Apple settles 'Retina' promo image suit with Swiss artist
A filing with the New York District Court last week reveals that Apple settled a case out of court regarding the alleged misuse of the "Retina" eyeball used to promote the company's MacBook Pro with Retina display.
Photographer Sabine Liewald's "Eye Closeup" as seen on Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.
Apple last Wednesday settled the suit levied by Swiss photographer Sabine Liewald ahead of a court scheduled meeting slated for today, reports Cnet.
In the original complaint from October 2012, Liewald claimed that her image of an eyeball, titled "Eye Closeup," was illegally used during an Apple keynote in June. The photograph was used to show off the capabilities of the company's first high-resolution display laptop, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.
While Apple acquired rights to use the photograph, the terms did not extend to public displays and was meant for mock-ups only. The settlement terms remain undisclosed but the Liewald was seeking damages plus lost profits from Apple's use of the image.
Photographer Sabine Liewald's "Eye Closeup" as seen on Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.
Apple last Wednesday settled the suit levied by Swiss photographer Sabine Liewald ahead of a court scheduled meeting slated for today, reports Cnet.
In the original complaint from October 2012, Liewald claimed that her image of an eyeball, titled "Eye Closeup," was illegally used during an Apple keynote in June. The photograph was used to show off the capabilities of the company's first high-resolution display laptop, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.
While Apple acquired rights to use the photograph, the terms did not extend to public displays and was meant for mock-ups only. The settlement terms remain undisclosed but the Liewald was seeking damages plus lost profits from Apple's use of the image.
Comments
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Payday! Who says artists starve?
Seems pretty sweet to me.
It is very possible at the terms could have been such that, as a marketing event, the use was covered. And that Apple really didn't owe her anything. But perhaps gave her a little extra anyway. To avoid her being embarrassed by the courts siding with Apple etc.
We really can't say either way
Originally Posted by 65C816
seriously, are you guys saying Apple shouldn't pay for the right to use it?
I don't see any reason for them to pay for it if it was used it in a way that allowed free use. However, if their chosen use of the image required payment to the creator under copyright law, of course they should pay for it.
What really got me about this was that Apple, of all tech companies, should know better.
They should, but Apple can make mistakes, too. If that happened with any other company it would not have ever made the news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus
Claiming lost profits seems reasonable to me. The artist has effectively lost the opportunity to market or license this image to another company as it is now recognized as an Apple image. Not sure if a mistake on Apple's part or just a conscious decision to move quickly with the presentation material and settle up in court later...
Perhaps you didn't realized the publicity that will bring in more money to the photographer's coffer by many more clients using his services.
Loss of profits? firstly he hasn't made the profits yet so how can he claimed his loss.
You really made me laugh this morning.
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
This artist lost money? Really!
Yeah, of course. If any company says they'd like to use your photo for internal documents then you'd get either a small fee for the use or let them use it for free (unlikely but it gives you bragging rights). If a company like Apple says they'd like to use your image to highlight a selling point on a product that is going to make the company millions in profit you'd normally ask for a percentage per item sold or a payout depending on expected sales.
So yes, the artist (if you can call photographers "artists") has probably lost a substantial amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
What really got me about this was that Apple, of all tech companies, should know better.
Since none of us knows any of the relevant details, it's a bit difficult to criticize either side. However, I very much doubt Apple intentionally and knowingly used this image in an unauthorized manner with an intention to not pay for it. The issue was settled fairly quickly, so I doubt, as well, that they were resistant to properly compensating the artist. Companies and people make mistakes, it's how they deal with them that's important.
I don't see anyone saying that.
Apple used it in a way that apparently violates the license terms. They therefore need to pay.
We don't know the details as to how it happened, but it doesn't really matter. Regardless of whether it was intentional or an accident or due to a mistake on the part of their ad people, it's still Apple's responsibility to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Since none of us knows any of the relevant details, it's a bit difficult to criticize either side.
May I quote you on that the next time a legal battle story pops up on AI?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC
Perhaps you didn't realized the publicity that will bring in more money to the photographer's coffer by many more clients using his services.
Loss of profits? firstly he hasn't made the profits yet so how can he claimed his loss.
The publicity argument is entirely plausible, as I would guess that this situation has "bought" a lot more name recognition for the photographer. However, Apple can hardly claim that as a defense
To your second line (loss of profits)...I think the point the settlement is going after is that the photographer could have gone and licensed this photo for public displays (sounds like a very sound argument as Apple indeed did use it for public displays). However, as the work has now been used in that capacity (without compensation), the photographer has lost those potential profits from licensing or selling the image.