Projection mapping patent granted in the US

[MoRpH]

Anyone else seen the bullshit patent thats been awarded in the US for projection mapping?? Pretty much seems that @klipcollective has been granted a patent on something we all know has a long and varied history in our scene.

Rather ridiculous really, you can see there tweets here https://twitter.com/#!/klipcollective and tell them they are full of it....

Thanks to Josh Goldberg @wugmump for bringing it to my attention & I see @_vade is having words too.

I'm not sure how the rest of you feel but, as with many aspects of what we do there is a communal genepool to our art and this goes against everything that stands for

I think its our duty to seek out prior art to get rid of this greedy grab.

[vjair]

is there any deeper info on this and if / wether it affects any of us in what we do?

i wonder if the patent is still available on paper and pens....

[amoeba]

via Eric Basquez More extensive information... Seems like he really covered any aspects. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20090091711.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20090091711&RS=DN%2F20090091711

via Paul Stevenson Here ya go http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8066384.PN.&OS=PN%2F8066384&RS=PN%2F8066384

[Basquez]

Yeah, I am not okay with this patent and am going to do everything in my power to reverse it.

[deepvisual]

hopefully, they'll use their aug 2008 patent to sue me for this video I put online on 30 july 2008

advanced video mapping - YouTube

and this video I put online on Nov 12 2007

Visual 3D Mapping in Modul8 - YouTube

this mapping job I did in 2000


http://www.deepvisual.com/guildhall.jpg


and this one in 1998


http://www.deepvisual.com/dome.jpg


or maybe the Taejon Expo in 1993 -


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6685971289_18615dcecb.jpg


Photo taken August 6th 1993 at rehearsals for the opening show of the Taejon Expo. We can clearly see the skulls are mapped to fit the back of the stage set while the foreground 'monster' has been rotated in 3D to lie flat on the floor of the stage. Single composite image mapped to multiple surfaces via one high power projector.
Projection design and implementation by Gary Oldknow - deepvisual

[alfaleader]

The US patent system is really stupid. Patent trolls in vjing :S

In europe, this system works. If you invent something you will get royalties, but you can't patent things that are so widely used.

[vjneef]

stupid americans
didn't read the whole thing ;)
but I cannot understand if there is one specific technical invention or if it's the specific combination of certain standard equipment that has been patented.
it shouldn't be hard to find examples of mapping before this patent, but does that make the the patent invalid?

[devonmiles]

seems like its more about a specific hardware software combo, which they developed for the task of projection mapping. something like the addict server or the hippo. all in all the bullshit detector senses a PR stunt, as claiming to have a patent on something stirs a lot more attention when approaching big corporate clients than just telling them, "uh we are doing this sort of projections on buildings, you know, like everyone else" .

[dEp]

fuck patents.

[PCProject]

hopefully, they'll use their aug 2008 patent to sue me

Was it you who projected the Minsitry of Sound logo onto parliament in the early 90's?

[PRICKIMAGE]

hopefully, they'll use their aug 2008 patent to sue me for this video I put online on 30 july 2008

Love to see people like this try to sue deepvisual (http://vjforums.com/member.php?u=442) & others...

Def looks like a PR exercise to confuse corporate clients with large budgets...Americans are funny people...

[deepvisual]

Was it you who projected the Minsitry of Sound logo onto parliament in the early 90's?

It wasnt parliament, it was buckingham palace, the same week charles and diana divorced. I refused to do it as if someone had projected that onto my house while I was getting divorced, I'd be very upset..
it wasnt just the MOS logo, it said - MOS - lasts longer than a royal wedding..

but I worked freelance for Labyrinth the company that did that one and the Gail Porter thing too... although the first UK 'pirate' projection was a picture of Jimi Hendrix onto the houses of parliament with the words - 'white collar conservatives, pointing their plastic fingers at me' Ben Sullivan did the projection, I took the photos.

[pixelschubser]

i know that there is a german group which have a patent too on mapping - but they said that in the meantime its a technique used by so many that they wont to any steps into direction of justice

[devonmiles]

and at the end, a patent is just worth exactly that amount of money you can afford to legally enforce it. a lawsuit is a desastrous costly thing and no vj team in the world has the financial backing to bring a lenghty patent infringement court case to an successful end.
by this regards: map on, fellow VJs :)

[amoeba]

i say we post pictures ov our balls/appropriate appendage to some other american mapping crew that go and map their office with them over most of @deepvisual and other early practitioners work.

[deepvisual]

and at the end, a patent is just worth exactly that amount of money you can afford to legally enforce it. a lawsuit is a desastrous costly thing and no vj team in the world has the financial backing to bring a lenghty patent infringement court case to an successful end.
by this regards: map on, fellow VJs :)

not so.. unfortunately.

should one of their lawyers turn up at one of your gigs with a cease and desist order, you'd have to be pretty sure you could afford to fight the case and win before you proceed. Client might bottle out anyway...
Same goes for our friends at Garagecube. Can they really afford to fight a case even if they know they are in the right?

