Apple settles 'Retina' promo image suit with Swiss artist

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    How come Apple sues every Tom, Dick and Harry over its designs but goes about nicking the designs of others. Swiss watch hands anybody...?

    Poor Show. Becoming a serial offender
  • Reply 22 of 38
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    I don't see any reason for them to pay for it if it was used it in a way that allowed free use. However, if their chosen use of the image required payment to the creator under copyright law, of course they should pay for it.

    I can't imagine anyone arguing that the use of an image in a public presentation to introduce their new products would fall under fair use.

    morgajx wrote: »
    How come Apple sues every Tom, Dick and Harry over its designs but goes about nicking the designs of others. Swiss watch hands anybody...?

    Poor Show. Becoming a serial offender

    Apple spends hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in advertising every year. Considering that they hire agencies to do much of the work, it's not clear that Apple was even at fault (other than not catching every error, but that would be difficult). With companies as large as Apple, unintentional infringement occurs. Apple then makes it right (for example, I think the amount they paid for the Swiss railway clock was absurdly high). That's all you can reasonably ask.


    However, there's a trend here. First the Swiss railway clock. Now a Swiss artist's photograph. Maybe Apple should just buy Switzerland?
  • Reply 23 of 38
    As a photographer, I gather the pertinent information about how a potential client will use an images and quote a fee. If a client grossly underestimates its use, there must be action taken. The Library of Congress is the governing body for our countries Intellectual Property laws and they have a maximum penalty of $150K per infringing occurrence. How many times do you think that Apple used the image in an ad? In Commercial Photography, we will often receive 3-5% of the Media Buy budget as our fee for licensing images. How much do you think Apple spent to place those ads using that image? This should give you an idea of the images value to Apple.
  • Reply 24 of 38
    Maybe they just handed the artist a few laptops and everyone was happy.
  • Reply 25 of 38


    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    I can't imagine anyone arguing that the use of an image in a public presentation to introduce their new products would fall under fair use.


     


    Do you object to the purpose or the venue?

  • Reply 26 of 38
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post




    May I quote you on that the next time a legal battle story pops up on AI? :)



     


    If the circumstances are identical, yes, but you'll need to show that they are, otherwise you'll just be quoting out of context like so many other fools around here.

  • Reply 27 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I don't see any reason for them to pay for it if it was used it in a way that allowed free use.



     


    I have no idea what the above means.

  • Reply 28 of 38
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Do you object to the purpose or the venue?



     


    Clearly, the purely commercial nature of the use disqualifies it from fair use.


     


    US Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107


     


    Quote:



    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—


     


    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;


    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;


    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and


    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


     


    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.



  • Reply 29 of 38


    Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

    I have no idea what the above means.


     


    How? "Why should I pay for it if I used it in a 'fair use' way?"





    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

    Clearly, the purely commercial nature of the use disqualifies it from fair use.


     


    US Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107



     


    That makes sense. And it wasn't copylefted or creative commons'd? Then yeah, if Apple didn't pay, they should.

  • Reply 30 of 38


    "if it was used it in a way that allowed free use."


     


    They used it for commercial purposes. Fair use isn't even appropriate for discussion. The only discussion would be what the licensing terms allowed or did not allow.

     

  • Reply 31 of 38
    A large FInnish telecoms company stole an image of a friend of mine and claimed that they had no idea that they could not simply take the image, remove the watermark, photoshop it a bit and try to change the EXIF data. Who knew??? End of the story, they lost the suit and my friend is quite about %u20AC50 thousand richer... The judged ruled that they knew what they were doing when they removed the watermark, and tried to change the EXIF data.

    The problem that photographers (real shooters) have is that Insta-crap actually let's people think that they are photographers simply because they can apply a filter and post an image... God I hate Insta-shit...
  • Reply 32 of 38


    Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

    The only discussion would be what the licensing terms allowed or did not allow.


     


    Right, and some copyleft/creative commons licensing allows that. Hence it being called into question.

  • Reply 33 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Right, and some copyleft/creative commons licensing allows that. Hence it being called into question.



     


    Yes. And...? Her images are copyrighted in the United States - Copyright Registration # VA0001827874. Commercial fashion photographers are generally not in the business of freely releasing their works so that people can build upon them or freely distribute them.


     


    You can license some of her works here: http://il.factory311.com/


     


    The advertising/creative agency and Apple made a mistake. She sued. They settled.

  • Reply 34 of 38


    Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

    Yes. And...? Her images are copyrighted in the United States - Copyright Registration # VA0001827874. Commercial fashion photographers are generally not in the business of freely releasing their works so that people can build upon them or freely distribute them.


     


    All right, but she could have. There are shades of copyright.






    The advertising/creative agency and Apple made a mistake. She sued. They settled.



     


    And that's all well and good. Justice—actual justice—served.

  • Reply 35 of 38
    yvvvyvvv Posts: 18member
    "In the original complaint from October 2011"...
    Sure, the Retina Macbook Pro was released in June 2012. How is that possible?
  • Reply 36 of 38


    Originally Posted by yvvv View Post

    "In the original complaint from October 2011"...

    Sure, the Retina Macbook Pro was released in June 2012. How is that possible?


     


    Just an editing error. Fixed now; thanks!

  • Reply 37 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





     Maybe Apple should just buy Switzerland?


    Apple have vast amounts of money, I grant you this. But to buy Switzerland? Not nearly enough for that kind of endeavour :P

  • Reply 38 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Totems View Post


    Apple have vast amounts of money, I grant you this. But to buy Switzerland? Not nearly enough for that kind of endeavour :P



    … but is too much chocolate a bad thing?


     


    Cheers

Sign In or Register to comment.