Apple sued for duping Apple TV image, hosting iTunes track

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 90
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    According to the complaint, both Apple and the photographer had been negotiating a license for the image in advance of the Apple TV ad campaign. Apple backed out of any such deal, but promptly began using the imagery anyway, Psihoyos' attorney Richard Kaudy wrote. In doing so, he added, Apple knowingly tossed aside the "rights and feelings" of the plaintiff and deprived him of potential profits.



    Video walls have been around a while, they probably found the person Psihoyos originally swiped it from and paid them off. I understand Brighton University in the UK are also considering legal action against Apple...



    It looks closer when the cleaner turns the lights off & relaxes in the podium chair for a crafty smoke and a look at that iPod advert



    McD
  • Reply 22 of 90
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,748member
    The similarities in the Girlfriend/Boyfriend songs are nothing like My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine. It's Just the first two lines of the refrain that have similar melodies and they aren't even exact note-for-note duplicates. The rest of the songs are different from each other.



    Likewise the AppleTV artwork. As some other poster said, Apple did not use the photographer's image, or even parts of it. Took inspiration from it, yes. But reproduced? Noooooo. Some people might mistake the AppleTV image for the photographer's but nobody is claiming either image to be their trademark which would have greater protections against copying.
  • Reply 23 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JoeAlamaiz View Post


    Both videos were filming the same kind of stuff in a similar facility, so they were bound to get similar imagery



    You have got to be kidding me. It's the same f'ing shots. Same staging, angles, lighting, movement. The odds of the apple ad being coincidentally nearly identical to the music video are zero to none.
  • Reply 24 of 90
    bkerkaybkerkay Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    See the article above:



    "both Apple and the photographer had been negotiating a license for the image in advance of the Apple TV ad campaign. Apple backed out of any such deal, but promptly began using the imagery anyway"



    Apple should pay.



    The AVRiL thing (sorry, been playing too much UT2004) is silly though, as far as involving Apple.



    Don't get me wrong... I agree, there should be compensation.



    All I'm saying is why did it take so long?

    If they were in talks, why did it fall through?

    Was the photographer asking too much, because it was Apple?



    We don't know what happened and how it happened. My only observation was that it took the individual quite sometime to react.



    I work in advertising, so I know how much copyrights can be an issue and am aware that you need to do the research, before hand. But just like the "iPhone" name was being used at the announcement, even though Apple was still in negotiations with Cisco. But they came to an agreement. And neither walked away from it. So why did Apple walk away?
  • Reply 25 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    Likewise the AppleTV artwork. As some other poster said, Apple did not use the photographer's image, or even parts of it. Took inspiration from it, yes. But reproduced? Noooooo. Some people might mistake the AppleTV image for the photographer's but nobody is claiming either image to be their trademark which would have greater protections against copying.



    So I can create a mouse that looks nearly identical to mickey mouse and make movies and a variety of other products with it's image and likeness, but as long as I don't call it "Mickey Mouse" I'm fine to do whatever I want with it????



    Somehow I have a very strong feeling that a few corporations would have a problem with that. Specifically Disney/Pixar/Apple...



    For anyone who knows anything about copyright laws, then they would know that disney is one of the strongest forces in protecting copyrights because they want to protect that goddamn mouse from public domain...



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_B..._Extension_Act



    If apple wants to stand on the same side of those bloodsuckers then they should at least practice what they preach.
  • Reply 26 of 90
    bkerkaybkerkay Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    Likewise the AppleTV artwork. As some other poster said, Apple did not use the photographer's image, or even parts of it. Took inspiration from it, yes. But reproduced? Noooooo. Some people might mistake the AppleTV image for the photographer's but nobody is claiming either image to be their trademark which would have greater protections against copying.





    I tend to agree. There is a difference between inspiration and copying.



    That would mean if I took a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge in foogy weather and then I saw an image of the GGB in fog on flickr or somewhere else, I would have the right to go after that individual for taking a similar shot and using it as his/her own? No, no I wounldn't.



    This is not the first time we've seen a wall of video screens... and it will not be the last.



    Did Apple use it as inspiration... maybe. Should Apple pay/compensate... maybe. Is this just another individual trying to get some money... maybe.
  • Reply 27 of 90
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkerkay View Post


    I tend to agree. There is a difference between inspiration and copying.



    That would mean if I took a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge in foogy weather and then I saw an image of the GGB in fog on flickr or somewhere else, I would have the right to go after that individual for taking a similar shot and using it as his/her own? No, no I wounldn't.



    This is not the first time we've seen a wall of video screens... and it will not be the last.



    Did Apple use it as inspiration... maybe. Should Apple pay/compensate... maybe. Is this just another individual trying to get some money... maybe.



    What you say makes sense. Now, "The Matrix" should be suing both of them because they had TV screens in the center of the room with the architect.



    Personally, I think it is more inspiration rather than xerox.
  • Reply 28 of 90
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,476moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    man, you're SO wrong, artists should not be the highest paid people. On the contrary, art should be free and I'm sure the majority of REAL artists would agree with me. Everyone needs money to live, THAT'S the problem.



    Which is why they should be paid well so that they don't have to waste their talent doing some other job in order to survive. I wasn't suggesting that artists should change their perception towards their own work but the way artists are treated needs to change.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    ALL art is what we perceive twisted by our creativity, there is no such thing as PURE original work.



