Apple sued for duping Apple TV image, hosting iTunes track - Page 2

You actually considered Avrils music "Original"? heh...

Null.

Didn't Apple try and sue Microsoft back in the 80s for stealing the look and feel of Macintosh?

Maybe Xerox should have been suing Apple. After all they were dumb enough to show the GUI to Jobs and Woz. Is it their fault that Xerox didn't have what it took to bring it to market?

What comes around goes around.

If apple really did that to the photographer then that's fucked up and apple should pay. The Avril thing is a bit of a strech, apple doesn't publish her music anymore than amazon or HMV do.

Null.

I am not aware you can copyright a style or layout. If you could a lot of people would be in deep trouble - think of palm trees - blinding white sand - gorgeous tanned bod in a bikin or one piece against a sea where the water is impossibly clear and an impossible shade of blue. Hands up anyone who has seen travel promo or advertising shots with those elements.

For copyright infringement the images or parts of them would have to be identical, and they're not. The setup and arrangement might be the same but look at the individual images displayed on the screens. there is no correlation so Apple did not take the original and overlay elements on it, they recreated the setup from scratch, therefore no copyright infringement.

Imagine you are on a beach or are in some other public place and you come across a fashion shoot with models and contrived props, backing and lighting. The photographer is snapping away. You have your camera with you and you brazenly stand almost next to him and and take some shots of your own. The shots in your camera and the photographers are near identical in every respect. The photographer does not own copyright over the images you took - you do. You can't do anything with them commercially because you wont have a model release but you have the copyright to the images in your camera and which you took.

Exactly. For copyright infringement, Apple would have to have used the original image. They didn't. They created their own.


Yes, they did. But they had patents on their OS. Copyright != Patent.

Artists everywhere invite you to attach a medulla and cortex to your brain stem.

There's a little bit of a difference between a video wall and a literary character, it's very subtle but I'm confident you'll discern it if you think about it some more.

I am sorry but this is complete and utter pile of crap, designs and ideas are protected from unauthorised copying, how do you think companies are stopped from selling handbags that bear a striking resemblance to some designer label handbag for instance, this happens all the time.

What does the word 'Copyright' actually mean? Well for those of you who cannot be bothered to read the facts it is simple, it actually is the right to copy an original work. Note the operative word here being copy, copyright is nothing to do with using the same exact work as the copyright owner, there is already a law to cover that, it is called theft. Copyright is there to stop people copying or re-using an idea, picture, song etc.. without permission. It does not have to be an exact copy either, I would be decided in court whether a work was close enough to the original to be a breach of copyright. i.e. If i decided to make a music player, white with a circle interface on the front then Apple would probably try to sue my ass for copyright infringement, even though my player was not an exact rip-off it may be deemed close enough. So if this story is true then it is possible that Apple could be in breach of copyright, But as nobody here actually understands the facts it is amazing how many people are so sure that Apple are not guilty! Its amazing how many fanboys just jump to Apples defence like lemmings jumping from a cliff without even checking their facts first.

Null.

I have a product, and I want the front of the package to have a pretty girl. "No, I advertise my product that way." So I decide, no. I'll put a kindly grandfather reading to his grandchild, in a warm patina of light. "No, I advertised my product with something like that image in 1975."

The only damages that would be owed would be if Apple COPIED the photo with no attribution and no payment. Since this wall of images was created by Apple, using their own Core Animation process -- that's what Jobs said -- case dismissed. If I were judge, I'd put "with prejudice." Meaning it could never be resubmitted, and all costs would be paid by them.

Copyrights don't exist in "style" of the image, they exist in the IMAGE. "Hey! That's high key lighting! I have the rights to all pictures like that!" "Hey! A picture of a woman in a bikini by the sea shore! I took a picture like that!" Utter nonsense.

Postal Service/Apple ad were directed by the same person

Well I do know a bit about this since I represent commercial photographers. I think the photographer has a very good case. Whether or not his photograph is copyrighted does not matter however if he did register it prior to the violation, he can recover legal fees and get damages which could be significant. If it is not registed he still could win as he is the creator of the image, and is the legal copyright holder It also looks better in his favor since he was approached by Apple or their Ad Agency requesting usage of that particular photograph or concept prior to the infringement. That seems to proove it is not an accidental creative idea.

