Briefly: Apple hit with copyright suit, Snow Leopard preorder

[AppleInsider]

Some Apple Up To Date Program customers have been able to order Snow Leopard; Apple has been hit with a copyright suit from a photographer; and Microsoft's retail stores are hiring.

Copyright suit takes aim at Apple for iPhone app

Photographer Louis P. Psihoyos filed a suit in a New York U.S. District Court this week against Apple for a third party iPhone application that he alleges violated copyright laws.

The suit states that Psihoyos is the owner of an "iconic photograph" entitled "1000 TVs." The suit includes the photographer's picture, as well as a screen shot of version 1.0 of the iPhone application i.TV featuring Psihoyos's photograph.

"Without permission or authorization from the plaintiff, defendants Apple and i.TV have impermissibly used, reproduced, copied, infringed, disseminated or otherwise exploited the plaintiff's copyrighted image in the i.TV application," the suit reads.

It asserts that Psihoyos is entitled to relief from Apple for use of the copyrighted image.

"By commercially exploiting the plaintiff's copyrighted image in the i.TV application without the plaintiff's consent or licensure, defendant Apple has damaged the plaintiff while obtaining significant economic gains in amounts to be determined at trial," the lawsuit states.

The suit names Apple, Inc., and Apple Computers, Inc., as the defendants, but not the application's creator, i.TV.



Snow Leopard Up To Date preorders

AppleInsider has received a number of reports in recent days from customers who qualify for Apple's Up To Date Program, stating that the Apple Online Store has accepted their order for Snow Leopard. While the online store is not yet officially accepting general preorders for the upcoming operating system release, some users this week have already had their credit cards charged for the $9.95 upgrade price.

At the same page where Up To Date customers can check their status, it said this week that the ship date would be Aug. 28. That listing quickly changed to say "September."

The Up To Date Program allows customers who purchased a Mac with OS X Leopard installed on or after June 8, 2009, to upgrade to Snow Leopard for $9.95.

Microsoft stores are hiring

In an update to its jobs blog this week, Microsoft announced it is now hiring for its two upcoming retail stores in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Mission Viejo, Calif.

"We're looking for new store employees who love technology and teaching and helping others," the description reads. "In particular, we're looking for people with technical backgrounds who can help customers choose the best Microsoft products and services for their needs and troubleshoot any technical issue they may have."

Microsoft's upcoming retail venture is aimed to compete with Apple's own brick-and-mortar outlets. The Microsoft store in California will be located near an Apple store located in the same plaza.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[freeny]

Didnt the photographer steal that idea from the Matrix movies?
http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/p..._architect.jpg

[Cicero]

and just when it looked like the approval process was going to get a bit smoother...

[Virgil-TB2]

That copyright suit is a bit crazy considering that Apple already settled with that person over the original use of the image in their own advertising.

Sure, it's dumb that no one noticed the image in the i.TV app (horrible app BTW), but to not name the author of the app who actually did the infringing is wacko to say the least. Also, why not just tell Apple about it who would tell the developer to take it off? Are they implying that Apple has refused to do so?

It was a pretty thin case when it was first made against Apple, it's even thinner here.

[souliisoul]

My only concern is MS will start poaching apple store employees, since MS are looking for people "We're looking for new store employees who love technology and teaching and helping others,"

Forget the last statement concerning troubleshooting and technical issues because we all know, you the consumer will have to ring the 1800 number to get something fixed and MS are going to blame the PC manufacturer anyway.

Jobs needs to put in anti-poaching agreement with MS, of course one-sided..lol

[teckstud]

Didn't Apple originally get caught with this "wall of TVs" image on the AppleTV's original OS boot up screen which Apple subsequently dropped from the AppleTV? No wonder this dude is on the lookout.

[caskey09]

If I worked for Microsoft I'd honestly direct customers down the road to the Apple store.

[Dlux]

Just be aware that employees at the Microsoft Stores are required to wear company uniforms.

[jazzguru]

Originally Posted by Dlux

Just be aware that employees at the Microsoft Stores are required to wear company uniforms.

...

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

That copyright suit is a bit crazy considering that Apple already settled with that person over the original use of the image in their own advertising.

Sure, it's dumb that no one noticed the image in the i.TV app (horrible app BTW), but to not name the author of the app who actually did the infringing is wacko to say the least. Also, why not just tell Apple about it who would tell the developer to take it off? Are they implying that Apple has refused to do so?

It was a pretty thin case when it was first made against Apple, it's even thinner here.

You must not know what it is to be an artist obviously.
Also, Apple is selling the App with this image on it , not the app creator. Apple in this case is in the wrong, as seller. Finally it's not "thin" if Apple settled and paid him the first time unless they were in the wrong.

[Guartho]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Also, Apple is selling the App with this image on it , not the app creator. Apple in this case is in the wrong, as seller.

Is there precedent for that or are you just making it up? Has a retailer like Amazon or Wal•Mart for instance been successfully sued for selling something that violates copyright that was created by someone else?

[ifiredmyboss.com]

Why is Apple getting sued? They have the money.
I doubt i.TV has enough cash to make them worth being sued.

