use at the very end:


1. Taking photos of a participant of a sporting event

2. Associating identifying data with each photo. The identifying data could be a number worn by a participant, a participant’s name, a date and time the photo was taken, or a code acquired from a component (e.g., sensor) worn by the participant.

3. Informing the participants of the identifying data

4. Transferring the photos to a computer network server

5. Cataloging each photo according to the identifying data

6. Accessing (by anyone) the server at a location other than the sporting event and searching for a photo utilizing the identifying data

7. Displaying the photo for inspection and ordering

This process #1 through 7 is covered in his patent. That is correct its a US patent. More information here: http://wolfpatents.blo​gspot.com/. If you want to me more specific please look at the link if you aren't sure what I am talking about.

I'd like to know what the hell you are talking about... it looks like a random stream of consciousness as without any context it means nothing.

Its so general its crazy yes. Its any sporting events, being able to be posted on the internet, and sold.

I think it had been mentioned before, and I seem to remember someone being taken to court for breaching the patent (unknowingly) as he was sending cease & desists out. Not sure what the conclusion was.

Simply it looks as if the guy has patented the process by which basically every event photographer now works.

My guess is that his idea was to gain royalties from every photographer that uses the same process for the use of his patent.

slider2828 wrote in post #8367332
I did a search on this site about Wolf Patents and it would have been interesting if someone did mention something about these patents on this forum. If you are not sure about it, here is some info on it here is an excerpt from his patents. This is also covered in smugmugs Terms of Use at the very end:


1. Taking photos of a participant of a sporting event

2. Associating identifying data with each photo. The identifying data could be a number worn by a participant, a participant’s name, a date and time the photo was taken, or a code acquired from a component (e.g., sensor) worn by the participant.

3. Informing the participants of the identifying data

4. Transferring the photos to a computer network server

5. Cataloging each photo according to the identifying data

6. Accessing (by anyone) the server at a location other than the sporting event and searching for a photo utilizing the identifying data

7. Displaying the photo for inspection and ordering

This process #1 through 7 is covered in his patent. That is correct its a US patent. More information here: http://wolfpatents.blo​gspot.com/. If you want to me more specific please look at the link if you aren't sure what I am talking about.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

If you happen to know Wolff, tell him he's a nut case from me. How can 1. Take photo, 2. post photos on web, 3. sell photos from web and 4. ship photos to customer be patented? IT CAN'T. That was the basis of his first lawsuit. It was only added later that he invented this super-secret squirrel software to identify someone via a picture (ie. bib number in a marathon). Let me guess, this fruit-cake will be suing Apple now for iPhoto's face detection. I'm sure there's a room at Bellvue with his name on it.

The patent involves:

...sporting events which feature movement along a course or field and involve numbered participants. It also covers the methods for taking the photographs and associating them with participants and for methods for searching and ordering the photographs.

Info.

A blogto follow.

By the way, the subject title of this thread is misleading in that it describes "...selling any event photos..." which is not the case of the Wolf patent.


From the PMA newswire:

The patent is described as "a process for providing event photographs for inspection, selection and distribution via a computer network, [which] generally includes steps of taking event photographs, associating identifying data with each photograph taken, transferring the photographs to a computer network server, and permitting access to the server for searching of a particular photograph utilizing the identifying data,"

The patent (and lawsuits filed) is aimed more toward the services providing the identification, searching, hosting and presentation of the images, not the event photographer.

The patent was probably granted some time ago and the patent officer granting it may not have had a full understanding of how broad the patent would be...

dreamcatcher23 wrote in post #8368152
The patent was probably granted some time ago and the patent officer granting it may not have had a full understanding of how broad the patent would be...

The patent was issued in 2005. Obviously, event photography was occurring then.

I am not an event photog, but stuff like this fascinates me so I did a little research. I am not an attorney, but if what I read is correct, a patent cannot be issued for a process that is already in common use that would hinder the continuing use of the process by people. If that is the case, in the lawsuit, and perhaps the patent office itself, upon review I would think this patent would be stricken.

But this patent INCLUDES any sporting event such as Soccer, Baseball, basically anything. The patent was filed in 1999 granted in 2006. Its very specific so yes there are some ways around it. Currently EVERY major event site including smugmug has caved in and settled. Sites that have not mentioned this patent just plainly has been caught yet. You would think it would be stricken, but the process is very specific, and in 1999 this was NOT common practice prior to 1999, therefore patentable. I believe this is a Utility patent which is 10 years patent from the date granted which was in 2006. There is only one site so far that is fight this and that is the Santa Barbara Pix sight.

In terms of passing liability to the photographer, if the patent is stated on a sight like smugmug and couple of others, then chances are that site settled on certain terms with Wolf outside the ruling, such as a disclaimer as smugmug did, then the liability is passed onto the user of the site - which in most cases is the photographer.

Now if you aren't selling these event pictures, that is fine and dandy, but the reason for this post being in the business of photography, is that this directly affects the "business" of event photography.

asysin2leads wrote in post #8367783
Blah, Blah, Blah.

If you happen to know Wolff, tell him he's a nut case from me. How can 1. Take photo, 2. post photos on web, 3. sell photos from web and 4. ship photos to customer be patented? IT CAN'T. That was the basis of his first lawsuit. It was only added later that he invented this super-secret squirrel software to identify someone via a picture (ie. bib number in a marathon). Let me guess, this fruit-cake will be suing Apple now for iPhoto's face detection. I'm sure there's a room at Bellvue with his name on it.

I totally agree with you, but this was not common practice in 1999 as stated and there has been talk of patenting face detection, it has come up, but I believe other software companies have already used this method, so it may fall under "common practice" as stated in later post.

Yes, but its not just bib number to identify the individual shot, its time stamps, or basically any way of telling the participant how to find a specific individualized picture of the participant on a website.

Is this a real issue? It would be like me patenting how to start and drive a car then trying to collect royalties from everyone else.

It is if you are starting a business in event photography. The list of people sued is huge, especially if it is a major event. Local events, I don't think they care but major events I think so. The point is the "invention" is based on how its different from how its currently done. Starting a car and driving, if the method is different, yes you can patent it. Its welcome to America....

This has been around forever.

http://www.photocrazy.​com/RCS/RCS.html

I don't compete. I shoot events. I do nothing like his patented process and I'd like to see him try to prove I do.