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.
Thanks for the reply, you have answered all my questions.
Back when the ad first appeared I made a post linking the source of the image. I believe I even commented that I was surprised at Apple using a stock photo for this, and doubly so for not even bothering to take an extended license for a set period of exclusivity. At the time I linked the image, several days after it was included at the introduction, it was still available to download and use by anyone else willing to pay a very small license fee.
EDIT: She claims in the lawsuit filing that:
"Apple obtained Plaintiff's photograph from Plaintiff's agent, Factory Downtown. Apple requested a high-resolution file of this photograph for "comping" (or layout) purposes only, and was fully aware at all times that it had not acquired any rights to use the photograph in advertisements without obtaining additional permission from Plaintiff or Factory Downtown.
Apple subsequently informed Factory Downtown that it did not intend to uses (sic) the "Eye Closeup" photograph in the advertising campaign for Apple's MacBook Pro computers. Despite representing that it did not intend to use the photo and knowing that it had not obtained a license, Apple proceeded to copy, publish, and exploit Plaintiff's photograph, including in its MacBook Pro advertising campaign, keynote addresses and related advertising materials without permission or compensation."
They knew enough to license the image for "comp uses only" and therefore knew what that means.
It was most likely sloppy paperwork by someone at the agency involved.
Most professional art buyers know all about rights & usage and Apple does, absolutely.
Apple is in the business of licesing intellectual property, think you own that Itunes download or copy of OSX? Think again, you just paid a licensing fee.
Also, people normally do not watermark images supplied for comp uses, that's amateur hour.
The images where scourced through an agency and they knew full well what usage rights where agreed to.
It's far harder than you might think to reach a responsible party at a huge corporation by an individual .
Pick up the phone, who do you ask for ?
We in the professional photo community are constantly battling unauthorized and inappropriate uses of our work. Suing is a last resort , no-one wins except the lawyers .
I hope she wins though because artists rights are just as important as big corporations which are not "people" despite what Mitt Romney says.
Only when the big players are called on their infringements will anybody actually notice.
If you were a graphic designer or design director you would understand.
Images for for layout only are used in t....
Thank you for the explanation. So "for layout" can mean "because we might very well license it for the real deal, but we have to show some mockups to the decision makers." Makes sense. Thanks.
oh he thinks his eye image is partially the reason why Retina MacBooks succeed?!?! geesh.... like people would say, "Wow, I gotta have this Macbook because of that eye!"
I can see both sides of this. Apple does a lot of marketing and buys a lot of stock photography. It seems like less than one percent of the images have copyright problems, they might just need to improve their workflow. From the artist's side, there's no way to get paid after the fact unless it's done through court. Artists are constantly dealing with their images being used with the incorrect license. The fact that it was Apple or some small time company doesn't really matter, this is the path they pursue. I'd be surprised if that court filing wasn't a form letter that had Apple's name and the piece of art as merge fields!
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.
I was thinking along similar lines, Apple had to have had the high resolution version somehow ... that or one hell of a good up-rezzing algorithm!
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.
Oh, get real. 'I should be honored that Apple infringed my copyright'? Most people in the wider non-Apple-worshipping world just don't think like that.
Firstly, he's probably feeling aggrieved that Apple thinks it can just run over the little guy. Secondly, there's probably quite a lot of money in this, and most folk would take that opportunity!
If it were Samsung who had done this, I bet you'd be calling for them to be sued into oblivion.
OK so maybe you have a direct line to Apple. I think the photographer would've probably gotten hung up on.
Your logic fails. How did the photographer sue? Oh, yeah. She had to serve Apple with court documents. That means that she had an address for Apple. The address she used to serve Apple with the lawsuit papers could also have been used to notify them of violation.
Yea since we all have lawyers on retainer, it was probably a lawyer's idea to sue in the first place.
I obviously don't know what her particular lawyer would have said, but that's a huge misperception. Most lawyers try to reach an agreement with the other party before suing. First, it's a guaranteed win for them with minimal effort. In a lawsuit (particularly if it's on contingency), they could invest a lot of time and money and come away with nothing. I've dealt with attorneys in business for decades and never once had an attorney suggest suing before trying to settle it.
Now, we don't know that they never approached Apple. It's possible that they DID make a reasonable effort to settle. I doubt it, though. This is a pretty clear cut violation on Apple's part if they don't have a license, so it's hard to imagine that Apple would refuse to pay the standard licensing fee. It is, of course, possible that they tried to settle with Apple but asked for 100 times the standard fees for whatever distribution method they are using.
I can see both sides of this. Apple does a lot of marketing and buys a lot of stock photography. It seems like less than one percent of the images have copyright problems, they might just need to improve their workflow. From the artist's side, there's no way to get paid after the fact unless it's done through court. Artists are constantly dealing with their images being used with the incorrect license. The fact that it was Apple or some small time company doesn't really matter, this is the path they pursue. I'd be surprised if that court filing wasn't a form letter that had Apple's name and the piece of art as merge fields!
It's just business, folks...
It's just business and it's insignificant. If Apple really did have a license, the case will get thrown out (and Sabine might end up paying Apple's legal expenses if that is allowed in the jurisdiction where it was filed).
If Apple didn't have a license and used it, they will have to pay the license. Since the image appears to have come from a stock photo site, the license fee is probably pretty well fixed. So Apple will pay a few bucks and the whole thing will go away-other than the conspiracy nuts who will be screaming about eyeballimagegate.
What this will do is force Apple to give up on stock photo's and just do their own which means that all of us who literally pray for a company like Apple to buy their art and help finance our efforts to create.
I would love to put "Supplier to Apple" on my signature, does anyone realize how much that is worth !!!
Comments
Thanks for the reply, you have answered all my questions.