This whole business totally sucks, but hey, you get opportunistic people in all walks of life and you never know, maybe they really do believe they invented mapping. They just happen to be mistaken.

as an aside, I was contacted by an academic who was researching the origins of mapping and he too was baffled as to how Klip could claim to be the originators when other people were doing it while they were still at school...

[deepvisual]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6685971289_18615dcecb.jpg

in case you missed it above...
mapping circa 1993

[deepvisual]

ok

I found this (http://friendandjohnson.com/blog/tag/3d-mapping)

We’ve been doing video mapping since 1998 ......” explains Ricardo Rivera, creator and founder of Klip Collective,

so thats 5 years after my above example... yawn.

[deepvisual]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7001/6686774401_1bf64c66b2_z.jpg

Projection of 1993 Harrods Xmas Decorations - showing successful arrangement of imagery on the front of the building - avoiding windows - by architectural projection mapping. The image on the right shows the template that was used to create the projection imagery.

[vjneef]

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

[deepvisual]

thanks VJNeef.


It does none of us any good whatsoever for our mutual abilities to be owned and controlled by one person, regardless of their professed intentions.

anyway, its just a matter of time before this one is nixed...

35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. - Patent Laws

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented,

[RayV]

I Got Cash - YouTube

[high1memo]

I heard vade talk about 'projection mapping patents' and my googling led me here.

Here is Michael Naimark's 'Displacements' 1980-84
http://www.naimark.net/projects/displacements.html

And talking head projection 1979
http://www.naimark.net/projects/head.html

[Kyle]

stupid americans


:shrug:Seriously why bash all Americans. You hurt my internet feelings.

[deepvisual]

Here is Michael Naimark's 'Displacements' 1980-84
http://www.naimark.net/projects/displacements.html
And talking head projection 1979
http://www.naimark.net/projects/head.html


http://www.naimark.net/projects/head/sm_head.jpg

http://www.naimark.net/writing/images/projection/projfig5.jpg


hi memo...
interesting as they are, I cant see a Judge looking at these and seeing a connection between projecting a face onto a face, or a room onto a room and this specific patent, which is for projection mapping onto architecture.

wherein a map corresponding to the architecture can be created, the map comprising at least one matte whose image is projected onto a surface of the architecture, and wherein the size, shape, position, orientation, or any combination thereof of the at least one matte can be adjusted within the composition window so that the projected image of the matte corresponds with the surface of the architecture.

[vjneef]

Sorry Kyle, I didn't mean you ;)
It's just that in america it seems like everything is patentable and (most) people seem to think that's normal.
It seems like people are not allowed to do things themselves anymore because almost everything that can be done is connected to a patent.
Actually europe isn't much better I guess. So stupid europeans too.
maybe someone should write down the method for doin videomapping and make it open source.
maybe we should ask someone at creative commons if this is possible.
It seems that reexamining a patent is costly.
also I still don't understand how far this patent reaches.
if it's the specific combination of all the hardware and software, then I guess there's not much to worry about. But if it's any projection on architecture that integrates with the architecture than it's a problem.
But I doubt that such a patent would be possible because it sounds much too general. But you can never be sure of course..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_crustless_sandwich
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6368227

[PCProject]

:shrug:Seriously why bash all Americans. You hurt my internet feelings.

You claimed in meat space to be Spanish.

[deepvisual]

Ok..
so it took a while to wade through the patent in full, but in the abstract is described the following:
" a single-reflex lens assembly in operable cooperation with the image sensor sub-system and the image projector sub-system"

which, is exactly what I describe in my advanced projection mapping video uploaded to youtube 5 days before this patent was applied for. Ruvera initially applied for a mapping patent in 2005 and the only difference between that and the 2008 application was the addition of a housing and a single-reflex lens assembly in operable cooperation with the image sensor sub-system

The only difference between the system described in the 2008 patent and the one in my video is the addition of a housing and mounting, which is hardly an innovation.

a mechanism for mounting the projector apparatus in a fixed orientation having a line a sight to the architecture; a control unit comprising a housing,


A remarkable coincidence, all this information being on the internet 5 days before the patent application?
I'll let you decide..

[many2]

I do not see why there is this big drama.

It's NOT projection mapping that is patented, just a system to do it in a certain way.

Reminds me of Musion's patent that was discussed here years ago, which people thought was for the Pepper's ghost technique, while in fact the patent is only for the reflective film material.

This won't prevent anyone from doing projection mapping, just as anyone is still entitled to use the Pepper's Ghost trick.

