or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple sued over alleged misuse of photo in MacBook Pro promotion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple sued over alleged misuse of photo in MacBook Pro promotion - Page 3

post #81 of 115
Originally Posted by rupert1020 View Post
This "guy" is called Sabine, she's a girl... ;-)

 

Is this where someone says, "Sabine, eh? Well she can Free State my unrecognized disputed territory any time…"? lol.gif

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #82 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Spoken like a true IP abuser.

 

Anyone who works in advertising or design knows about photo rights. You have to pay for what you use.

Now did the photo enhance the profits on the MBP? Hard to say. But it is a striking photo and I remember being struck by it when I saw it used in Apple ads. I also recognized it immediately when I saw it in this article. Apple will pay (and pay extra) as they should.

 

I asked a friend who works in advertising about this and what he thought would be a reasonable price to pay to use a photo in a marketing campaign of the size/scope of Apple (for example, running full page ads of your photo in several major magazines).

 

I'm curious what you think Apple should have paid to use this photo, since you're "in the industry".

 

Then I'd like to see how much Apple is being sued for. The difference between these numbers will speak volumes about the "reasons" for filing the lawsuit.

 

 

Edited: Just read over the linked filing. It states that damages cannot be determined at this time. But it states they want to include things like profits, gains, and advantages Apple received.

 

In other words, she wants millions.


Edited by EricTheHalfBee - 10/13/12 at 9:55am

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Is this where someone says, "Sabine, eh? Well she can Free State my unrecognized disputed territory any time…"? lol.gif

Damn you beat me to it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #84 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Let's go back and look at another case like this: the iPad's default Springboard image.

 

The guy responsible for it didn't know Apple had used it until a friend told him, right? And what did he do afterward? He was honored and probably saw a surge in popularity/publicity of his other photos.

 

That's how you take a situation like this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

I hope apple lawyers crush this guy. However like most cases they will both probably settle on something


Usage contracts are very specific. I find it odd that they were charged for layout purposes, but I doubt either of you have ever viewed one. If they were just putting together an fpo for approval, I wouldn't expect that to cost anything until they decided to actually use it in a real project. In terms of publicity, you guys can't view it like that. It's beyond silly. If a big client isn't paying, it sets up a bad precedence.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

No, it's not fine for them to steal the photo. But a lawsuit is NOT the first step. You go to Apple, you say, "Hey, you're using my image. That's awesome, but you didn't pay for it. Could you please pay me an appropriate fee for it? Thanks."


They don't comply, you sue. But you do that first.


Yeah, see the above.

 

None of these things start with a lawsuit, but you don't see articles regarding negotiations between their agents or lawyers and Apple. Do not assume that all of these lawsuits were the first step. You jump to this same conclusion every time, and it is highly unlikely.

post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post


Oh puleese....
Since when is probably a successful business proposition? Flattery pays no bills.

 

When Amazon gives away their free Android program of the day.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #86 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dookie Howsre View Post

He or she needs to drive their Ford into the nearest fjord.

 

You shouldn't rely on iOS 6's Maps, as you'd be hard pressed to find fjords in Switzerland.

post #87 of 115
I expected there would be hostility toward the photographer before I even started reading commons.

Sure enough...

Apparently none of you people bashing the photographer are photographers, trying to make a living at the craft. If a comp was used for marketing, Apple owes. That's how the business works. Suggesting the photographer is getting "free promotion" is ridiculous.
post #88 of 115

I'm not "in the industry" of advertising (I only have experience in exhibits and product design.) But in my experience, the license depends mostly on what the copyright owner can command (it is a negotiation, but the seller gets to set the price, and the buyer gets to decide if they want the deal.)

She's clearly a well established photographer [has had plenty] of high level clients and some very marketable work:

http://www.sabineliewald.com

 

If I had to take a wild ass guess, of a likely license for such an image:

Knowing what was paid on small projects I have been involved with in the past, and assuming  a few things --

international use,

a mixture of medium and full res licenses (most likely for such a deal they would negotiate a single package deal,)

Use on billboards, in store, print and electronic (I haven't seen it on TV,)

A probable 6 month to one year term of use (or as negotiated,)

 

I would guess a *minimum* of $25,000, but I frankly thing she would ask for at least $100,000.

