Didn't Steve Jobs directly condone stealing like Picasso said?
No, he didn't. How shocking that you, out of all people, would purposefully and willfully twist his words in order to bash him and the company. Oh wait, it isn't shocking. Here's some free education, not that I actually think you care about the truth- but it might educate someone else in this thread.
The quote you are referring to comes from 1995 "The Lost Interview"
In response to the question "But how do you know what's the right direction?" Steve Jobs said:
"Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to to expose yourself to the best things humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you are doing.
Picasso had a saying. He said good artists copy great artists steal. We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists, and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world. But if it hadn't been for computer science these people would have all been doing amazing things in life in other fields. And they brought with them to this effort [the Macintosh project] a very liberal arts attitude that we wanted to pull in the best we saw in these other fields into this field. I don't think you get that if you are very narrow."
So the oft used quote is about about bringing parts of other disciplines, from literature, art and culture, into computer science and product design.
What would, to use Jobs term, being very narrow mean in practice? Well it could mean endlessly dredging up a sentence from a Steve Jobs interview in 1995, taking it out of context, fetishising it, implying it is about one thing when it is about another, and then using it to prop up a delusional world view and a deliberately fallacious argument in defence of crass product cloners. That sort sort obtuse and pedantic behaviour leaves people without a shred of intellectual dignity, but of course is popular with people such as yourself who vomit it out endlessly.
So you are saying Apple should been happy that Samsung "copied" them? Or is it only ok for Apple to get financial compensation?
Yes. Oh, wait, you're actually serious about what you're saying. You actually believe that what Apple did with Samsung is in any way similar to what happened here. Wow.
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
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.
Uh, caveated in what way? You don't sue straight off. You do what Apple did to Samsung.
I realize that the concept of intellectual property is difficult for you to understand, but let me try (again) to educate you.
Ideas are not protectable. You can not patent or trademark or copyright an idea. Therefore, when Jobs (a la Picasso) said that Apple steals ideas, there is no intellectual property violation. They are taking an idea and then implementing it in their own style - as great artists do, according to Picasso.
OTOH, specific implementations of ideas can be copyrighted or patented or trademarked. If you have a specific implementation which carries IP protection, someone is not allowed to simply copy it. That is what Samsung was found guilty of doing.
So, no one can copyright the idea of a picture of an eye with too much makeup. But that particular picture of an eye with too much makeup is copyrighted.
Now, if Apple did use it without permission, then they're in the wrong and will undoubtedly have to pay up. That in no way justifies what Samsung and Google have done.
Yes. Oh, wait, you're actually serious about what you're saying. You actually believe that what Apple did with Samsung is in any way similar to what happened here. Wow.
Uh, caveated in what way? You don't sue straight off. You do what Apple did to Samsung.
You didn't understand the: "probably ......yada, yada, yada..." So by your reasoning, it is okay for Apple to STEAL the photo because the photographer should be honored and there is a chance that they will become famous. Makes no sense. You obviously have very little understanding regarding the licensing of images...
I hope apple lawyers crush this guy. However like most cases they will both probably settle on something
Why crush the FEMALE. Sabine is a female name so start by getting a clue. Second, she appears to be the one wronged here. Not Apple. Seems like you need 2 clues...
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.
Spoken like a true IP abuser.
Anyone who works in advertising or design knows about photo rights. You have to pay for what you use.
Now did the photo enhance the profits on the MBP? Hard to say. But it is a striking photo and I remember being struck by it when I saw it used in Apple ads. I also recognized it immediately when I saw it in this article. Apple will pay (and pay extra) as they should.
You didn't understand the: "probably ......yada, yada, yada..." So by your reasoning, it is okay for Apple to STEAL the photo because the photographer should be honored and there is a chance that they will become famous. Makes no sense. You obviously have very little understanding regarding the licensing of images...
No, it's not fine for them to steal the photo. But a lawsuit is NOT the first step. You go to Apple, you say, "Hey, you're using my image. That's awesome, but you didn't pay for it. Could you please pay me an appropriate fee for it? Thanks."
They don't comply, you sue. But you do that first.
Usually the comping images are in low res. If the image is in high res but with watermarks, chances are that the clearing house forgot to remove the watermarks for the licensed copy.
Lots of places give high res comps.