Yes others have shot banks of video monitors, but the angles and colors are virtually identical here. I have won several cases where Agencies and photographers have copied the work of my artists. We always settle before any legal action is taken.

So if i made a gui/icon set that took inspiration from say oh i don know, OSX, but didn't copy it, and put it on say oh another OS, that'd be ok ?

you know just the look and feel, but not the image itself.

No, it is you who is wrong.

You are confusing Copyright, Registered Designs, and Patents. The three are very different from each other, and you seem to think that Copyright infers the same protection as Registered Design and Patenting, when it does not.

You are wrong to state that "copyright is nothing to do with using the same exact work as the copyright owner, there is already a law to cover that, it is called theft". If copyright has not been aserted, "theft" does not occur. The creator of an original work has to assert copyright (and that's all they have to do, they don't have to register with anyone or anything like that) in order for the copying of that work to be an offense.

Your handbags and music player examples are examples of Registered Design and Patent violation respectively, they are not examples of copyright infringement.

Having said all that I should say that I'm only familiar with the basics of U.K. law on these matters (I did a course in Law as part of my Engineering Degree); I believe that the rules in the U.S. are very similar.

Finally, if you take a good look at various posts I've made about Apple's Desktop lineup, QuickTime, the Finder, the iPod HiFi etc. etc. you will quickly realise that I am not a crazed Apple Fanboy.

OS X is protected by three different things: Copyright, Registered Design, and Patents.

Your example would not be copyright infringement, but it would be a violation of the Registered Design, and possibly of patents too, given that the U.S. lets you patent pretty much anything nowadays.

Just ran across this on comcast.com

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author.

You soooo do not have any idea what you are talking about.

It's called "the law". It's too boring for you to get familiar with, yet you don't mind cluttering up the thread with your horse****?

Cabbage Soup.

Potato.

No, there may be infringement if the image is substantially similar to the original.

Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt successfully protected Psihoyos' copyright [amazingly, this was for the very same photograph!] in an infringement action against Microsoft and the ad agency McCann Erickson. Psihoyos v. Microsoft, 00 CV 5744 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.).

Andrew Berger “Hey, That Looks Like Mine” The Law of Substantial Similarity:

Uh-oh! The return of random-time posts! Come on AI, WTF? Fix your servers.


I don't think that they are ridiculous in the extreme. I don't think that Swift is arguing that copyright should be done away with, he is just drawing the lines about what "different enough", "substantial amount", "minor changes", and "little substance" actually mean.

The aim of copyright is to protect the creators of original work, whilst allowing others to be inspired by said work and to then go on and create their own original work. This allows the state of the art to keep moving forward. I think that copyright law is perfectly balanced in this respect, unlike patents.

The thing is that some people here (including, seemingly, you) are confusing copyright with other things such as Patents and Registered Designs (design patents in the U.S.). The photograph in question is not patented, and is not a registered design. Therefore, in order to determine if Apple's image has infringed, one must make interpretations of the phrases "different enough", "substantial amount", "minor changes", and "little substance" (see Mazzy's earlier post).

Is Apple's image "different enough" from the original photograph that it hasn't violated copyright? Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it's pretty close.

Oh, my God. Well, obviously there's a law to be changed, and entire rafts of "intellectual property" lawyers to be hanged. I'll take the picture, and you can post an almost identical one. I won't care.

Notice one thing about the Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirshtritt website? You have to be a cyborg to read it. That's probably the single most boring website I've ever seen. But it makes sense for a lawfirm of evil robots.

Thank you to both of you for these informative posts.

I didn't know that the U.S. had a Copyright Office. The U.K. doesn't. All you have to do in the U.K. is assert copyright (by marking your book/document/back-of-postage-stamp/photograph/etc. etc. with a copyright symbol and your name) and that's it - no registration necessary.

This thread had got me thinking about copyright in relation to images, as it seems slightly less clear-cut than copyright of written works or music. From Mazzy: "a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance".

"different enough", "substantial amount", "minor changes", and "little substance" are all subjective terms that do not appear to be rigourously defined, presumably the terms are gradually refined by previous cases?

Given, as far as I can tell, the court did not make a ruling in the previous case against Microsoft, it would seem that these terms are up for interpretation in relation to this particular image. So it is still debatable as to whether Apple has infringed copyright.