 

I'd be interested to know what your friend thinks, if he has experience with similar projects.

 

I do know that Leslie Feist got (low to mid) six figures for the use of one of her songs for a single Apple commercial. Additionally, they arranged (not part of the negotiated deal) for her to get a US passport too! Very handy for a musician in the post 911 world. That alone probably cost $20,000 in fees and lawyers and she probably would have had a hard time doing it for any price without Apple's help (she mentioned the passport on Letterman one night.)

 

[Also RE "she wants millions,"

She does get to set the price. Apple gets to refuse it.

Since Apple didn't negotiate, they may have to pay several times what would have a reasonable price from the start.

I doubt she'll get millions, but I wouldn't be surprised by 1 or 2 million.]

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

I asked a friend who works in advertising about this and what he thought would be a reasonable price to pay to use a photo in a marketing campaign of the size/scope of Apple (for example, running full page ads of your photo in several major magazines).

 

I'm curious what you think Apple should have paid to use this photo, since you're "in the industry".

 

Then I'd like to see how much Apple is being sued for. The difference between these numbers will speak volumes about the "reasons" for filing the lawsuit.

 

 

Edited: Just read over the linked filing. It states that damages cannot be determined at this time. But it states they want to include things like profits, gains, and advantages Apple received.

 

In other words, she wants millions.


Edited by DESuserIGN - 10/13/12 at 1:19pm
post #89 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I asked a friend who works in advertising about this and what he thought would be a reasonable price to pay to use a photo in a marketing campaign of the size/scope of Apple (for example, running full page ads of your photo in several major magazines).

I'm curious what you think Apple should have paid to use this photo, since you're "in the industry".

Then I'd like to see how much Apple is being sued for. The difference between these numbers will speak volumes about the "reasons" for filing the lawsuit.

Edited: Just read over the linked filing. It states that damages cannot be determined at this time. But it states they want to include things like profits, gains, and advantages Apple received.

In other words, she wants millions.

We don't know enough details to even guess.

If Apple used a stock photo from a stock photo web site, there would have been a license amount listed. If Apple failed to pay that amount, that's probably all that Sabine could collect (unless the contract specifies something different). There's always a chance for minor punitive damages and Apple being forced to pay legal expenses, but if the stock photo site says that unlimited licensing is $25 K, that's all she's going to get (other than legal expenses and maybe minor punitive damages, as mentioned).

OTOH, if there was no contractual relationship and Apple simply took the photo without permission, the damages could be higher. However, in the US, it is extremely unlikely that they'd pay a share of profits or gains. The photographer would have to prove that Apple sold those MBPs solely because of using his copyrighted work - which doesn't sound even remotely plausible.

The facts will come out. At this point, it's all speculation. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if Apple did have a license and Sabine is trying to get more money. Or perhaps it was a minor oversight on the part of the ad agency Apple used and Apple will pay the appropriate licensing fee, but none of this 'share of profits' garbage.

Oh, and btw, Apple's contract with the ad agency almost certainly says that the ad agency is responsible for licensing any photos they use (the contracts I've signed with ad agencies usually included a clause like that), so Apple's not going to lose anything, anyway. The ad agency is the one who would pay any damages. In all likelihood, Apple wasn't involved in the licensing at all and probably had no way of knowing that it wasn't licensed. In fact, that's an even more likely scenario than the one above. The ad agency paid for a license to use the photo and then put it in Apple's ad. Sabine looks at the list of companies paying for the photo and Apple wasn't there - so she assumes that Apple stole it - without even considering the possibility that it was licensed via the ad agency.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #90 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If Apple used a stock photo from a stock photo web site, there would have been a license amount listed... The facts will come out. At this point, it's all speculation. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if Apple did have a license and Sabine is trying to get more money. Or perhaps it was a minor oversight on the part of the ad agency Apple used and Apple will pay the appropriate licensing fee, but none of this 'share of profits' garbage.
Oh, and btw, Apple's contract with the ad agency almost certainly says that the ad agency is responsible for licensing any photos they use

I didn't see anywhere that Apple used an outside agency (Chiat/TBWA?) to develop the promotional materials. Are you assuming so or did I miss something? As far it being a stock-photo from a website, I don't think that's the case in this instance. It looks as tho they were negotiating directly with her agent going by the complaint.