One of my colleague has done giant mapped projection using Pigi projectors during the 80's for many very high profile events which are documented. The technique is old.

Anyways, all you'd need is to modify the technique a bit and you'd be able to sell a kit with very similar features. Just replace the camera with a Lidar, or a 3d positioning system, or a kinect kit, whatever.

I also believe (but might be wrong, I am no lawyer) that you can actually use a technique covered by a patent as long as you are not selling it as a product. Anyone else has heard that and has official info to back it up ?

[deepvisual]

It's NOT projection mapping that is patented, just a system to do it in a certain way.


well, we dont know that.
what we do know, is that someone now legally owns a part or maybe all of 'projection mapping' in the USA.
which bit of it, remains to be seen. Lets not forget that he actually legally owns this, even though in the opinion of the wider projection community its nonsense, its still legally his. He owns it by law. Until someone proves otherwise, this is the status quo.

but - and this is the scary bit - I was told by someone who was doing a peppers ghost projection in the UK, that Musion turned up onsite just before an event with one of their lawyers and insisted that they stop.
Even though they were technically not in breach of the patent, it caused a massive fuss and the show was delayed and nearly shut down. And would you believe the corporate client didn't like that one bit....... No one in corporate land is going to risk their job over a novelty - certainly not until the legal situation is clarified.

Its easy to dismiss this as a publicity stunt, but if this ever develops into a litigation for anyone doing projections - and lets remember, Riveru has only said he will never pursue 'artists' - you can be its not going to be cheap to rectify and its almost certainly going to be less fuss to pay the guy off than it is to challenge him in the courts and win - and that is a luxury only a handful of people possess.. because the fact is, while there are thousands of people doing mapping today, only a handful of people will have documented evidence of their having done projection mapping prior to 1998, when Reviera 'claims' to have invented it.

( and yes, I am deliberately spelling his name wrong - anyone narcissistic enough to pull a stunt like this is bound to be following this thread)

[MoRpH]

We've already decided, its the stupid US patent system thats clearly wrong in this case.

Ok..
so it took a while to wade through the patent in full, but in the abstract is described the following:


which, is exactly what I describe in my advanced projection mapping video uploaded to youtube 5 days before this patent was applied for. Ruvera initially applied for a mapping patent in 2005 and the only difference between that and the 2008 application was the addition of a housing and a

The only difference between the system described in the 2008 patent and the one in my video is the addition of a housing and mounting, which is hardly an innovation.




A remarkable coincidence, all this information being on the internet 5 days before the patent application?
I'll let you decide..

[fata alex]

Its easy to dismiss this as a publicity stunt, but if this ever develops into a litigation for anyone doing projections - and lets remember, Riveru has only said he will never pursue 'artists' - you can be its not going to be cheap to rectify and its almost certainly going to be less fuss to pay the guy off than it is to challenge him in the courts and win - and that is a luxury only a handful of people possess.. because the fact is, while there are thousands of people doing mapping today, only a handful of people will have documented evidence of their having done projection mapping prior to 1998, when Reviera 'claims' to have invented it.



In order to beat the patent would you have to prove that you were doing mapping before 98, or just that people in general were doing it before 98?

surely proving that people in general did it prior to the patent would invalidate the patent?

[vjneef]

I'm not sure if proving that someone else did video mapping before means he didn't invent video mapping by himself. it all depends on how you define invention.
For example I invented (discovered) video feedback myself. but then I discovered that a lot of people before me also invented the same thing.
It doesnt mean that I didn't invent it myself, just that I wasn't the first one to invent it.
So maybe you should also prove that he looked at deepvisual's tutorial for example.

[skulpture]

@DeepVisual

It seems you were one of the first to do projection mapping (other too i'm sure) but you have evidence displayed on this thread and it's cleared it was done well before 1998.

So... am I being daft or can you not attempt to get this patent overturned by simply approaching them and providing evidence? It's surely in the best interest for everyone? Or would this cost you/them because it is classed as an appeal or something?

Lastly; how are the 'bigger' AV companies (i.e.: not just VJ's) who advertise projection mapping as part of their service going to work? D2/Green Hippo, etc?

I am really not up on these type of law things but it would be like me apply for a patent that I invented the wheel! lol.

[vjneef]

I think it will be very hard and costly to fight the patent once it's been granted.
to get an idea how the patent office works you may want to read about the invention of the telephone by Bell, Gray, Meucci...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone
I guess patents are not given to those that are the best inventors but to the ones that are best at exploiting an invention.
this also has a certain logic, but it's not the logic of what's just.
For the patent holder it is also very hard and costly to fight all the people that supposedly breaking the patent.
So probably it's best to just ignore the whole thing or find out what the patent is really about and do things technically a bit different.
But I agree with morph that the US patent system is wrong.
Then we should not go through this system to correct things but take a different route.