Many professionals trust other professionals to be professional. Apple make a mistake. It would be insane to use a photo like that without licensing it. Hell, I had to do it for images used in museum exhibits for U.S. National Parks. It's normal everyday practice to do so, and negligence not to.
No, it's not fine for them to steal the photo. But a lawsuit is NOT the first step. You go to Apple, you say, "Hey, you're using my image. That's awesome, but you didn't pay for it. Could you please pay me an appropriate fee for it? Thanks."
They don't comply, you sue. But you do that first.
Yeah, see the above.
OK so maybe you have a direct line to Apple. I think the photographer would've probably gotten hung up on.
OK so maybe you have a direct line to Apple. I think the photographer would've probably gotten hung up on.
Then she sues for misuse of her photograph and for professional disrespect.
Do you really think it's so hard to call Apple? Do you REALLY think that Apple would "hang up" on someone calling about an intellectual property lawsuit? Come on.
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.
Really? The world's most well known and powerful tech company is going to steal an image and "try to get away with it?" You mean by showing it to millions of people hoping nobody will notice?
OK so maybe you have a direct line to Apple. I think the photographer would've probably gotten hung up on.
Really? That's your answer? That has to be the lamest argument I've ever seen. Even taking your ridiculous assumption, you would still have the lawyer contact Apple before filing.
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.
If you were a graphic designer or design director you would understand.
Images for for layout only are used in the ideation process. These are usually low res, watermarked, and free to use for comps and non commercial single uses (in using the image you accept the very simple terms of the license, which is often included in the image metadata.)
Once you narrow down the concepts, you want to see them full res. You would never approve an image without actually seeing it full res. At that point you get full-res comps (high res files for layout only.) These are usually pretty cheap $5 - $25, or less (some places will let you use them for free) and yes there is a very specific license for these too. Typically no commercial use -- for layout and demonstration only.
Once you've seen the high res images and you decide on the image to use, you get a license for the planned use. Typically the fee is set according to how the image is to be used, what res is needed, the number of imprints (copies, electronic or print,) and the period of license. The cost will vary greatly depending on the owner of the image. Images I licensed (one imprint, in one museum, for five years) might cost anywhere from $300 to $3000. For an international commercial campaign like this the cost of the license could be very substantial. Rates have gone down in the last decade as the market is awash in cheap, online stock images, but most of them are crap. Good quality images like this one are still quite expensive. Contrary to what some people here have said, it is a high quality image. After all Apple thought it was good enough to include in an international ad campaign.
Really? That's your answer? That has to be the lamest argument I've ever seen. Even taking your ridiculous assumption, you would still have the lawyer contact Apple before filing.
Yea since we all have lawyers on retainer, it was probably a lawyer's idea to sue in the first place.
No, it's not fine for them to steal the photo. But a lawsuit is NOT the first step. You go to Apple, you say, "Hey, you're using my image. That's awesome, but you didn't pay for it. Could you please pay me an appropriate fee for it? Thanks."
They don't comply, you sue. But you do that first.
Yeah, see the above.
What makes you think she didn't try to do exactly that? A company as big as Apple probably barely notices a run of the mill cease and desist order. The owner probably had to have their attorney to the talking.
What I really object to is your implication that Apple is doing her a favor by stealing her image. It sounds extraordinarily hypocritical of you.
Then she sues for misuse of her photograph and for professional disrespect.
That is pathetic.
Just give it up and admit your first post was totally out of line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Do you really think it's so hard to call Apple? Do you REALLY think that Apple would "hang up" on someone calling about an intellectual property lawsuit? Come on.
I can tell you have little experience int this area. You can call, and they might not hang up on you, but most likely it's an unproductive paper chase that will not lead to a satisfactory resolution. This is why people hire lawyers to pursue it for them.
I fail to see how doing things properly and respectfully is "pathetic".
First you say she was wrong to sue and that she should feel "honored" by Apple stealing her image.
Now you think she sued "disrespectfully."
I find it pathetic that: 1.) you're being such an apologist and 2.) that you don't realize how wacky your first post was (but of course you have a good deal of company there.)
Apple clearly had a reason for using this image and felt it would capture the buyers attention to the new retina display. This is the second time Apple has used others works without permission is such a short window. Apple sues all the time and sees dollar signs so the little guy/gal cannot do that, they have no rights to protect their own intellectual property and copyrighted/trademarked images or content. Take without permission and you get sued, Apple knows that game all too well.