The other question that remains is how much damage has been done to the artist by Apple? Whilst I think that if Apple is found to have infringed copyright they should be punished, I'm also of the opinion that the artist has not lost out - it's not like Apple are making money out of this image - the AppleTV would still sell if this image wasn't used in its marketing or during boot-up.

They pay beforehand because it's more expensive. The law is crap, obviously.

I used to work in a video control room. Lots of screens. Wall. If I had taken a picture?

If we don't loosen the intellectual property laws, we're headed over a cliff with the elite owners of these crackpot legal constructs.

The equivalent in text media -- ha, literature -- that if I wanted to write a story about a young prince whose father is murdered and he suspects the man who married his mother, I'd owe thousands to the Shakespeare estate. It's utter madness.

No companies usually settle out of court when they know they are wrong and it also means details of the settlement are kept secret. The news that a large company with a great image has been ripping off artists does nothing for the share price or brand.


Yes because the image in question is just a hurried snapshot of a video control room with a few screens dotted about. There was no thought or design to this image. Anyway if you had taken the picture you would be the creator of the work and therefore would deserve the same legal protection as anyone else.


No, if we do lossen the intellectual property laws then it would be just the final nail in the coffin of the the crazy win at all cost, capitalist, selfish and power hungry world that we live in now and that is literally destroying the world around us.


And your alternative is? Someone spends 3 years of their life locked in a room writing what could be the greatest story ever told, they are on the breadline becasue they have never had anything published before, but they keep trying, keep dreaming. When the novel is finished it is fantastic, the first publisher to read it loves it and being the largest publisher in the world wants to publish it themselves. The Author wants $300,000. This after all is the authors only form of income and this represents 3 years work. The Publisher decides to instead pay a staff writer to rip the author off and they release the story under a different name, the author gets nothing, the publishing firm make millions from selling the movie rights. The movie company make millions, the actors in the movie make millions to star in it. The Author who made all of this possible makes nothing. How the hell would this be good for society?

Then i owe you an apology then Mr H, sorry to confuse you with the fanboys, i realise that is no the case.

Though my comments still stand, and posts such as this are ridiculous to the extreme...


There is no law to be changes, the copyright law is there for a reason. Design agencies get payed bloody large fortunes by companies such as Apple to come up with original designs and advertising for their clients. Why should they be allowed to take the money and just copy someone elses work? Are you really advocating a world where your own creations, your own ideas and thoughts are not your own? Where something you have spent a large amount of time creating can just be copied by anyone for large profit while you make nothing?

That is a world i would not want to be a part of, that would be a world with less art, less expression and less music. I can only assume that you have not really thought too much about this before posting that comment (and all the similar comments by other posters), i cannot imagine that anyone would seriously want to live in a world where copyright does not exist.

You talk like I'm against copyright, because you're taking the point of view of the artist. I do too. This is not about that. Copyright is being broken by huge corporations that get Mickey Mouse, it would seem, in perpetuity. I think Walt has made his money on it, but Disney has been exclusive rights, and they do nothing but stifle creativity. 22 years is enough, or until you're dead, whichever comes first. Go back to the copyright law as the founding fathers (US) wrote it. You get exclusive rights over a work for a generation. After which, your intellect is dead so it doesn't have any more intellectual property rights.

The question of intellectual property is never ridiculed as a cost of society which has gotten ridiculous. When Amazon can patent one-click, the jig is up. Instead, the tort lawyers, who help people sue giant corporations when they're injured, this is ridiculed. We don't need substantial tort reform in the U.S. We need copyright reform.

Your rights to your story that it took you 3 years to write are not hurt by forcing a photographer to prove that an actual infringement on their photograph has taken place; it's just not enough if you have a similar idea. Ideas, in fact, shouldn't be copyrightable, it's the words that are copyrighted. Using similar verbs, or a similar story line, is not enough. Does Faulkner owe rights to the Bible? Or to anyone of the thousands of authors he read before? Only if he copies substantial amounts of words without attribution.

There are millions of environments where we are exposed to control rooms, museum installations, and ads, that have multiple monitors. It's black in control rooms.

In other words, I think the law has been distorted far too generously here. We live in a visual culture. Ideas aren't copyright.

Say the Apple thing was a movie of an eagle. Would everybody who's ever made a similar photograph have a cause of action? Absurd.

