Comments on: Alternative Photomosaic Algorithms

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:36:36 +0000

The Artensoft also use ?heir own algorithms. They create first “pictures in one image” (or “photos in one photo”) at September 1999, and nobody did not know about “photomosaic”. You may look at the examples:
http://www.artensoft.com/ArtensoftPhotoCollageMaker/gallery.php
or
http://www.artensoft.com/ArtensoftPhotoMosaicWizard/gallery.php

By: patorjk

patorjk — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:02:41 +0000

Yeah, it’s such a trivial algorithm (if you just do RGB comparisons) that the fact that it’s patented seems ridiculous. Cool to know there’s someone else out there who also made a photomosaic generator in high school. In 11th grade, after I had written it, I ended up working images I had generated into school projects I had to do. Even if my project sucked, just having the mosaic in there ended up getting me an A.

By: Tritonio

Tritonio — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:21:40 +0000

I also made a photographic mosaic creator with my own algorithm. I didn’t know that the original algorithm was patented. I did only know that the name photomosaic is a trademark! Now, how stupid is this??? BTW I was at high school too when I made it.

By: patorjk

patorjk — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:58:55 +0000

So there’s an incentive to avoid looking up what’s patented, yet if you infringe on one, you have to pay up? That doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s good to know though. I think most stuff that is patented probably falls into the category of “easily deducible by people in the field”, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many filed each year.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:55:16 +0000

Well, for patents all you have to do is prove that the technique is prior art or easily deducible by people in the field. Its often better not to know about patents for things that you’re developing. If you know about them you are responsible for knowingly breaching patent and the expense is 3x that of violating one without knowing about it.