 

BTW, the stock photo instance I remember linking several months ago wasn't about this image. Instead it was another Apple promotion that used an icon for the new Retina feature at the iPad2 introduction. That one was a stock image from iStock:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5733150-multicolored-eye-macro.php?st=7cb7511


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/13/12 at 4:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #91 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfm2003 View Post

How can this be taken seriously.
The filing doesn't even know the name of the worldwide copyright treaty. If my lawyer can't get the name correct, I'd be seriously concerned that I can prevail.
Particularly funny is the plaintiff is swiss, she'd know that the name of the town in which the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is "Berne" not "Byrne."
I obviously don't know the particulars of the facts, but I'd find it incredible that Apple didn't have rights to use the photo. Another possibility, Apple didn't like the photo provided and re-staged a different, but similar one, and used that in its promotions.

Are you serious?
Re-staging an image is copyright infringement and, since Apple is said to have purchased the original, it might even prove wilful infringement. Big damages.
Search - there are many big payouts for doing this.

To the nit-pickers, Berne...whatever, the world of publishing is rife with spelling mistakes, transcription errors, audio translation errors and plain 'ole software f/ups. You ought to get out more.
Grown-ups just frown and get on with it.
post #92 of 115
I develop rights management systems and the reason why companies use it is exactly to avoid situations like this one.

At one company I consulted at (after the fact) they had the rights to publish a children's novel. Someone got the idea to create a coloring book. They didn't have the rights to do that. I don't know whether they settled or whether there was a lawsuit, but it cost them $ millions.

If you use someone else's asset without a license, you get sued. If you make a movie and there's a poster in the background, you have to get rights to use that poster, even if the use is totally passive and even if its appearance might trigger sales. I happen to personally think that such passive uses should be permissible without a license, but that's not the law.

As for this photographer, she has to have had the photograph specifically registered with the copyright office. She can do that after the violation takes place, but there is a limited time (it might be 90 days, but I've forgotten). If she's suing over a copyright violation, she can only sue in federal court.

Those are the facts. Anything else either in favor of Apple or in favor of the photographer is simply whining. This will probably get settled. Apple should know better - there's no reason for a company the size of Apple to be stealing images, although I wonder whether this was Apple's doing or their advertising agency's doing.
post #93 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I didn't see anywhere that Apple used an outside agency (Chiat/TBWA?) to develop the promotional materials. Are you assuming so or did I miss something? As far it being a stock-photo from a website, I don't think that's the case in this instance. It looks as tho they were negotiating directly with her agent going by the complaint.

I'm assuming that they used an outside agency - since Apple ALWAYS uses an outside agency.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

BTW, the stock photo instance I remember linking several months ago wasn't about this image. Instead it was another Apple promotion that used an icon for the new Retina feature at the iPad2 introduction. That one was a stock image from iStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5733150-multicolored-eye-macro.php?st=7cb7511

Look at the link you provided. Click on 'extended'. It costs $200 for unlimited print usage. We're not talking about very much money here. I suspect that Ms. Sabine is going to be horribly disappointed.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #94 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

I
Or maybe he could have just asked them for the going rate for using an image instead of being a lawsuit happy wanker, especially considering that they clearly DID license it in the first place and most likely missed the fine print saying it was layout only?

Apple is a multi billion dollar company. I doubt they hire lawyers that 'miss' the fine print.