[saccade]

thanks, morph, for passing this on. wowzers, vjforums. looks like i last logged on in 2004.

i think that the best strategy is to just accumulate a big list of prior work. the bastards have the patent, it's just a matter of time before they try to flex their brand new muscles. and with sufficient proof, the poor souls they decide to lawyer at will be ready.

i know of at least one agency they approached with a c+d. it was before they got this latest patent. watch this space, that's all i have to say.

j

[MoRpH]

Ah so inspite of they supposed "were not going to sue fellow VJs" comments it turns out they have C&Ded ppl already, this just got serious.

[deepvisual]

Riveroo was very careful with his wording.. he only mentions artists.

[SteveG]

The Re-examination process.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2204.htm

http://www.lventre.com/reexam.html

Before undertaking any litigation I think he/they would be advised to ask for a Patent Re-examination otherwise he is likely to be successfully challenged and stand to loose rather a lot himself.

Surely someone in London has some legal friends they could pay a visit to for some friendly advice.

Edit:

USPTO.Gov

E-mail Us
Although office policy precludes our responding to certain kinds of questions, we are able to provide a substantial amount of assistance and general information via e-mail. We may be experiencing a longer than expected response time on e-mails. Please know that your e-mail is very important to us and we will make every effort to respond to your request in an expeditious manner. To assist in routing your request for prompt and accurate response, please select from one of the following broad categories:

Patents - usptoinfo@uspto.gov

First thing I'd ask - Can video evidence be used to establish proof of invention art etc in any legal argument. If not it could be the the "first to file" rule applies.
Second - Has the US office failed in any way to carry out a full and thorough search before awarding the patent. Often the best way to fight against things like this is to use their own procedures and policies against them.

It may also be worth contacting the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and looking at the various treaties and agreements.

[SteveG]

In reply to my first few questions......

"Hi Steve,

Thank you for your question.

If a U.S. patent issues, then you have to examine the claims to see what is protected. The claims define what is protected and each element of an allowed claim must be present for there to be infringement.

A U.S. patent only offers the right to exclude others in the U.S. from practicing the invention. So, even if it issues in the U.S., you will not be impacted in the UK, unless they also filed for a patent in the EP or the UK.

If you are correct that the claims that were allowed are described in the prior art, then you can simply ignore the patent and wait for a lawsuit on it to provide proof that the patent is invalid. Other than that, you could file for a reexamination, which, as you note, is expensive.

Cheers,"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Registered Patent Attorney
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Email reply published with full permission from the Attorney.

[sleepytom]

Thanks Steve.

So it seems that the official line on this is "it's bollocks". He may have a valid patent for one method of projection mapping, this doesn't prevent others from mapping buildings using their own methods. (His patent is quite clear about some quite inconsequential things though - SLR camera?! So i can use his method with a point and shoot camera and win in a legal dispute as my process is significantly different to his described patented process, my camera uses a totally different imaging technique to his patented one).



In summery "projection mapping patent = epic fail"

[SteveG]

Anyone likely to become involved in conflict here with regards to should seek solid legal advise getting confirmation in the country of their origin. Ensure checks are made that no application has been lodged in the EU or UK. As you're aware I'm no lawyer and the response I've received cannot be used as legal advice but I think it's pretty clear that the US procedure has failed to carry out a full and thorough search on the subject.

Has anyone actually communicated with the person lodging the patent? He may be under the impression he has actually invented this for instance....after all I heard an American girl on the net saying she thought Europe was a country and "they" spoke french in Germany.....you get the idea:)

What's his take on it, anyone asked him to come to the forum read and comment?

One thing I have gathered from my reading this afternoon...it can be a very good money spinner for the US courts and Attorney's not to mention the USPTO...lets just grant Patents for anything and everything....the challenges as you've read soon bring in the dollars:)

[BrainStove]

Get your foot wet too.. inside the patents orgy (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/patent-troll-trial)

Jokes & facts about law, lawyers & other bugs with nails:

A defending attorney was cross examining a coroner...
- The attorney asked: Before you signed the death certificate had you taken the man's pulse?
- The coroner said: ¡No!
- The attorney then asked: ¿Did you listen for a heart beat?
- ¡No!
- ¿Did you check for breathing?
- ¡No!
- So, when you signed the death certificate you had not taken any steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?
- The coroner, now tired of the brow beating said: Well, let me put it this way. ¡The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk, but for all I know he could be out there practicing law somewhere!

"99.9% of lawyers give the rest a bad name" <Steven Wright>
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and leaky tire" <Unknown>

By my side, I will try to patent "sarcasm" ..perhaps I'll earn a few coins in the attempt. ;)