Apple sued over alleged misuse of photo in MacBook Pro promotion

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 121
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    charlituna wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 102 of 121
    john.b wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 103 of 121
    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.

    And you have proof. Versus them licensing it properly from a stock house etc
  • Reply 104 of 121
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,772member
    Does anyone honestly think that people weren't going to buy the apple product regardless of this particular image?
  • Reply 105 of 121
    desuserign wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 106 of 121


    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

    Declaring someone guilty with all the facts


     


    Gosh dang due process!


    ????

  • Reply 107 of 121
    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
  • Reply 108 of 121


    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.

  • Reply 109 of 121
    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 :p
  • Reply 110 of 121

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rupert1020 View Post


    Just to straighten out something... This "guy" is called Sabine, she's a girl... ;-)



     


     


    who is sabine?

  • Reply 111 of 121
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 112 of 121
    cmvsmcmvsm Posts: 204member


    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.

     

  • Reply 113 of 121
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,585member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    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.

  • Reply 114 of 121

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post




    ...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

  • Reply 115 of 121
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,585member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fatusmiles View Post


     


     


    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?

  • Reply 116 of 121
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post


    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.

  • Reply 117 of 121
    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.

    Seems to me that Apple has to cop it sweet...
  • Reply 118 of 121

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    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?" ;-)




     


    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 View Post


    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.

  • Reply 119 of 121

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by grblade View Post



    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.

  • Reply 120 of 121
    gatorguy wrote: »
    What an odd question. How do you suppose Apple gets a license, by donation?

    By stealing perhaps!
Sign In or Register to comment.