Fuji EULA Dictates What Pictures You Can Take

When you crack open the seal on a high-end Fuji camera, Fuji gets to tell you what kind of pictures you get to take. We’re all for ethical behavior and not invading people’s privacy, but come on. Increasingly these End User License Agreements go too far in telling people what they can do with the stuff they buy with the money they earned. Hey there’s an idea, write an EULA on your dollars when you give it to the store stipulating how they can spend the money you give them. “By accepting these dollars you agree to…”

Fujifilm Professional Photography [FUJI] (Thanks to Jim!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. that’s the “cover my ass” (cma) clause. it’s an ir/uv capable camera. it takes pictures in the dark.

  2. Buran says:

    I doubt that will hold up if challenged in court.

  3. rewinditback says:

    its because of a lawsuit with sony cameras … they had infrared and people figured out how to get them to do some pretty scary stuff… total invasions of privacy kind of stuff. i think fuji is covering their buns in a smart way…

  4. the paparazzi one feels like the whole point. I mean, in what other field mentioned does the make of the camera ever come up? Also, why does it have to be a legitimate business purpose? I’m surprised it doesn’t explicitly forbid using it in tourism…

  5. AstroPig7 says:

    So Fujifilm won’t allow couples to take raunchy photographs of each other? I can see the rest of the restrictions as a way to cover the company if it is somehow implicated in any of those situations, but I cannot understand why “lewd photography” would be specifically restricted.

  6. ClayS says:


    The issue is probably lewd photographs of people that are not necessarily willing subjects.

  7. cpc24 says:

    @rewinditback: IIRC, some perverts figured out how to see through thin clothes like swimsuits.

  8. savvy999 says:

    Agree with the EULA… or what?

    In any case, ‘lewdness’ is a subjective judgment in the eye of the picture-viewer, not the picture-taker.

  9. Ghede says:

    “… not purchase materials or services deemed illegal by local, state, and national governments. You may not use this dollar directly in illegal activities. You may not use the dollar as a murder weapon. You should not eat this dollar, and the United States Mint(tm) holds no responsibility for ingestion of currency.
    Caution: Becomes hot when cooked.”

  10. rewinditback says:

    its the fact that a precedent had been set with sony providing the technology that allows for a complete violation of somebody’s privacy. they provide the uv/ir functionality as means for business, and thats how they get around that lawsuit. do what you want with their camera, but they arent liable if you’re a pervert and take that thing to public places with poor intentions.

  11. MickeyMoo says:

    @AstroPig7: Because the Japanese frown on lewd and lascivious behaviour unless it involves scantily clad pre-teen girls in manga?

  12. kylere says:

    Ummmm sorry, but three letters cover my chances of:
    A. Buying Fuji
    B. Following their EULA if I did


  13. capn_amurka says:

    It doesn’t seem that Fuji would have any substantial ability to enforce the EULA. What might they do if you broke it? Sue you? What would their damages be?

  14. Curiosity says:

    Interesting that they did not just go with “you agree that all uses do not violate any applicable local, state, federal and/or international laws.”

    This EULA seems a bit constricting considering that being a paparazzi may not violate any law.

  15. badgeman46 says:

    Believe it or not, they are covering their ass because an IR/UV camera can be “hacked” to see through clothing by overpowering the CCD. If you want more information on this phenomenon, research the Sony Nighshot camera.

  16. Buran says:

    @pepe the king prawn: No, it’s not just that. “hardware and firmware enabled capabilities” covers everything the camera does.

    And most digital cameras are sensitive in the IR band (try it – look through your camera’s viewfinder, if it’s an electronic viewfinder, point your TV remote at the lens and press a button — can you see the transmitter light up?) and many also can “see” in the UV region of the spectrum, and only Fuji pulls this crap in their license. Fuji has confidence problems.

  17. NightSteel says:

    What I want to know is, what is Fuji going to *do* if you violate such a license agreement? What could the possible legal recourse be?

  18. MDSasquatch says:

    Why spend $$$ to take a candid pic of someone just to “see through” their clothes when a $5 six-pack of Budweiser can get you a peek at the real thing?

  19. the_reverend says:

    Right now, jackasses sue bullet companies because people used the bullets for killing people. MP3 player makers are being sued because their equipment is used for piracy. I think this is to keep them from getting sued for “encouraging illegal vouyeurism” or whatever the crime may be. Personally, I don’t blame them for putting this in there, just as long as they don’t actually confiscate people’s camera for taking non-professional pictures or whatever.

  20. JustAGuy2 says:


    It’s a CYA – if someone says “hey, my privacy was violated with a Fuji camera,” and views Fuji as the deep pockets for a lawsuit (don’t just sue broke-ass paparazzi, sue the multinational conglomerate), Fuji can say “we told him not to do it, and he agreed to it – don’t blame us!”

  21. CurbRunner says:

    Sooo… I see they don’t want to allow “paparazzi like activities” either with this firmware.
    What kind of scumbag paparazzi is gonna respect any of this?
    Now that this firmware is out of the bag, I suppose we’ll soon be bombarded with an endless array of ultraviolet and infrared night vision photos of Britney Spears & Lindsay Lohan, etc., totally wasted and crawling from party to party.