Of course it's the Berne Convention, not Byrne. Nothing to do with Talking Heads. Berne is in Switzerland...maybe some kind of Swiss conspiracy...
Would it have been so hard for Apple to pay for the usage? Did they not have enough cash lying around?
Back when the ad first appeared I made a post linking the source of the image. I believe I even commented that I was surprised at Apple using a stock photo for this, and doubly so for not even bothering to take an extended license for a set period of exclusivity. At the time I linked the image, several days after it was included at the introduction, it was still available to download and use by anyone else willing to pay a very small license fee.
EDIT: She claims in the lawsuit filing that:
"Apple obtained Plaintiff's photograph from Plaintiff's agent, Factory Downtown. Apple requested a high-resolution file of this photograph for "comping" (or layout) purposes only, and was fully aware at all times that it had not acquired any rights to use the photograph in advertisements without obtaining additional permission from Plaintiff or Factory Downtown.
Apple subsequently informed Factory Downtown that it did not intend to uses (sic) the "Eye Closeup" photograph in the advertising campaign for Apple's MacBook Pro computers. Despite representing that it did not intend to use the photo and knowing that it had not obtained a license, Apple proceeded to copy, publish, and exploit Plaintiff's photograph, including in its MacBook Pro advertising campaign, keynote addresses and related advertising materials without permission or compensation."
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
First you say she was wrong to sue and that she should feel "honored" by Apple stealing her image.
Wrong to sue… first. If she didn't, I apologize for the implication; she did what I thought anyone should do in the first place anyway.
…you don't realize how wacky your first post was…
I don't recall any 'a-oogah' horns going off, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
If I had created the image I would be flattered as hell that Apple used it.
Just because independent photographers and designers are freelance doesn't mean they work for free!
http://edbuziak.tumblr.com/post/33444976973/hits-the-nail-on-the-head-kateordie-ive-been
I'm sure he was flattered but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve proper compensation for his work.
Honored, flattered, nada.
Means nothing, doesn't buy you a cup of coffee.
They knew enough to license the image for "comp uses only" and therefore knew what that means.
It was most likely sloppy paperwork by someone at the agency involved.
Most professional art buyers know all about rights & usage and Apple does, absolutely.
Apple is in the business of licesing intellectual property, think you own that Itunes download or copy of OSX? Think again, you just paid a licensing fee.
Also, people normally do not watermark images supplied for comp uses, that's amateur hour.
The images where scourced through an agency and they knew full well what usage rights where agreed to.
It's far harder than you might think to reach a responsible party at a huge corporation by an individual .
Pick up the phone, who do you ask for ?
We in the professional photo community are constantly battling unauthorized and inappropriate uses of our work. Suing is a last resort , no-one wins except the lawyers .
I hope she wins though because artists rights are just as important as big corporations which are not "people" despite what Mitt Romney says.
Only when the big players are called on their infringements will anybody actually notice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
If you were a graphic designer or design director you would understand.
Images for for layout only are used in t....
Thank you for the explanation. So "for layout" can mean "because we might very well license it for the real deal, but we have to show some mockups to the decision makers." Makes sense. Thanks.
oh he thinks his eye image is partially the reason why Retina MacBooks succeed?!?! geesh.... like people would say, "Wow, I gotta have this Macbook because of that eye!"
Let's make it the Bern Convention.
It's just business, folks...
I was thinking along similar lines, Apple had to have had the high resolution version somehow ... that or one hell of a good up-rezzing algorithm!
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.
Oh, get real. 'I should be honored that Apple infringed my copyright'? Most people in the wider non-Apple-worshipping world just don't think like that.
Firstly, he's probably feeling aggrieved that Apple thinks it can just run over the little guy. Secondly, there's probably quite a lot of money in this, and most folk would take that opportunity!
If it were Samsung who had done this, I bet you'd be calling for them to be sued into oblivion.
why apple love suing everyone? how much money they can earn from that?
Originally Posted by Euphonious
If it were Samsung who had done this, I bet you'd be calling for them to be sued into oblivion.
No. Read my posts for what I believe should be done.
apple research & development department only works to find something need to be sued
Your logic fails. How did the photographer sue? Oh, yeah. She had to serve Apple with court documents. That means that she had an address for Apple. The address she used to serve Apple with the lawsuit papers could also have been used to notify them of violation.
I obviously don't know what her particular lawyer would have said, but that's a huge misperception. Most lawyers try to reach an agreement with the other party before suing. First, it's a guaranteed win for them with minimal effort. In a lawsuit (particularly if it's on contingency), they could invest a lot of time and money and come away with nothing. I've dealt with attorneys in business for decades and never once had an attorney suggest suing before trying to settle it.
Now, we don't know that they never approached Apple. It's possible that they DID make a reasonable effort to settle. I doubt it, though. This is a pretty clear cut violation on Apple's part if they don't have a license, so it's hard to imagine that Apple would refuse to pay the standard licensing fee. It is, of course, possible that they tried to settle with Apple but asked for 100 times the standard fees for whatever distribution method they are using.
It's just business and it's insignificant. If Apple really did have a license, the case will get thrown out (and Sabine might end up paying Apple's legal expenses if that is allowed in the jurisdiction where it was filed).
If Apple didn't have a license and used it, they will have to pay the license. Since the image appears to have come from a stock photo site, the license fee is probably pretty well fixed. So Apple will pay a few bucks and the whole thing will go away-other than the conspiracy nuts who will be screaming about eyeballimagegate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
. So Apple will pay a few bucks and the whole thing will go away-other than the conspiracy nuts who will be screaming about eyeballimagegate.
In short Money works well with Apple by suing other company and buy some licensed from another company again. Apple recycle?
I would love to put "Supplier to Apple" on my signature, does anyone realize how much that is worth !!!
What a leper this guy is, gives us all a bad name