[floccus]

Originally Posted by teckstud

You must not know what it is to be an artist obviously.
Also, Apple is selling the App with this image on it , not the app creator. Apple in this case is in the wrong, as seller.

Apple is more of a third party distributor of the app as they provided the hosting and distribution network but didn't create it. The best this guy could get is an injunction barring Apple from selling it further and most likely could get it remote deleted from anyone who's already downloaded it.

As for the Snow Leopard news, as I said before, ships the 28th, gets delivered on Sept. 1st, along with the wide release.

[cmf2]

Originally Posted by teckstud

You must not know what it is to be an artist obviously.
Also, Apple is selling the App with this image on it , not the app creator. Apple in this case is in the wrong, as seller.

Stores are getting hit with copyright suits now? Come on. They clearly picked the party with the deepest pockets. This isn't about protecting their intellectual property, it is about making a quick buck.

[minderbinder]

This guy certainly looks like he has a case, looks like it is his photo and not just something similar. But his case should be against the app developer, not Apple.

Originally Posted by freeny

Didnt the photographer steal that idea from the Matrix movies?
http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/p..._architect.jpg

Doesn't matter. You can't copyright an idea, but it looks like this app is using his exact photo, which is a clear violation.

Originally Posted by teckstud

You must not know what it is to be an artist obviously.

Meaning what, exactly? Does Being An Artist mean it's OK to sue the wrong guys?

Originally Posted by teckstud

Also, Apple is selling the App with this image on it , not the app creator. Apple in this case is in the wrong, as seller.

And can you cite any legal precedent that backs that up? That just defies common sense.

[karlfranz]

I'm confused about the story regarding Snow Leopard pre-orders. I bought my latest MacBook Pro from an Apple Store on June 24. I then went home and ordered the Snow Leopard up-to-date disk from Apple's online store that same night. I got a confirmation immediately and the order status says that it ships in September. So what's this about people having their up-to-date orders accepted recently? Haven't they been getting accepted all along like mine was?

P.S. yes, my CC has been charged by Apple.

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Snow Leopard Up To Date preorders

AppleInsider has received a number of reports in recent days from customers who qualify for Apple's Up To Date Program, stating that the Apple Online Store has accepted their order for Snow Leopard.

I placed my Up-To-Date program order weeks ago on the Apple Store shorly after I purchased a new mini. This is not new.

[elroth]

There are some differences here. The i.TV app looks like it's using the exact picture that the photographer took. This clearly should be a copyright violation, and i.TV should be responsible. I don't know how much liability Apple would have, but Apple has money and the developer doesn't. It'll be interesting to see what "significant economic gains" he says Apple has received - it's a free app, one of 60,000 apps in the app store. Is he going to say Apple sold 5 million iPhones just because a small size copy of his picture is used as part of the i.TV interface? Funny.

The other question is the idea of the photo, which is why he sued over the Apple TV, which had an Apple TV in front of a wall with a bunch of TV screens around it. I don't see how that one would hold up (he dropped that suit) - as someone pointed out above, the Matrix movies used that idea before. There was another movie that had an apartment manager sitting in front of a wall of TV screens, spying on the tenants.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

That copyright suit is a bit crazy considering that Apple already settled with that person over the original use of the image in their own advertising.

Sure, it's dumb that no one noticed the image in the i.TV app (horrible app BTW), but to not name the author of the app who actually did the infringing is wacko to say the least. Also, why not just tell Apple about it who would tell the developer to take it off? Are they implying that Apple has refused to do so?

It was a pretty thin case when it was first made against Apple, it's even thinner here.

Thanks for this ... I thought I was either suffering Deja Vu or unwittingly time travelled backwards!

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by cmf2

Stores are getting hit with copyright suits now? Come on. They clearly picked the party with the deepest pockets. This isn't about protecting their intellectual property, it is about making a quick buck.

Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Doesn't matter. You can't copyright an idea, but it looks like this app is using his exact photo, which is a clear violation.



Meaning what, exactly? Does Being An Artist mean it's OK to sue the wrong guys?



And can you cite any legal precedent that backs that up? That just defies common sense.

Can this guy sell this app without Apple's approval?- NO.
Can he sell it on his own? NO- only Apple can sell it.
If that's doesn't make sense - then what does?

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Guartho

Is there precedent for that or are you just making it up? Has a retailer like Amazon or Wal•Mart for instance been successfully sued for selling something that violates copyright that was created by someone else?

Only Apple can sell this app- correct? Isn;'t there an sale agreement and review process by Apple and Apple only?

[jazzguru]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.

This is so obviously an attempt at trolling, it's funny.

[doyourownthing]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.

Apple is more than just a store - What is Apple then?
Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. - How would you monitor someone ripping someone off? How would you monitor idea stealing or espionage?

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Can this guy sell this app without Apple's approval?- NO.
Can he sell it on his own? NO- only Apple can sell it.
If that's doesn't make sense - then what does?

I asked for legal grounds, that's just your own speculation. Just because Apple is the only seller, what legal basis makes it their fault and not the dev? And again, please give a precedent where the "store" was found responsible for IP violation in something they sold.