My guess is that he is the one that missed it

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #95 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Apple is a multi billion dollar company. I doubt they hire lawyers that 'miss' the fine print.
My guess is that he is the one that missed it

That is one scenario. Another could be that Apple knows that a single person is more likely to miss fine print or fight a costly legal battle against a multii-billion company. I don't think it's unfathomable to think that corporations will take these measures.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #96 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

If true, I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Same as the Swiss Railway clock (though I would've probably just changed the design on that).

Apple's marketing department and advertising firm(s) should have an innate understanding of this stuff.

They do have an understanding, but its such a generic design it seems insane anyone got a trademark for it. And I would actually wonder if they have a world wide mark. They might not but Apple figured why bother with the fuss of a law suit. Especially if they are asking for much

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #97 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

What Apple did is typical of what people do with images on the Internet. They steal photographers photos and tried to get away with it.

And you have proof. Versus them licensing it properly from a stock house etc

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #98 of 115
Does anyone honestly think that people weren't going to buy the apple product regardless of this particular image?
post #99 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Lots of places give high res comps.
Many professionals trust other professionals to be professional. Apple make a mistake. It would be insane to use a photo like that without licensing it. Hell, I had to do it for images used in museum exhibits for U.S. National Parks. It's normal everyday practice to do so, and negligence not to.

You know what else is negligent. Declaring someone guilty with all the facts

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #100 of 115
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
Declaring someone guilty with all the facts

 

Gosh dang due process!

😉

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #101 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangesauce View Post

Artists are constantly dealing with their images being used with the incorrect license.

That's why they use licensing houses. And Apple likely paid per the use they wanted.

This might be more a case of the license house being contacted by an agency on behalf of Apple in part to avoid 'Apple can afford it' way higher prices and they didn't do their research to know who was behind, or very likely behind, the request. So everyone got paid but not as much as she'd like

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #102 of 115

Since Apple had the high res image when they were not supposed to be supplied the high res image then that would imply that Apple licensed it for comping but was somehow accidentally supplied a high res image. The purchasing department is going to purchase what was asked for, namely a comping image.

 

Next the art department used the image supplied for comping, the comp artist or art director would not really be paying attention to whether the stock photo was incorrectly supplied as high res, if anything they would assume that  there was a miscommunication and they were supplied a high res image even though they did not ask for it.

 

They probably used it in a comp, the ad was approved and they ran it. They may have even rejected it and approved a different comp image but decided to use the eye anyway because since they thought it's already high res and paid for they may as well. No one is at fault here, there is no deliberate attempt to swindle anyone. To make this into a lawsuit is none other than a perfect example of a 'frivolous and vexatious' lawsuit.

post #103 of 115
Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh.
While I do find the suit somehow ridiculous, I absolutely love how the very same people who go all court-happy on Samsung suddenly find that, in this case, plain and stupid use of the law is bot appropriate.... because Apple would lose.

@mrstep: a Corporation is not allowed to "just miss the fine print".

Now, I've never really udertood why the ugly pictures. Maybe this will push Apple to have its own inhouse artists 1tongue.gif

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #104 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupert1020 View Post

Just to straighten out something... This "guy" is called Sabine, she's a girl... ;-)

 

 

who is sabine?

post #105 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That is one scenario. Another could be that Apple knows that a single person is more likely to miss fine print or fight a costly legal battle against a multii-billion company. I don't think it's unfathomable to think that corporations will take these measures.

Extremely unlikely. The unlimited use for most of the stock images on the site someone provided is a few hundred dollars at most. Apple isn't going to intentionally rip someone off for a few hundred dollars-especially when creative professionals still constitutes a major market for Apple.

It was almost certainly an oversight on someone's part - and will be rectified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh.
While I do find the suit somehow ridiculous, I absolutely love how the very same people who go all court-happy on Samsung suddenly find that, in this case, plain and stupid use of the law is bot appropriate.... because Apple would lose.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it was OK for Apple to use the photo without permission. For example, I stated explicitly that if Apple used the image without permission, they will lose in court and should be made to pay.

