Briefly: Apple hit with copyright suit, Snow Leopard preorder

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 60
    freenyfreeny Posts: 128member
    Didnt the photographer steal that idea from the Matrix movies?

    http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/p..._architect.jpg
  • Reply 2 of 60
    cicerocicero Posts: 20member
    and just when it looked like the approval process was going to get a bit smoother...
  • Reply 3 of 60
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 60
    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
  • Reply 5 of 60
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 60
    If I worked for Microsoft I'd honestly direct customers down the road to the Apple store.
  • Reply 7 of 60
    dluxdlux Posts: 666member
    Just be aware that employees at the Microsoft Stores are required to wear company uniforms.
  • Reply 8 of 60
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dlux View Post


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



    ...



  • Reply 9 of 60
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    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.
  • Reply 10 of 60
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    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?
  • Reply 11 of 60
    Why is Apple getting sued? They have the money.

    I doubt i.TV has enough cash to make them worth being sued.
  • Reply 12 of 60
    floccusfloccus Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    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.
  • Reply 13 of 60
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    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.
  • Reply 14 of 60
    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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freeny View Post


    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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    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?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    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.
  • Reply 15 of 60
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 60
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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.
  • Reply 17 of 60
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    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.
  • Reply 18 of 60
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,347member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    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!
  • Reply 19 of 60
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    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.
  • Reply 20 of 60
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.