  22. vastrightwing says:

    Actually, this is very shrewd marketing: they can’t very wisely advertise the potential benefits of the camera publicly; but by cleverly stating the uses the camera shouldn’t be used for, it makes it possible to let potential customers know what they could hypothetically do with the camera. I think this is brilliant!

  23. guymandude says:

    Fantastic! It clearly says the license is non transferable so I guess that means if I buy one 2nd hand I’m not bound by the EULA. LOL!

  24. Ben Popken says:

    @guymandude: LOL maybe you only need one. If you have a small business set up you culd sell it to yourself!

  25. Snarkysnake says:

    With this many restrictions (the paparazzi one is clearly unconstitutional) this is is totally unenforceable.If they want to control end use, they should LEASE these to people instead of selling them.Dumbasses…

  26. snead says:

    My kid just drew a raunchy picture. I’m going to sue Crayola!

  27. SexCpotatoes says:

    Woohoo, as long as I can still take pictures of my junk!

  28. boxjockey68 says:

    Are paparazzi like activities illegal? I thought when a person is in public, they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy….seems like a stretch for a camera company to tell me what I can & can’t do.
    glad both my cameras were second hand!

  29. loganmo says:


    Agreed..could totally be viral marketing…in torte reformist’s clothing at least.

  30. Parting says:

    Probably to avoid being sued by some wacko customer, who’ll accuse the manufacturer for some illegal pictures.

    Classic ”cover your ass” strategy. Since in USA everybody gets sued for wrong reasons, I don’t see the problem.

    (Thank you Canadian judges for all discarded USA-like cases. Let the common sense prevail!)

  31. Crim Law Geek says:

    The constitution doesn’t apply to private corporations.

    I doubt that this EULA is attached to a camera that John Q. Paparozzo can buy. It seems that this is a special camera only available to legit scientist/law enforcement types. It is a CYA clause, but I don’t find anything _really_ objectionable about it. I suppose if you violate it they could take away your right to use their firmware, but that’s sort of hard to do without taking the physical camera away.

  32. coan_net says:

    Yup – looks like a “cover Fuji ass” policy.

    Just like how gun makers are being sued how their guns are used.

    Just like Fast Food places are being sued for how their food is eaten.

    It’s only a matter of time that someone sues the camera makers because someone took an illegal photo with it, so this way Fuji can say “Look, we told them not to”

  33. timmus says:

    I am pretty sure they’re definitely trying to avoid the stigma of selling a IR/UV “see-thru nudie camera”. They’re trying WAY too hard to rattle off all the legitimate purposes.

  34. Antediluvian says:

    @MDSasquatch: This.

  35. D.B. Cooper-Nichol says:

    I understand the general premise.

    But, given the prevalence of patented technology and copyrighted software – what doesn’t have a chip inside it – this is a terrifying concept.

    Imagine TV manufacturers limiting what you can watch, auto-makers limiting how, or where you can drive, cell phone manufacturers limiting who you can talk to, or what you can talk about.

    Luckily, there’s a legal doctrine that allows judges to declare contract provisions “void as against public policy.”

  36. trollkiller says:

    This is simply a CYA license because they know there is great potential to abuse the technology. If anything thing in their marketing even slightly suggests that the camera can be used to peer through clothes they could be on the hook for a lawsuit. This is just like the color copier EULAs that make you agree not to counterfeit money.

    What scares me is the license is not transferable. Does this mean I can’t sell the camera or does this mean if I do sell the camera the next guy is not bound by the agreement?

  37. char says:

    Can any lawyers clear this up, I thought EULA’s were only valid when something is liscensed (software) not purchased (a camera). How can they add a EULA to a camera?

  38. 44 in a Row says:

    Can any lawyers clear this up, I thought EULA’s were only valid when something is liscensed (software) not purchased (a camera). How can they add a EULA to a camera?

    The EULA covers the camera’s firmware.

  39. 44 in a Row says:

    (and I’m not a lawyer)

  40. Javert says:

    I think a point is being. This is what can be thought of as Fuji covering their ass. I am not supid enough to believe they are trying to control your actions. Most likely it is for the future case when they are brought into court as a co-defendent in a case in which a person violated someone’s privacy and the Plaintiff is casting a large net so they also name the camera’s manufacturer as a defendant. Now, FUJI can say, whoa there, we TOLD the consumer that they could not do this ergo we wash our hands of this matter.

    To think that they are actually trying to control what you do is just a wee bit paranoid. They simply want to use the EULA as a civil shield.

  41. stinerman says:

    True, but there are still some rights that you can’t sign away. For instance, you can’t agree to be someone’s slave. This has more to do with contract law than the constitution, though.

  42. stre says:

    @MDSasquatch: yikes, i’d hate to see the women you’re picking up if you can do it with budweiser. i’d ask you post a picture, but the EULA probably doesn’t allow it.

