Exec Says Kodak Planned To Shrink Your Photos While Saying It Was An Improvement

from the corporate-doublespeak dept

A former Kodak exec is now suing the company, claiming she was fired for opposing a cost-saving plan at the company. The interesting part isn't the lawsuit... but the plan. Apparently, in order to "save money" the company planned to compress all the digital photos it stored, thereby reducing its storage needs (and we thought storage was supposed to be cheap these days!). That's annoying enough for anyone who trusted Kodak to keep their original images in the same shape they were uploaded. However, Kodak is accused of going even further, by planning to tell users that, rather than being compressed, their photos were being "optimized," -- implying that the process somehow "improved" the photos. This was justified by the wonderful explanation: it didn't matter because customers "wouldn't understand, anyway." Kodak is denying the whole accusation, and it's not entirely clear how this is a wrongful termination. It's not necessarily a case of whistle-blowing, since that appears to have happened after the termination. Either way, would be nice to hear a more complete response from Kodak.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    thecaptain, 30 Mar 2006 @ 5:03am

    Re: Definitions of Optimize

    Wow, the Kodak astroturfers are out in force, either that or the general population as a whole got a whole lot dumber.

    Yes, I suppose in a tenuous, PEDANTIC way, "optimized" CAN be considered to be the "correct" term, IF you're referring to ONLY file size.

    That's Kodak's LEGAL defence, if they get sued.

    However, if you see an ad (and I bet there would have been, or maybe there already ARE a few) with the word "Optimized" in reference to YOUR uploaded photos...you aren't thinking they compressed them and downgraded the quality are you?

    Likely there might be a small star next to the word "Optimized" leading to some VERY small (4pt font) text outlining what it meant in vague terms...to cover their legal asses...um assets.

    In other words, perfectly legal, TOTALLY unethical and VERY scummy.

    I personally know quite a few photographers, professional and hobbyists who would stop dealing with Kodak over an issue like this.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.