When Apple first unveiled the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro back in July of this year, they used two images to specifically highlight the incredible resolution of the new display. The first was a shot of a herd of zebras running through the grass captured by photographer Steve Bloom. And the second? A photograph of an eye in full Ziggy Stardust make-up, taken by Swiss photographe Sabine Liewald.
The only problem with that latter photograph? According to the photographer, Apple never properly licensed it to be used in Retina MacBook Pro marketing materials. And she’s now suing over it.
According to Liewald, Apple obtained the eye photograph from her agency, Factory Downtown, requesting a high-resolution version of the image for layout purposes only. Apple further emphasized to Factory Downtown that it had no intention of using the “Eye Closeup” photograph in the advertising campaign for the Retina MacBook Pro, then proceeded to do exactly that, featuring it prominently in the advertising campaign and keynote address.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for New York. It appears that Liewald wants damages including defendant’s profits, so she’s actually going for the throat here.
It sounds like a misunderstanding to us, but what’s up with Apple forgetting to pay the Swiss for their intellectual property lately?
Source: Patently Apple
John Brownlee is a writer for Fast Company, and a contributing writer here at CoM. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his wife and two parakeets. You can follow him here on Twitter.
20 responses to “Apple Sued Over Distinctive “Eye Closeup” Photograph Used To Promote Retina MacBook Pro”
She should be proud that Apple is using her photo to promote world class products. What a money-minded she is?
Que the lawyers.
She should get monies for picture. At least 10 times the amount paid for Zebras plus $250,000.
@ iSteve
In other words, Apple should be allowed to steal anyone’s work, use it to promote it’s products and the creators of said work should feel humbly honored that Apple chose to steal *their* work over someone else’s. What a bizarre world you would have us live in, considering the lengths Apple goes to protect it’s creations and prosecute anyone who dares take inspiration from them.
Sounds like yet another pathetic attempt to cash in on Apples success by a washed up photographer.
Hehe Apple hates the Swiss… lol It’s a conspiracy I tell ya
Good for her, although going for profits seems like the lawyer roped her into that one.
To paul,
Apple did not steal anything, they asked permission before using them.
Considering Apple is so vocal in it’s support for it’s own patent protection it seems very arrogant of them to continually disregard the IP of other companies. These are not isolated incidents, they’ve form for doing this many times over the years. I hope this lady wins and kicks Apple’s ass for a whole lot of money.
If anything, Apple should be paid by this struggling artist for providing advertising and promotion. I would think 50% of future profits would be an acceptable fee to Apple.
Actually they didn’t. That’s the issue.
that’s not how reality work.
Seriously, and what planet do you live on. I hardly believe the photographer in question is a struggling artist and even if they were that would be your excuse for blatant theft of copyright or trademarked materials. You should work for Apple.
Where there’s one cockroach there’s a hundred. One comes out of the woodwork and then this guy on petapixel is claiming apple stole his picture to promote the ipad. http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/12/photographer-sues-apple-over-the-use-of-her-photo-to-promote-the-retina-display/#comment-680557437
Some people can’t get by a day without thinking the world owes them for every little thing.
No, they did not. They were granted permission to use it for one purpose and then went on to use it for another purpose of an entirely different scope. In the graphic/art world, the specific usage of an image highly effects the price of that usage. You can’t purchase the rights to use an image for, say, an internal small layout, and then use it for a major international campaign. Apple, of course, is well aware of this, but, being Apple, they appear to believe rules do not apply to them.
It sounds like a misunderstanding to ‘cultofmac.com’
Sabine Liewald needs to talk to their “agent” first. Apple entered into an agreement with the agent and not her. Nobody buys a photo for layout purposes.
Sadly, this will just result in Sabine Liewald never getting any work again. She is greedy and not intelligent enough to read her contract before signing it.
I don’t see wht the big deal is. Someone thought they had the rights to use the image for marketing. They were wrong. Why don’t just say “sorry, our bad, the cheque is in the post”.
Frankly, slagging off the copyright holder is childish. Few people would have deep enough pockets to take apple to court unless they knew they had a good chance of winning.
perhaps fewer artists would be struggling if companies actually paid the correct royalties
Considering Apple sues for the same thing, yes Apple owes them