  43. rworne says:

    Yes, this is the reason.

    Fuji does not want to be sued because shooting IR in the daylight allows the CCD to see through sheer clothing, swimsuits and the like.

    There was a big to-do about using the Sony Nightshot cameras during daylight and the camera will literally see-through lots of clothing that look opaque to the naked *ahem* eye.

  44. tk427 says:


    Jack Munsey was filming women and teenage girls. They couldn’t make any criminal charges stick because they were in public.


  45. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    Don’t worry, binding arbitration will save us all.

  46. youwantedahero says:

    @Buran: Fuji actually MAKES a UV camera though… they are designed for medical, forensic, or law enforcement use and I wasn’t even aware that they were even available to the public. If they aren’t, this EULA might be a holdover from those cameras, or maybe just to protect themselves in case someone does get ahold of one. I can’t say I blame them on this one.

  47. Antediluvian says:

    Just like Friends: The One Where Monica Sings

  48. sled_dog says:

    Its available at B&H Photo/Video:


  49. Wirehead says:

    It’s funny, of course, because I do artistic infrared photography.

    And I’ve never actually seen anybody’s clothing go transparent in infrared.

  50. rhombopteryx says:

    (If Justin Timberlake was a EULA-breaker)

    Step 1) Have a friend break the plastic seal.

    Step 2) Have the friend hand you the now-opened camera.

    Step 3) You’re EULA-free.

    Now go cut a hole in a box or take a picture (in the dark apparently) of junk that’s in boxes.

  51. jonathanl says:

    It is irrelevant how people have misused technology to “see thru clothes”. It is much worse that you can now add a license agreement to a product. Forget how you feel about these specific provisions and think about the provisions that could be added to products if we allow this…

    These diapers may not be used for children born out out wedlock.

    This stain may not be used on old growth timber.

    This fertilizer may not be used on non-native species.

  52. toddkravos says:

    wasn’t there a guy who wrote a “eula” type statement
    on a check he used to pay for something at a store.

    the statement, written to prevent him from being put on a mailing list, when violated entitled him to an obscene amout of cash.

    or is that a ‘internet urban legend’ ?

  53. ZekeSulastin says:

    @jonathanl: What the hell?

    It is plenty relevant to the company whether or not they get their asses sued off. Although such things in the EULA may not offer any real restrictive capability, it will help them deflect liability in the case of a lawsuit.

    Also, application of the slippery slope fallacy does little to help your point of view.

  54. Hawk07 says:

    I guess in the future, all digital cameras will have built in wifi antennas that contact the mothership and if improved by $2 per hour outsourced Indian labor, only then will they save to your memory card.

  55. BeFrugalNotCheap says:

    Take a pic of your nude baby on a bear skin rug and that might be considered “lewd”? Fuji needs to get a clue. I understand the whole “CoA” (cover our asses) standpoint but come on. What law enforcement agency will hold Fuji responsible for some creepy photos taken by a buyer of their product? I can almost see the day where you have to sign an agreement promising not to use the hammer you are buying to take your landlord out. Indeed, the future looks like THIS:
    *(Link work safe, safe for minors, “BeFrugalNotCheap” nor Gawker or it’s affiliates displaying Links to content on and quotation of material from other sites are not the responsibility of Gawker Media and therefore cannot claim responsibility for anything other than themselves. Gawker Media does not operate or control and has no responsibility for the information, products and/or services found on any external sites. Nor do such links represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information, products and/or services provided on or through any external sites, including, without limitation, warranties of any kind. Gawker furthermore wishes you remain safe and at peace with yourself and whatever (G)od or symbols you pledge allegiance to. Don’t Drink and Drive. And Don’t Mess with Texas.)

  56. MrWashy says:

    @toddkravos: Actually I’ve often wanted to do something like that. Mail a check for something, like my rent, and include a statement that says, “By depositing this check you agree to refund my entire security deposit regardless of the condition of my apartment, or pay me the sum of 5 gold dubloons, whichever is the higher amount.” Tell a call center rep that by speaking to me they have given their consent to be recorded.

    Anyone know if it’s legal to do that?

  57. LionelEHutz says:

    Ok, so Fuji gets to live in their little fantasy land. Meanwhile, we get to live in the real world where their witty bitty EULA means jack schitt.

  58. vandykee says:

    A recent conversation with a friend:
    HER: [consumerist.com]
    ME: Cool thread!
    ME: The US government requires those to be packed with the IR one.
    HER: No lewd activities.
    ME: These are a ‘normal’ DSLR camera in every way except they remove the low pass filter. So ALL the kinds of light the sensor can capture–are captured, not just visible light.
    ME: Cool huh?
    HER: Gamma rays?
    ME: No, not all -possible- light!
    ME: Just that the sensor -can- physically see more values at each photosite (pixel, basically). But they are ‘cut down’ to only pull in colors we can see/print/represent.
    HER: Including lewd content.
    ME: It costs about $400 extra to get the IR version of a camera I think.
    ME: 400 more for one less part.
    ME: Lewd content is right behind my spanish fly.