I also do not believe for one second that someone within Apple conceived of the spot on duplicate clock that SBB has trademarked on their own. They saw it, took it and expected SBB to be flattered and that would be that. Just as everyone here says Apple has a right to protect their IP, so do others.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
Didn't Steve Jobs directly condone stealing like Picasso said?
No, he didn't. How shocking that you, out of all people, would purposefully and willfully twist his words in order to bash him and the company. Oh wait, it isn't shocking. Here's some free education, not that I actually think you care about the truth- but it might educate someone else in this thread.
The quote you are referring to comes from 1995 "The Lost Interview"
In response to the question "But how do you know what's the right direction?" Steve Jobs said:
"Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to to expose yourself to the best things humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you are doing.
Picasso had a saying. He said good artists copy great artists steal. We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists, and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world. But if it hadn't been for computer science these people would have all been doing amazing things in life in other fields. And they brought with them to this effort [the Macintosh project] a very liberal arts attitude that we wanted to pull in the best we saw in these other fields into this field. I don't think you get that if you are very narrow."
So the oft used quote is about about bringing parts of other disciplines, from literature, art and culture, into computer science and product design.
What would, to use Jobs term, being very narrow mean in practice? Well it could mean endlessly dredging up a sentence from a Steve Jobs interview in 1995, taking it out of context, fetishising it, implying it is about one thing when it is about another, and then using it to prop up a delusional world view and a deliberately fallacious argument in defence of crass product cloners. That sort sort obtuse and pedantic behaviour leaves people without a shred of intellectual dignity, but of course is popular with people such as yourself who vomit it out endlessly.
Originally Posted by jfanning
So you are saying Apple should been happy that Samsung "copied" them? Or is it only ok for Apple to get financial compensation?
Yes. Oh, wait, you're actually serious about what you're saying. You actually believe that what Apple did with Samsung is in any way similar to what happened here. Wow.
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
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.
Uh, caveated in what way? You don't sue straight off. You do what Apple did to Samsung.
I realize that the concept of intellectual property is difficult for you to understand, but let me try (again) to educate you.
Ideas are not protectable. You can not patent or trademark or copyright an idea. Therefore, when Jobs (a la Picasso) said that Apple steals ideas, there is no intellectual property violation. They are taking an idea and then implementing it in their own style - as great artists do, according to Picasso.
OTOH, specific implementations of ideas can be copyrighted or patented or trademarked. If you have a specific implementation which carries IP protection, someone is not allowed to simply copy it. That is what Samsung was found guilty of doing.
So, no one can copyright the idea of a picture of an eye with too much makeup. But that particular picture of an eye with too much makeup is copyrighted.
Now, if Apple did use it without permission, then they're in the wrong and will undoubtedly have to pay up. That in no way justifies what Samsung and Google have done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes. Oh, wait, you're actually serious about what you're saying. You actually believe that what Apple did with Samsung is in any way similar to what happened here. Wow.
Uh, caveated in what way? You don't sue straight off. You do what Apple did to Samsung.
You didn't understand the: "probably ......yada, yada, yada..." So by your reasoning, it is okay for Apple to STEAL the photo because the photographer should be honored and there is a chance that they will become famous. Makes no sense. You obviously have very little understanding regarding the licensing of images...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod
I hope apple lawyers crush this guy. However like most cases they will both probably settle on something
Why crush the FEMALE. Sabine is a female name so start by getting a clue. Second, she appears to be the one wronged here. Not Apple. Seems like you need 2 clues...
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.
Spoken like a true IP abuser.
Anyone who works in advertising or design knows about photo rights. You have to pay for what you use.
Now did the photo enhance the profits on the MBP? Hard to say. But it is a striking photo and I remember being struck by it when I saw it used in Apple ads. I also recognized it immediately when I saw it in this article. Apple will pay (and pay extra) as they should.
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
You didn't understand the: "probably ......yada, yada, yada..." So by your reasoning, it is okay for Apple to STEAL the photo because the photographer should be honored and there is a chance that they will become famous. Makes no sense. You obviously have very little understanding regarding the licensing of images...
