Apple is a multi billion dollar company. I doubt they hire lawyers that 'miss' the fine print.
My guess is that he is the one that missed it
That is one scenario. Another could be that Apple knows that a single person is more likely to miss fine print or fight a costly legal battle against a multii-billion company. I don't think it's unfathomable to think that corporations will take these measures.
If true, I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Same as the Swiss Railway clock (though I would've probably just changed the design on that).
Apple's marketing department and advertising firm(s) should have an innate understanding of this stuff.
They do have an understanding, but its such a generic design it seems insane anyone got a trademark for it. And I would actually wonder if they have a world wide mark. They might not but Apple figured why bother with the fuss of a law suit. Especially if they are asking for much
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.
You know what else is negligent. Declaring someone guilty with all the facts
Artists are constantly dealing with their images being used with the incorrect license.
That's why they use licensing houses. And Apple likely paid per the use they wanted.
This might be more a case of the license house being contacted by an agency on behalf of Apple in part to avoid 'Apple can afford it' way higher prices and they didn't do their research to know who was behind, or very likely behind, the request. So everyone got paid but not as much as she'd like
Since Apple had the high res image when they were not supposed to be supplied the high res image then that would imply that Apple licensed it for comping but was somehow accidentally supplied a high res image. The purchasing department is going to purchase what was asked for, namely a comping image.
Next the art department used the image supplied for comping, the comp artist or art director would not really be paying attention to whether the stock photo was incorrectly supplied as high res, if anything they would assume that there was a miscommunication and they were supplied a high res image even though they did not ask for it.
They probably used it in a comp, the ad was approved and they ran it. They may have even rejected it and approved a different comp image but decided to use the eye anyway because since they thought it's already high res and paid for they may as well. No one is at fault here, there is no deliberate attempt to swindle anyone. To make this into a lawsuit is none other than a perfect example of a 'frivolous and vexatious' lawsuit.
Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh. While I do find the suit somehow ridiculous, I absolutely love how the very same people who go all court-happy on Samsung suddenly find that, in this case, plain and stupid use of the law is bot appropriate.... because Apple would lose.
@mrstep: a Corporation is not allowed to "just miss the fine print".
Now, I've never really udertood why the ugly pictures. Maybe this will push Apple to have its own inhouse artists
That is one scenario. Another could be that Apple knows that a single person is more likely to miss fine print or fight a costly legal battle against a multii-billion company. I don't think it's unfathomable to think that corporations will take these measures.
Extremely unlikely. The unlimited use for most of the stock images on the site someone provided is a few hundred dollars at most. Apple isn't going to intentionally rip someone off for a few hundred dollars-especially when creative professionals still constitutes a major market for Apple.
It was almost certainly an oversight on someone's part - and will be rectified.
Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh.
While I do find the suit somehow ridiculous, I absolutely love how the very same people who go all court-happy on Samsung suddenly find that, in this case, plain and stupid use of the law is bot appropriate.... because Apple would lose.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it was OK for Apple to use the photo without permission. For example, I stated explicitly that if Apple used the image without permission, they will lose in court and should be made to pay.
There's no double standard here - except in the mind of the iHaters.
Extremely unlikely. The unlimited use for most of the stock images on the site someone provided is a few hundred dollars at most. Apple isn't going to intentionally rip someone off for a few hundred dollars-especially when creative professionals still constitutes a major market for Apple.
It was almost certainly an oversight on someone's part - and will be rectified.
JR...
You're not understanding what you're reading. The link you're depending on in your responses is for an iStock photo used in a previous Apple campaign for the Retina iPad2. The one used in this instance for the Mac appears to be direct from the photographers agent and not any stock photo website. The prices you're assuming are unlikely to apply. Read the actual complaint linked in the AI story and it will make more sense.
...and I completely agree with your last sentence. I very seriously doubt they were intentionally trying to avoid paying the phototgrapher for her IP.
Apple needs to pay up, and then counter sue for any money that this guy has made as a result of the publicity, as his photography sucks.
For the umpteenth time, the photographers name is Sabine, which implies her gender is female. Her photography does not suck, it is of the highest quality both artistically and technically. Her images are very inventive.
According to the claim, not only did Apple acquire the image for comping purposes, they subsequently advised that they didn't intend to use the image in advertising.
For the umpteenth time, the photographers name is Sabine, which implies her gender is female. Her photography does not suck, it is of the highest quality both artistically and technically. Her images are very inventive.
Do you *seriously think* photographers who are published in major fashion and culture magazines are good enough not to give away their labor or sell it cheap on a stock photo site? (Yes, I speak sarcastically.)
[BTW, Don't know if anyone noticed this posted above, but her website lists a number of impressive clients:
Her work has been used without appropriate compensation, she is entitled to seek redress for that. Apple will pay up.
And yes, I agree here too. I'm sure Apple did this unintentionally, even if it is a significant error. And I'm sure they will make nice.
Now that she has their attention, they might even make nice enough (seeing that she has lots of other possibly appropriate images) to make a juicy deal to license a few more images to settle things amicably (if she's willing.) When Apple is in they wrong they have been magnanimous with reasonable people.
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.
This is because, if they took the proper channels, they would only get a few dollars for usage of a stock photo. This way, they, and their lawyers, get more money than the going rate.
Comments
That is one scenario. Another could be that Apple knows that a single person is more likely to miss fine print or fight a costly legal battle against a multii-billion company. I don't think it's unfathomable to think that corporations will take these measures.
