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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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").
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkerkay
Shouldn't the photographer be suing the stock photo house?
That would be silly. Apple has more money.
Really? What number do you call? Think they'll listen to just anyone that calls in complaining about something?
You don't wait to litigate while someone's in the middle of raping you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
Didn't Steve Jobs directly condone stealing like Picasso said?
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
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
WRONG: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/03/05/steve-jobs-shameless-stealing-great-ideas/
Then I saw the actual picture and went "WTF".
No comparison.
So you are saying Apple should been happy that Samsung "copied" them? Or is it only ok for Apple to get financial compensation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
WRONG: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/03/05/steve-jobs-shameless-stealing-great-ideas/
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").
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
No comparison.
Indeed. The intellectual property purloined by Samesong and the other Googie conspirators is worth billions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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.