The truth about "intellectual property" is that its expansion in our age to include, it seems, everything, is that it doesn't favor the artist, it favors the large corporations that buy up intellectual property. It's a right that is really only accessible to the wealthy. To defend yourself, or claim restitution in court, costs enormous wads of money.

But it's an issue that does dupe a lot of artists. It's like the record contracts people get: a huge loan shark operation and a protection racket.

Thanks for the helpful insult.

Did you do the code?

The website is really, really boring.

You should read up on how many times the singer Tom Waits has won litigation from Commercial Clients and Ad Agencies who specifically copied his voice for commercials. He does not do any commercial work and several AD Agencies have requested him to do so. He has declined every time but some have used sound alikes. Tom Waits has taken them to court both in America and in Europe.

Apple should have changed the image much more maybe in color and arrangement. It is common fo Agencies to pay a photographer or stock house a comp fee to use images for presenation. The fee increases when it is used commercially.

Here a recent example:

Bay Area musician Tom Waits won a suit in Spanish court protecting his music from being adapted or imitated and used in commercials without his permission.

His suit, against car maker Volkswagen-Audi and a Spanish production company that made a commercial aired in that country in 2000, was upheld this month on appeal. The original judgment was in March 2004.

The Audi car commercial used a song very similar to Waits' "Innocent When You Dream," and was sung by someone mimicking Waits.

The production company had asked permission to use Waits' music in its ad, but he had refused.

Waits won two awards on Friday totaling 66,000 Euros ($79,807) in the Appeal Court of Barcelona.

Waits has also recently sued the car company Opel, owned by General Motors, and the ad agency McCann Erickson in Frankfurt, Germany for a commercial aired in Europe that impersonated Waits' voice.

What about a bit of recognition at least. Maybe a lot of artists aren't too worried about the cash, as it seems to spoil their heads, but they certainly would like a mention. Apple are a pack of cunts and wont give them either.

You hardly ever find anyone who disagrees with Apple on these boards, no matter what. But I'm with the artists too, evidently Apple knew they would be in violation if they used the image, they were in talks with the artist and thing fell apart. I hope the guy sues their ass for a lump of money, this isn't the first time this has happened.

Sure you can. Do you think that the creators of "The Simpsons" and, by extension, "Itchy and Scratchy" are paying royalties to the owners of "Tom and Jerry"?

That's inspiration.

IMO the lawyers for Apple decided that there was little chance to lose such a trial, so they backed out. Whether that is correct or not remains to be seen.

I am not for Apple but I am not against them either. I get fucked off when I see corporations, by virtue of their size, fucking the little guy over, and that is the perception here. Somehow they seem to thing that its ok for them to steal ideas and then let things play out in court knowing full well that they have the time and the money to defeat basically anything that comes their way.
I have invented a couple of gadgets that I have won venture investor capital for (finally, it has taken several years and this is all still very touch and go) but one key thing is that anyone investing drills into you how well you have to guard intellectual property, and that applies somehow on an artist level too - many artists and musicians are after recognition first and foremost and it is kinda galling that a large company can come along and lift your ideas. If what Apple has done gets out into the public forum (and dont you just hate trial by media...) then I'm sure Apple, along with any other company would quickly change their tune. It is for this reason that I dont really buy Apple products. This, and the unbelievable arrogance of their management regarding several recent product launches.

Well, lets see here...6 months after release...lets imagine a timeline here:

Lets say that the photographer doesn't buy/use an apple tv untill it had been out for say 3 months -- thus he was not aware of it...as soon as he saw it, he called is rep/agent/lawyer and says "they used the photo that they didnt wnat to license." so the lawyer/agent tries to negotiate a sort of post-fact license and remember, corprate negotiations go slow sometimes. maybe Apple just wouldnt pay up so this is their only option to get $$.

The real problen here is that if they end up paying more in post-fact settlements than they would have for the original license (at this point I assume the settlement will be in the 7-to-8 figure range) the board could get in huge trouble with Wall Street and the SEC as it sounds like intentional fraud, but there are two sides to each story so lets see how it plays out.


Apple may have had someone duplicate it in Photoshop too: would that be a legal problem? a sort of "bootleg"? If it is differant enough could they call it "parody" and get first amendment protection?

No...most companies settle out of court because its cheaper to do so. I've seen many cases where the company knows there's no merit in the case but going to trial costs more than the settlement itself.

Vinea

Neither action has any merit whatsoever.