And what does make sense is that the dev is responsible for the app and any IP violations it may have.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I asked for legal grounds, that's just your own speculation. Just because Apple is the only seller, what legal basis makes it their fault and not the dev? And again, please give a precedent where the "store" was found responsible for IP violation in something they sold.

And what does make sense is that the dev is responsible for the app and any IP violations it may have.

You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by jazzguru

This is so obviously an attempt at trolling, it's funny.

You can't say anything against Apple without being called a troll?
That's called pathetic.

[jazzguru]

Originally Posted by teckstud

You can't say anything against Apple without being called a troll?
That's called pathetic.

What's pathetic is trying to find any and every way to argue against and bash Apple amongst a bunch of Apple fans. You know what kind of reaction it'll get and that's why you do it. It's called trolling.

Would you be making this same argument if another store like Amazon sold an item that allegedly used a copyrighted image?

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?

They released it, I don't see how that's giving it a "seal of approval" - what makes you think that by selling it, they are guaranteeing that it has no IP violations? When Borders sells a book and it turns out to have violations, why aren't they found liable?

And again, you keep ignoring the request for ANY legal grounds that Apple is responsible. THAT is what looks like trolling.

As a practical matter, if you were Apple, how would YOU check all the content in an app to make sure none of it is an IP violation? Much less tens of thousands of apps.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.

And a lot of seemingly spurious Appstore rejections were caused by Apple citing copyright concerns. Apple has been criticised for this. Now one slipped past their vetting and you slap them for not being strict enough.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by Guartho

Is there precedent for that or are you just making it up? Has a retailer like Amazon or Wal•Mart for instance been successfully sued for selling something that violates copyright that was created by someone else?

If somebody sells a bootlegged CD, she or he is liable. The question is always how obvious the copyright infringement is.

[801]

I hope the M$ store employees wear that nostalgic nerd look, I can just see a whole store of people wearing vee neck sweaters, and loafers.

Man, I can't wait to go.

[jazzguru]

Originally Posted by 801

I hope the M$ store employees wear that nostalgic nerd look, I can just see a whole store of people wearing vee neck sweaters, and loafers.

Man, I can't wait to go.

Don't forget the argyle socks.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by teckstud

You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?

Yes, Apple approved it for sale in their store. That's no different than Barnes & Noble "approving" a book for sale in their store. The app creator is the party that infringed the copyright, not Apple. I wouldn't be surprised to see this case tossed out. Regardless, I'm 100% certain that the plaintiff will not win this case at trial and appeal. Whether Apple throws him some money in a settlement just to not have to deal with it is another question.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by noirdesir

If somebody sells a bootlegged CD, she or he is liable. The question is always how obvious the copyright infringement is.

This isn't the equivalent of a bootleg CD, it's more comparable to a store selling a book containing copyrighted text or a CD using an unauthorized sample.

For an example, look at the song Bittersweet Symphony which the Rolling Stones successfully argued ripped off one of their songs and ended up getting 100% of the writing credit and monies. Were any of the stores that sold that CD found guilty of copyright violation?

[Guartho]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Only Apple can sell this app- correct? Isn;'t there an sale agreement and review process by Apple and Apple only?

Only Wal•Mart sells the Wal•Mart exclusive editions of movies. This is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter that they're the only store selling it. They're still just the store selling it. I take your attempt at a tangent and your ignoring of the actual question to mean that you are not in fact aware of any precedent cases and are in fact just making shit up as I suspected.

[Robin Huber]

I do hope some ex-Apple store employees, or current part timers get jobs at the MS stores if for no other reason than to keep MS honest. If management makes them tell lies about Apple they can blow the whistle. They can also correct people who have mistaken ideas about Macs, although they may have to do it subtly. Although I am a former Apple Store employee, I couldn't do it because I know zilch about Windows machines.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

I do hope some ex-Apple store employees, or current part timers get jobs at the MS stores if for no other reason than to keep MS honest. If management makes them tell lies about Apple they can blow the whistle. They can also correct people who have mistaken ideas about Macs, although they may have to do it subtly.

Considering the number of Apple fans that enjoy telling lies, half truths and exaggerations about MS, I think they'd do well to actively avoid former Apple Store employees altogether.

[OuterAppleniverse]

The lawsuit should be directed at the i.TV developer. End of story.
Its like the US government suing china because retail stores there sell ripped off US products. After all the Chinese gov't has to give permits to do business right.
IP laws is easily abused in this day and age. The one with the more cunning lawyer wins. Not the one who is right.

[MacCad]

From everything I've read, the Microsoft stores will not be selling the machines, just software, Zunes, X-Boxes, and accessories. I wish I lived close enough to one of these stores so I could go hang out and watch customers reactions when the salesperson convinces them that they've found the computer they need and want but they can't buy it.

You walk into an Apple store, and you walk out with a computer. You walk into a Microsoft store, and you walk out frustrated. Situation normal. Once again MS doesn't get it. Ballmer must personally be in charge of this one.