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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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...
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.
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.
Comments
Poor Show. Becoming a serial offender
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.
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?
Originally Posted by jragosta
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Originally Posted by PowerMach
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
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.
"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.
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...
Originally Posted by PowerMach
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Originally Posted by PowerMach
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.
Sure, the Retina Macbook Pro was released in June 2012. How is that possible?
Originally Posted by yvvv
"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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totems
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