They do have an understanding, but its such a generic design it seems insane anyone got a trademark for it. And I would actually wonder if they have a world wide mark. They might not but Apple figured why bother with the fuss of a law suit. Especially if they are asking for much
And you have proof. Versus them licensing it properly from a stock house etc
You know what else is negligent. Declaring someone guilty with all the facts
Originally Posted by charlituna
Declaring someone guilty with all the facts
Gosh dang due process!
????
That's why they use licensing houses. And Apple likely paid per the use they wanted.
This might be more a case of the license house being contacted by an agency on behalf of Apple in part to avoid 'Apple can afford it' way higher prices and they didn't do their research to know who was behind, or very likely behind, the request. So everyone got paid but not as much as she'd like
Since Apple had the high res image when they were not supposed to be supplied the high res image then that would imply that Apple licensed it for comping but was somehow accidentally supplied a high res image. The purchasing department is going to purchase what was asked for, namely a comping image.
Next the art department used the image supplied for comping, the comp artist or art director would not really be paying attention to whether the stock photo was incorrectly supplied as high res, if anything they would assume that there was a miscommunication and they were supplied a high res image even though they did not ask for it.
They probably used it in a comp, the ad was approved and they ran it. They may have even rejected it and approved a different comp image but decided to use the eye anyway because since they thought it's already high res and paid for they may as well. No one is at fault here, there is no deliberate attempt to swindle anyone. To make this into a lawsuit is none other than a perfect example of a 'frivolous and vexatious' lawsuit.
While I do find the suit somehow ridiculous, I absolutely love how the very same people who go all court-happy on Samsung suddenly find that, in this case, plain and stupid use of the law is bot appropriate.... because Apple would lose.
@mrstep: a Corporation is not allowed to "just miss the fine print".
Now, I've never really udertood why the ugly pictures. Maybe this will push Apple to have its own inhouse artists
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupert1020
Just to straighten out something... This "guy" is called Sabine, she's a girl... ;-)
who is sabine?
Extremely unlikely. The unlimited use for most of the stock images on the site someone provided is a few hundred dollars at most. Apple isn't going to intentionally rip someone off for a few hundred dollars-especially when creative professionals still constitutes a major market for Apple.
It was almost certainly an oversight on someone's part - and will be rectified.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it was OK for Apple to use the photo without permission. For example, I stated explicitly that if Apple used the image without permission, they will lose in court and should be made to pay.
There's no double standard here - except in the mind of the iHaters.
Apple needs to pay up, and then counter sue for any money that this guy has made as a result of the publicity, as his photography sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Extremely unlikely. The unlimited use for most of the stock images on the site someone provided is a few hundred dollars at most. Apple isn't going to intentionally rip someone off for a few hundred dollars-especially when creative professionals still constitutes a major market for Apple.
It was almost certainly an oversight on someone's part - and will be rectified.
JR...
You're not understanding what you're reading. The link you're depending on in your responses is for an iStock photo used in a previous Apple campaign for the Retina iPad2. The one used in this instance for the Mac appears to be direct from the photographers agent and not any stock photo website. The prices you're assuming are unlikely to apply. Read the actual complaint linked in the AI story and it will make more sense.
...and I completely agree with your last sentence. I very seriously doubt they were intentionally trying to avoid paying the phototgrapher for her IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...and I completely agree with your last sentence. I very seriously doubt they were intentionally trying to avoid paying the phototgrapher for her IP.
What's the used of avoiding the paying of the photographer? They need the license
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatusmiles
What's the used of avoiding the paying of the photographer? They need the license
What an odd question. How do you suppose Apple gets a license, by donation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm
Apple needs to pay up, and then counter sue for any money that this guy has made as a result of the publicity, as his photography sucks.
For the umpteenth time, the photographers name is Sabine, which implies her gender is female. Her photography does not suck, it is of the highest quality both artistically and technically. Her images are very inventive.
Have a look at her work: http://www.google.ie/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1046&bih=540&q=Sabine+Liewald&oq=Sabine+Liewald&gs_l=img.3...1449.1449.0.2263.1.1.0.0.0.0.55.55.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.y8Rw4O7Olug
Her work has been used without appropriate compensation, she is entitled to seek redress for that. Apple will pay up.
Seems to me that Apple has to cop it sweet...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
For the umpteenth time, the photographers name is Sabine, which implies her gender is female. Her photography does not suck, it is of the highest quality both artistically and technically. Her images are very inventive.
You've heard of "A Boy Named Sue?" ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Have a look at her work: http://www.google.ie/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1046&bih=540&q=Sabine+Liewald&oq=Sabine+Liewald&gs_l=img.3...1449.1449.0.2263.1.1.0.0.0.0.55.55.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.y8Rw4O7Olug
Do you *seriously think* photographers who are published in major fashion and culture magazines are good enough not to give away their labor or sell it cheap on a stock photo site? (Yes, I speak sarcastically.)
[BTW, Don't know if anyone noticed this posted above, but her website lists a number of impressive clients:
http://www.sabineliewald.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Her work has been used without appropriate compensation, she is entitled to seek redress for that. Apple will pay up.
And yes, I agree here too. I'm sure Apple did this unintentionally, even if it is a significant error. And I'm sure they will make nice.
Now that she has their attention, they might even make nice enough (seeing that she has lots of other possibly appropriate images) to make a juicy deal to license a few more images to settle things amicably (if she's willing.) When Apple is in they wrong they have been magnanimous with reasonable people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grblade
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.
This is because, if they took the proper channels, they would only get a few dollars for usage of a stock photo. This way, they, and their lawyers, get more money than the going rate.
By stealing perhaps!