    That doesn't stop art having an influence on people when it is presented or associated in a certain way. It also depends on what you mean by original. If it's the first time that you've seen it then it's original to you.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    Why do some people insist on punishing others for improving or re-rendering an idea. It's pride without the honor. Truly the new american way.



    It's stealing, which I agree seems to be the new american way. Take what you can for yourself and to hell with everyone else. But as you say, there's nothing new there, that's the American Dream and always has been.



    I suppose you think it's great that China has made a tphone and a Disney-style theme park and don't pay anything back to the original creators?
  • Reply 29 of 90
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,309member
    Regarding the ATV image: Why were they meeting in the first place? I assume the folks at Apple were asking permission or trying to license the image. I also assume (OK lots of assumptions here folks) negotiations didn't go well, can I assume a ridiculous price was asked? So Apple go it alone with a very similar look and feel but not the same exactly so I assume Apple (not being devoid of legal experts) feel they made enough changes to win any law suit. Did I miss any assumptions here? lol
  • Reply 30 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    On the first, I really don't know, on the second point, I don't think there is enough information to make a judgment, I think there is a process that needs to be done but that's beyond me.
  • Reply 31 of 90
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wojciechowski View Post


    You have got to be kidding me. It's the same f'ing shots. Same staging, angles, lighting, movement. The odds of the apple ad being coincidentally nearly identical to the music video are zero to none.



    Right, because the people that made the one made the other. I don't know the exact details of ownership, but arguably "the people who made it" are free to make it again for another paying client, which is what happened AFAIK.
  • Reply 32 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    man, you're SO wrong, artists should not be the highest paid people. On the contrary, art should be free and I'm sure the majority of REAL artists would agree with me. Everyone needs money to live, THAT'S the problem.



    How do you determine what a "real" artist is? The concept sounds incredibly subjective, unless you have a bullshit metric such as whether or not they charge for their works. Good works of art take time to develop, who foots the bill of their living expenses? I think that in general, the people that enjoy the art could stand to do that. I'm not seeing a problem with that part. I do have a problem with how the labels conduct themselves, but advocating what is basically an abolition of copyright is a knee-jerk reaction.



    Holding down a job to make ends meet and then working on art on the side is kind of self-defeating, that's like expecting people to punish themselves to have no life, just so you can have free art. It sounds very leech-like to me. If an artist choses that kind of life of their free will, that's fine, but I think placing that sort of expectation on them is quite unrealistic.
  • Reply 33 of 90
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    A lot of people seem to have a problem distinguishing between professional, make-a-living-at-it artists and some vague notion of "creativity" that presumably "everybody has" and that should be just shared around like a joint.



    Probably because America has done such a thorough job of denigrating the whole idea of a "professional artist" as a either a phony and opportunist, at best, or an anti-social weirdo and parasite, at worst.



    God knows not many people can make a living at it, given the total lack of funding or respect, so it's not surprising that the idea that it might be a "real" job that one might expect "real" compensation for would strike some as implausible.
  • Reply 34 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Right, because the people that made the one made the other. I don't know the exact details of ownership, but arguably "the people who made it" are free to make it again for another paying client, which is what happened AFAIK.



    Basically this is true, unless there is a contract stating otherwise, someone like a photographer owns the copyright of the photos they took, even if the job was paid for by someone else. If you paid someone take your picture, you couldn't legally copy your own picture without the photographer's permission. I never did like that idea, someday I'd like to look up how that particular tradition came to be, maybe there's a reason for it that's faded to obscurity.
  • Reply 35 of 90
    fraklincfraklinc Posts: 244member
    wow its like you really need a magnified class to see the image in question there, if that guy gets any money, am goin to research all of google satelite image and if i see myself of my house their, am goin to wanna speak to his attornies, they might be some money for me to be claim there too
  • Reply 36 of 90
    .....
  • Reply 37 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I seriously don't know the law here...



    You really should put this at the beginning of your post.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The created there own.



    Legal threads always bring out the best and brightest!
  • Reply 38 of 90
    aisiaisi Posts: 134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkerkay View Post


    But just like the "iPhone" name was being used at the announcement, even though Apple was still in negotiations with Cisco. But they came to an agreement. And neither walked away from it. So why did Apple walk away?



    Apple was in discussions with Cisco until January and decided to launch the iPhone without permission to use Cisco's trademark. Basically Apple broke off discussions to launch the product. The next day Cisco still hadn't heard from Apple and filed a lawsuit. Apple spokesman Steve Dowling called the lawsuit "silly".



    This time Apple was in talks with the artist to license his image and pulled the same trick. I'm eagerly waiting to hear Steve Dowling defend that one.
  • Reply 39 of 90
    bkerkaybkerkay Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    What you say makes sense. Now, "The Matrix" should be suing both of them because they had TV screens in the center of the room with the architect.



    Personally, I think it is more inspiration rather than xerox.



    I was thinking the same thing, "The Matrix". I just didn't right it down. Thank you.
  • Reply 40 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post


    I purchased Avril's "Girlfriend" song (and the video) because I thought it sounded really original and stood out in today's mix of rock music. It's a shame it's so similar to a song from 1977. And Avril didn't even write it? That sucks.



    I wanna be your boyfriend -- by the Rubinoos



    You actually considered Avrils music "Original"? heh...
Sign In or Register to comment.