There's no double standard here - except in the mind of the iHaters.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #106 of 115

Apple needs to pay up, and then counter sue for any money that this guy has made as a result of the publicity, as his photography sucks.
 

post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Extremely unlikely. The unlimited use for most of the stock images on the site someone provided is a few hundred dollars at most. Apple isn't going to intentionally rip someone off for a few hundred dollars-especially when creative professionals still constitutes a major market for Apple.
It was almost certainly an oversight on someone's part - and will be rectified.

JR...

You're not understanding what you're reading. The link you're depending on in your responses is for an iStock photo used in a previous Apple campaign for the Retina iPad2. The one used in this instance for the Mac appears to be direct from the photographers agent and not any stock photo website. The prices you're assuming are unlikely to apply. Read the actual complaint linked in the AI story and it will make more sense.

 

...and I completely agree with your last sentence. I very seriously doubt they were intentionally trying to avoid paying the phototgrapher for her IP.


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/14/12 at 6:35am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


...and I completely agree with your last sentence. I very seriously doubt they were intentionally trying to avoid paying the phototgrapher for her IP.

 

 

What's the used of avoiding the paying of the photographer? They need the license

post #109 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatusmiles View Post

 

 

What's the used of avoiding the paying of the photographer? They need the license

What an odd question. How do you suppose Apple gets a license, by donation?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post

Apple needs to pay up, and then counter sue for any money that this guy has made as a result of the publicity, as his photography sucks.
 


For the umpteenth time, the photographers name is Sabine, which implies her gender is female.  Her photography does not suck, it is of the highest quality both artistically and technically.  Her images are very inventive.

 

Have a look at her work:  http://www.google.ie/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1046&bih=540&q=Sabine+Liewald&oq=Sabine+Liewald&gs_l=img.3...1449.1449.0.2263.1.1.0.0.0.0.55.55.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.y8Rw4O7Olug

 

Her work has been used without appropriate compensation, she is entitled to seek redress for that.  Apple will pay up.

post #111 of 115
According to the claim, not only did Apple acquire the image for comping purposes, they subsequently advised that they didn't intend to use the image in advertising.

Seems to me that Apple has to cop it sweet...
post #112 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

For the umpteenth time, the photographers name is Sabine, which implies her gender is female.  Her photography does not suck, it is of the highest quality both artistically and technically.  Her images are very inventive.

 

 

You've heard of "A Boy Named Sue?" ;-)


 

Do you *seriously think* photographers who are published in major fashion and culture magazines are good enough not to give away their labor or sell it cheap on a stock photo site?      (Yes, I speak sarcastically.)

 

[BTW, Don't know if anyone noticed this posted above, but her website lists a number of impressive clients:

http://www.sabineliewald.com]

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Her work has been used without appropriate compensation, she is entitled to seek redress for that.  Apple will pay up.

 

And yes, I agree here too. I'm sure Apple did this unintentionally, even if it is a significant error. And I'm sure they will make nice.

 

Now that she has their attention, they might even make nice enough (seeing that she has lots of other possibly appropriate images) to make a juicy deal to license a few more images to settle things amicably (if she's willing.) When Apple is in they wrong they have been magnanimous with reasonable people.


Edited by DESuserIGN - 10/15/12 at 9:09am
post #113 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by grblade View Post

No one ever says, "Hey, Apple. I think you used my image without properly licensing it. What can we do do make this right?" They all just wait to sue. They just see dollar signs.

This is because, if they took the proper channels, they would only get a few dollars for usage of a stock photo. This way, they, and their lawyers, get more money than the going rate.

The Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.
Reply
The Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.
Reply
post #114 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What an odd question. How do you suppose Apple gets a license, by donation?

By stealing perhaps!
post #115 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likkie View Post

According to the claim, not only did Apple acquire the image for comping purposes, they subsequently advised that they didn't intend to use the image in advertising.
Seems to me that Apple has to cop it sweet...

Really sweet... that's how Apple money works
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple sued over alleged misuse of photo in MacBook Pro promotion