No, it's not fine for them to steal the photo. But a lawsuit is NOT the first step. You go to Apple, you say, "Hey, you're using my image. That's awesome, but you didn't pay for it. Could you please pay me an appropriate fee for it? Thanks."
They don't comply, you sue. But you do that first.
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Spoken like a true IP abuser.
Yeah, see the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
Usually the comping images are in low res. If the image is in high res but with watermarks, chances are that the clearing house forgot to remove the watermarks for the licensed copy.
Lots of places give high res comps.
Many professionals trust other professionals to be professional. Apple make a mistake. It would be insane to use a photo like that without licensing it. Hell, I had to do it for images used in museum exhibits for U.S. National Parks. It's normal everyday practice to do so, and negligence not to.
OK so maybe you have a direct line to Apple. I think the photographer would've probably gotten hung up on.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
OK so maybe you have a direct line to Apple. I think the photographer would've probably gotten hung up on.
Then she sues for misuse of her photograph and for professional disrespect.
Do you really think it's so hard to call Apple? Do you REALLY think that Apple would "hang up" on someone calling about an intellectual property lawsuit? Come on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
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.
If you were a graphic designer or design director you would understand.
Images for for layout only are used in the ideation process. These are usually low res, watermarked, and free to use for comps and non commercial single uses (in using the image you accept the very simple terms of the license, which is often included in the image metadata.)
Once you narrow down the concepts, you want to see them full res. You would never approve an image without actually seeing it full res. At that point you get full-res comps (high res files for layout only.) These are usually pretty cheap $5 - $25, or less (some places will let you use them for free) and yes there is a very specific license for these too. Typically no commercial use -- for layout and demonstration only.
Once you've seen the high res images and you decide on the image to use, you get a license for the planned use. Typically the fee is set according to how the image is to be used, what res is needed, the number of imprints (copies, electronic or print,) and the period of license. The cost will vary greatly depending on the owner of the image. Images I licensed (one imprint, in one museum, for five years) might cost anywhere from $300 to $3000. For an international commercial campaign like this the cost of the license could be very substantial. Rates have gone down in the last decade as the market is awash in cheap, online stock images, but most of them are crap. Good quality images like this one are still quite expensive. Contrary to what some people here have said, it is a high quality image. After all Apple thought it was good enough to include in an international ad campaign.
Yea since we all have lawyers on retainer, it was probably a lawyer's idea to sue in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, it's not fine for them to steal the photo. But a lawsuit is NOT the first step. You go to Apple, you say, "Hey, you're using my image. That's awesome, but you didn't pay for it. Could you please pay me an appropriate fee for it? Thanks."
They don't comply, you sue. But you do that first.
Yeah, see the above.
What makes you think she didn't try to do exactly that? A company as big as Apple probably barely notices a run of the mill cease and desist order. The owner probably had to have their attorney to the talking.
What I really object to is your implication that Apple is doing her a favor by stealing her image. It sounds extraordinarily hypocritical of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then she sues for misuse of her photograph and for professional disrespect.
That is pathetic.
Just give it up and admit your first post was totally out of line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Do you really think it's so hard to call Apple? Do you REALLY think that Apple would "hang up" on someone calling about an intellectual property lawsuit? Come on.
I can tell you have little experience int this area. You can call, and they might not hang up on you, but most likely it's an unproductive paper chase that will not lead to a satisfactory resolution. This is why people hire lawyers to pursue it for them.
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
That is pathetic.
I fail to see how doing things properly and respectfully is "pathetic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I fail to see how doing things properly and respectfully is "pathetic".
First you say she was wrong to sue and that she should feel "honored" by Apple stealing her image.
Now you think she sued "disrespectfully."
I find it pathetic that: 1.) you're being such an apologist and 2.) that you don't realize how wacky your first post was (but of course you have a good deal of company there.)
Apple clearly had a reason for using this image and felt it would capture the buyers attention to the new retina display. This is the second time Apple has used others works without permission is such a short window. Apple sues all the time and sees dollar signs so the little guy/gal cannot do that, they have no rights to protect their own intellectual property and copyrighted/trademarked images or content. Take without permission and you get sued, Apple knows that game all too well.
I also do not believe for one second that someone within Apple conceived of the spot on duplicate clock that SBB has trademarked on their own. They saw it, took it and expected SBB to be flattered and that would be that. Just as everyone here says Apple has a right to protect their IP, so do others.