Once Again Apple Uses Image It Didn't License: This Time Photographer Sues
from the don't-they-have-lawyers? dept
Lawyers for big companies tend to be notoriously careful to make sure the companies license images they use for marketing purposes, for obvious reasons. And yet... Apple seems to keep using unlicensed images. It's really quite surprising. A couple of years ago, we wrote about how the default wallpaper for the iPad was used without licensing it. In that case, the photographer, Richard Misrach, was thrilled, saying that he was sure that a contract was on the way, and whatever was in it would be fine: "I'm sure they'll send me [a contract] quickly now. But I'm very happy, I'm sure it's fine, and the terms are good." I don't know if that experience made Apple confident it could do the same sort of thing again, but Misrach's response is not quite the norm. And Apple is now discovering that as it will have to deal with a lawsuit from photographer Sabine Liewald.As detailed at the Patently Apple site, Liewald has sued Apple, claiming that it used her photograph as part of the marketing around the MacBook Pro's promotion for its Retina Display.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, license, retina display, sabine liewald
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't they see the irony?
Don't they see the irony in suing over trivial intellectual property, and then infringing upon others' intellectual property. At least be consistent.
Steve Jobs: they shouldn't steal our technology, they should invent their own.
Now leaving aside for the moment whatever we might think of round corner rectangles, bouncy scrolling, double tap, etc; if you believe in IP, then shouldn't you be extremely respectful with other people's IP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't they see the irony?
Apple suffers from an extreme case of self entitlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't they see the irony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't they see the irony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't they see the irony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
"I'm sure they'll send me [a contract] quickly now." -- Well, did they? -- And if not, what's he out? He still has his original image, right? -- And then, where does it fit into the Techdirt "exposure is so valuable you don't need to be directly paid" notion?
When will you guys learn that the report button isn't made to shut people up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
I know the answer is "never", but here's hoping you figure it out eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
Now that went well!
When will you guys learn that the report button isn't made to shut people up?
When jackasses like you stop calling it censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You always leave us hanging on the /interesting/ points:
I know, it's hard for you, maybe even shocking. But you'll have to deal with this fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Romey called it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Romey called it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Romey called it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Romey called it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Going Downhill
This is now Tim Cook running Apple. iOS 6 got rushed with tons of errors and no need to discuss Apple Maps. It's noted too that iOS 6 should have been delayed until perfected but Cook wanted it rushed in like the Macintosh IIci. So yeah, Apple muffed, but I would not go too far into speculation on this case as that photo may not be the same one in question.
Also, you can use HTML code to prevent your photographic works from being used as public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple Going Downhill
What does this even mean? Sounds like you are talking about HTML-based photograph DRM, which I can assure you either a) does not exists, b) does not work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple Going Downhill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple Going Downhill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple Going Downhill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"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."
So here's the problem. Apple asked Factory Downtown to use the photo as a layout or template to demonstrate the color gamut in Retina Display. They were given permission by Factory Downtown to use the photo but were somehow not given the legal documentation to prove they had permission to do so. Demonstrations do not need licensing so word of mouth is permissible as an agreement. Now Apple is being sued by the holder of the photograph after they were given permission to use the photo by Factory Downtown....who just happens to be liscensed to distribut the photo.
So it's really quite a legal conundrum for Sabine Liewald. The people he liscensed the photo to gave permissible use of said photograph to Apple. If anyone has ever seen Retina Didplay as much as I have, it doesn't take much convincing when you can see cracks in the skin of a person on a 480x960 4th Gen iPod Touch display. The point in Retina is that there is no bezzeling of the display.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Moreover, this is also legally grey is you consider that the item was supposed to be used solely for demo purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Retina Display's strength is that it provides a bit more clarity of images in lower resolutions. On my iPod, I see no difference between the clarity of a BluRay movie and the iPod's native screen resolution.
So given the capability of scalibity, I'm sure that through this rather (unethical) legal mess, it really was meant for demonstrations. Since the image provided to Apple was meant to demonstrate the capabilities of Retina Display, it should be ok'ed. The problem is that the agent failed to notify the creator of the photo, hence the legal mess.
Basically this means all three parties are at fault.
I read the article which Mike had cherry picked from as well as this article. So I have a fairly good grasp on both sides of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong, boy.
"Comping" is using low-res files for preparing "roughs", which are multiple versions of layouts to decide which one will be used for the final version.
ANY other use, even in a/v presentations (whether in-house or public) is another matter, and involves a separate license and fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you've been doing business this way, Wally, you're breaking the licensing agreement with your image vendor.
(Goes to datbase to see if any of his clients are named "Wally".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once you have chosen the art for the final piece, you agree to a different licensing agreement and then PAY FOR THE ART.
If Apple used a piece of art in the final product without going through the final licensing process, in all likelihood, the artist and photo house haven't been paid for the work. That is stealing, not legal trickery designed to punish a successful company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]