Apple facing two lawsuits for alleged copyright violations

It looks like Apple has a pair of new lawsuits on its hands, both centering on alleged copyright violations by the company. The first comes from Colorado-based photographer Louis Psihoyos, who claims that Apple ripped off his image of a wall of videos (seen above) in its imagery for the Apple TV. According to Psihoyos' attorney, Apple had actually been negotiating with the photographer for the rights to use the image but backed out of the deal and went ahead and used the imagery without permission. The second, slightly more tangential suit comes from songwriters James Gangwer and Tommy Dunbar, who are claiming that Avril Lavigne's song "Girlfriend" is a bit too similar to their song, "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" (no relation to The Ramones song of the same name). Apple gets roped in here for selling the song on iTunes, which the duo says makes them "guilty of allowing the infringement to continue." According to AppleInsider, both suits are still awaiting their first day in court.

[Sushi @ Jul 4th 2007 7:32PM]

sue sue sue sue sue sue sue..... sue sue sue.... sue sue sue.....

sue sue sue.... s...su sue sue sue.... sue sue

Let's wait and then sue sue sue!

[Blake @ Jul 4th 2007 7:56PM]

I see you have an extensive vocabulary.

I think it's kind of crummy that Apple just went ahead and used the idea without consent though, and as for the song-suit, I have no comment, it's ridiculous.

[Jon @ Jul 5th 2007 10:44AM]

So when people sue Apple it is wrong.... but when Apple sues people for the use of the dictionary word 'Pod' it is okay then?

[Carbonize @ Jul 4th 2007 7:39PM]

That photograph reminds me a lot of the room in Matrix Revolutions.

As to the second one. I can understand suing Avril Lavigne but suing iTunes is pushing your luck. Almost as bad as the woman who sued Smith and Wesson for making the gun that shot her husband dead in a robbery.

[Asha @ Jul 4th 2007 9:51PM]

I wouldn't compare the Avril/Apple lawsuit to the Smith and Wesson lawsuit. Smith and Wesson are in the sole business of essentially making better ways to maim and kill(honestly, guns don't have any real multi-functionality to them).
Although I would define supplying Avril's song 'Girlfriend' as a crime, their going at it from an angle different than mine.

[Chris M @ Jul 4th 2007 11:52PM]

The upcoming iPistol will surely be a multifunction device.

If we can infer anything from the iPhone, the iPistol will perform it's primary duty at a sub-par level; and excel somewhat at everything else it does. Rumour has it it will feature a toothbrush. It will advertise itself as a 'pistol replacement' when the reality is it only holds 4 rounds; compared to the 8 to upwards of 20 in most modern day clips.

Sad, but true.

Chris

[nikhil @ Jul 5th 2007 12:53PM]

u r right. if u can sue anyone like than then think of the man who invented the AK-47(some kalshinikov(?)guy)!!!!

[Logik @ Jul 5th 2007 1:52AM]

This iPistol you mention, sounds interesting. It will sell millions if they can guarantee whiter teeth in a one shot application.

[JWest @ Jul 4th 2007 7:45PM]

The first seems somewhat legit, but the second is just a case of "hey, we can't make any money ourselves, so let's see how much we can get from these big companies". Washed up singers trying to get some more money. What a wonderful world we live in when you can sue for just about any reason.

[Gadget Chick @ Jul 4th 2007 7:47PM]

k i understand the photographer but honestly why in the blue fuck would you sue the distributer of a song for copy right infringement?? apple did not write or produce that song or even own the rights to the song so who are they to sue them? if they are gonna sue apple then they have to sue every music vendor in the entire country then, itunes is not the only place to buy the song. sue avril and her record label not apple. these sue happy, money hungry jerk-offs are getting even more ridiculous everyday.

[aboriginal @ Jul 4th 2007 8:03PM]

Any and all distributers can be named in the lawsuit in order to stop sales in all channels - brick and mortar, e-tail, catalog etc. iTunes is just the big name, but Amazon, Target Walmart should be named as well.

[Simon @ Jul 4th 2007 7:48PM]

Hold on a second, why are those two songwriters only suing Apple?
They should've been suing Avril Lavigne (as mentioned by Carbonize).

Furthermore, that song can be found on iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody and on pretty much every single music download site I can think of.

For me those songwritters are just doing this to have their lame 15 minutes of fame.

People nowadays are suing anyone for absolutely anything....

[Alex @ Jul 4th 2007 9:04PM]

Because Apple has way more money than Avril Lavigne. That, and if you sued Avril Lavigne, no one would really care. She deserves to sued for the crime against humanity that is her music.

[Tito @ Jul 4th 2007 11:10PM]

They are also suing Avril Lavigne.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/07/04/lavigne-lawsuit-girfriend.html

[Luigi193 @ Jul 4th 2007 7:52PM]

That second one is the funniest thing Ive read in a while!

[aboriginal @ Jul 4th 2007 8:01PM]

So, Apple's in-house lawboys say that there's nothing that covers the guy's exclusivity to this image's appearance and there's no need to pay up and so the guy figures he can spank 'em - probably asking for way too much anyway. Just because they carry the song via the record label they get pulled into another spank attack by not so much the people as the POS lawyers who still stand to make far more than the music writers would. HAHAHAHAHAHAH . . . what a frickin' world.

