Apple sued for duping Apple TV image, hosting iTunes track

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 90
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 42 of 90
    ajhillajhill Posts: 81member
    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.
  • Reply 43 of 90
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    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.
  • Reply 44 of 90
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 45 of 90
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    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.



    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.
  • Reply 46 of 90
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    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.



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajhill View Post


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



    Yes, they did. But they had patents on their OS. Copyright != Patent.
  • Reply 47 of 90
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    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.

    And holy f*ing christ! You can only write so many melodies and so many lyrics in the english language, whoever wrote the original had enough time to make his money between 1977 and 200*.

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



    Artists everywhere invite you to attach a medulla and cortex to your brain stem.
  • Reply 48 of 90
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wojciechowski View Post


    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????



    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.
  • Reply 49 of 90
    murphywebmurphyweb Posts: 295member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui

    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.



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



    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.
  • Reply 50 of 90
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 51 of 90
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    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.
  • Reply 52 of 90
    cato988cato988 Posts: 307member
    Postal Service/Apple ad were directed by the same person
  • Reply 53 of 90
    mazzymazzy Posts: 53member
    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.
  • Reply 54 of 90
    charliexcharliex Posts: 18member
    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.
  • Reply 55 of 90
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 56 of 90
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,804member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charliex View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 57 of 90
    solarsolar Posts: 84member




    Just ran across this on comcast.com
  • Reply 58 of 90
    mazzymazzy Posts: 53member
    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.
  • Reply 59 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post


    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.



    You soooo do not have any idea what you are talking about.
  • Reply 60 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post


    That's probably the single most boring website I've ever seen.



    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****?
Sign In or Register to comment.