Apple sued over alleged misuse of photo in MacBook Pro promotion

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 121
    vvk1vvk1 Posts: 11member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrstep View Post



    It's _nit_ pick. I'm outside the corporation, so I assume that's what you mean?

    So did someone buy the computer specifically because the eye picture was in the ads? Just curious, how do you determine damages? For that matter, I find that the eye is sort of scary looking, so maybe that's what kept me from buying the Mac Pro Retina? That could have dissuaded others as well, so maybe he owes Apple damages now...

    Or maybe he could have just asked them for the going rate for using an image instead of being a lawsuit happy wanker, especially considering that they clearly DID license it in the first place and most likely missed the fine print saying it was layout only?


     


    She. Sabine is a female name.

  • Reply 22 of 121
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,182member


    It's an eye-catching image ;-) and ought to be worth several $K (but no more) to the artist. Gotta wonder how Apple obtained a high-res image without watermark if it was merely for comping. Perhaps it was licensed through an as-yet-unidentified source that the artist is unaware of. Mistakes happen, too. Oh, well.

  • Reply 23 of 121
    bkerkaybkerkay Posts: 139member


    Shouldn't the photographer be suing the stock photo house?  If the image was truly a "layout only" or "comp" image, then the res is not high enough and has a watermark on it (as others here have stated). I use stock images on a daily basis. They all have watermarks on them and are low-res.... until I purchase the higher quality for actual print use.  So the photographer should have issue with the stock house for providing a hi-res version of it to Apple. Unless Apple did at first purchase a layout version and then later purchase the higher quality version and the "paper work" has gone missing, then that's bad administration regarding the stock house. 

  • Reply 24 of 121
    Sounds to me like they tried to orchestrate a booby trap.
  • Reply 25 of 121
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bkerkay View Post


    Shouldn't the photographer be suing the stock photo house? 



    That would be silly. Apple has more money.image

  • Reply 26 of 121
    Didn't Steve Jobs directly condone stealing like Picasso said?
  • Reply 27 of 121
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    grblade wrote: »
    No one ever says, "Hey, Apple. I think you used my image without properly licensing it. What can we do do make this right?" They all just wait to sue. They just see dollar signs.

    Really? What number do you call? Think they'll listen to just anyone that calls in complaining about something?
  • Reply 28 of 121
    grblade wrote: »
    No one ever says, "Hey, Apple. I think you used my image without properly licensing it. What can we do do make this right?" They all just wait to sue. They just see dollar signs.

    You don't wait to litigate while someone's in the middle of raping you.
  • Reply 29 of 121
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,182member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post



    Didn't Steve Jobs directly condone stealing like Picasso said?


    Nope.

  • Reply 30 of 121
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,182member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post





    You don't wait to litigate while someone's in the middle of raping you.


    Right. Silly Apple for trying to negotiate with Samsung while being "raped".


    /s

  • Reply 32 of 121
    When I saw the title I thought "Wasn't there an article about how difficult it was to catch the herd of Zebras running together from the air?"

    Then I saw the actual picture and went "WTF".
  • Reply 33 of 121
    cpsro wrote: »
    Right. Silly Apple for trying to negotiate with Samsung while being "raped".
    /s


    No comparison.
  • Reply 34 of 121
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Let's go back and look at another case like this: the iPad's default Springboard image.

    The guy responsible for it didn't know Apple had used it until a friend told him, right? And what did he do afterward? He was honored and probably saw a surge in popularity/publicity of his other photos.

    That's how you take a situation like this.

    So you are saying Apple should been happy that Samsung "copied" them? Or is it only ok for Apple to get financial compensation?
  • Reply 35 of 121
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,182member


    Here's a homework assignment for you: Apart from Jobs' words (a quote of Picasso) which do not in any way condone thievery, name actual, significant actions by Apple that have constituted intellectual property theft. Then consider the more relevant interpretation of the quote, that one should be so innovative in using other people's ideas that they appear to have originated with you (and hence were "stolen").

  • Reply 36 of 121
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,182member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post





    No comparison.


    Indeed. The intellectual property purloined by Samesong and the other Googie conspirators is worth billions.

  • Reply 37 of 121

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Let's go back and look at another case like this: the iPad's default Springboard image.


     


    The guy responsible for it didn't know Apple had used it until a friend told him, right? And what did he do afterward? He was honored and probably saw a surge in popularity/publicity of his other photos.


     


    That's how you take a situation like this.



    I call BS. Prove this. I love your caveated statement: "probably saw a surge in popularity/publicity of his other photos". 


     


    What Apple did is typical of what people do with images on the Internet. They steal photographers photos and tried to get away with it.

  • Reply 38 of 121

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post


    What I don't understand is that if they used the "Comping" image of the photography, then how did it become hi-res enough for print and HDTV ads? How did they obtain the hi-resolution image without paying for a license? It sounds like this guy got his $1.59 worth of royalties from a stock photo web site and now wants to milk Apple for millions.



    It depends on the site where the image was stored. If the image was a full res image, problem solved for Apple to steal it.

  • Reply 39 of 121
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,182member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post


    What Apple did is typical of what people do with images on the Internet. They steal photographers photos and tried to get away with it.



    Yeah, Apple has a tremendous history of this. Just look at all the millions of songs and videos they illegally copied in iTunes.

  • Reply 40 of 121
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    If it's true they only got the rights for layout purposes, then they didn't get the rights for this use, period.


    Can someone explain why a company would have to license a particular photo "for layout purposes only?"  What does that even mean?  "Oh I can't imagine what this MacBook ad would look like without a picture on the screen.  Quick go license a photo that we can use to layout the ad, but that we can't use in the actual ad."  Huh?  I'll never understand the advertising business.

Sign In or Register to comment.