[Passarinhuu @ Jul 4th 2007 8:10PM]

I smell 'need to get some mediatic exposure'...

That guy sues Apple because they used the concept of a video wall in a photo? So, no one can design mobile phones just because some guy ame up with the concept of a communication device hooked up to a battery? Oh god, I wish all this lawsuit thingy would stop. It's starting to really bother me when I see a new case of stupid copyright infringement allegations...

BTW, not an Apple fanboy. Never owned any of their devices, they just don't sell them around here :P

[Mr. Picklesworth @ Jul 4th 2007 8:24PM]

Read this, sir: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070117/191446.shtml

Now, what was that about Apple being entitled to thieve images? Hypocrisy, anyone?

The problem isn't really that they have a similar image, but that they created a similar image /intentionally/ to duplicate that fellow's work in a blatant attempt to not pay him the money he deserves.
They clearly gained heavy inspiration from this image - to the point that they created their artwork to look exactly like it - and failed to credit that.

[Phil Perman @ Jul 4th 2007 8:18PM]

Hey hey sue sue
You have too much money
No way no way
I think you need to loose some
Hey hey sue sue
I can take your money

doo dee doo doo doo


Or something along those lines

[Ayle @ Jul 4th 2007 9:20PM]

Made my day LMAO

[psxp @ Jul 4th 2007 9:48PM]

ha ha! the best post on iEngadget I have seen in a long time :)

[Simon @ Jul 4th 2007 10:08PM]

haha i actually lol'ed at that!

[spyboy @ Jul 4th 2007 8:29PM]

Well, Compuserve wanted to sue end users for using .gif during it's heyday. And the RIAA/MPAA sues end users, so why can't it go the other way?

So Apple stole more ideas, that's just par for the course. Remember the Postal Service music video? http://www.eliteproductionswi.com/apple-ps.htm

Everyone says Microsoft is so bad, yet Apple runs their business the same way. Their OS includes a browser, music player, chat program, email (hmm, that's NOT a monopoly because it's on a Mac?). Apple mocks the Intel boring beige boxes 10 years ago and now runs on them and says "ooh we're so cool, look what we run on".

They're just a computer company, not a freaking cult.

Apple...steal different.

[Neptune5 @ Jul 4th 2007 8:30PM]

Shouldn't he also sue the Architect in the Matrix reloaded ?

Watch it's the exact same thing

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ayujtMQi3i4

[jilie @ Jul 4th 2007 9:18PM]

DOWN WITH APPLE!

[Japlan @ Jul 4th 2007 9:21PM]

I hope so. They are iRipoff artists. $600 dollar phones that cost $200 to make.

[whatever @ Jul 4th 2007 9:52PM]

@Japlan

Yeah - and their OS sells for $129 and the CD's only cost a nickle.

[booyaka @ Jul 4th 2007 10:47PM]

The same people buying Apple products are the same people that would pay $300 for a pair of pants.

[Luigi193 @ Jul 4th 2007 11:05PM]

This is at whatever, what does vista ULTIMATE cost anyway? Charging 100 extra for areo? WOW...value. (runs)

[booyaka @ Jul 4th 2007 11:31PM]

@Luigi193

No one is forcing you to buy the Ultimate Edition and there are cheaper alternatives, but when you buy a Mac you either pay too much or too much. $90 for a replacement battery? LMFAO

Apple fanboys = PWNED

[Dinraj @ Jul 4th 2007 9:29PM]

Apparently Apple continually get's "inspired" from a lot of elements from the world around us. Their inspiration sometimes is a tad too much(read win media center).

[yawpity yawp on daddy's dime @ Jul 4th 2007 9:34PM]

Ah, so this is today's "let's preoccupy the bored suburban nerdchildren on summer vacation" Engadget post? Gotcha.

[Wayde Christie @ Jul 4th 2007 10:04PM]

Nope - Apple's off the hook: http://www.waydechristie.com/2007/06/02/apple-tv-rips-atari-design/

[granny down east @ Jul 4th 2007 11:04PM]

The hell with the lawsuits- I wanna live in THAT room.

[cire @ Jul 4th 2007 11:09PM]

Who cares, get a life!..lol

[Jason Masters @ Jul 4th 2007 11:42PM]

Everyone should stop hating on Apple and Microsoft. Sure there big faceless corporations that are easy to bash around but frankly they do a pretty good job. Sure Vista Ultimate is a little pricey but OS X is too. And the iPhone may have only cost $200 worth of parts but why don't you add in production costs, paying all of apple's emplyees, and research and development (a hell of a lot of R&D went into the iPhone) once you do there margins aren't as fat as you think. So everyone should stop being immature little sh*ts and get on with their lives. Some people may prefer one thing over the other but there's no need to bash. Unless they're Sony who routinely screws over their customers (see:root kit or non upgrading media centers).

[mustharshid @ Jul 5th 2007 8:56AM]

I doubt Apple spent anything on R&D - if they did, cut-and-paste would be available in iPhone.

[Jason Masters @ Jul 5th 2007 12:29PM]

Your joking right? Cut and paste is an oversight, they can probably have someone code that feature in about two minutes. They don't need R&D on that. What they researched and developed was the entire interface, the touchscreen, visual voicemail, making it so thin, a mobile version of OSX and I think that we both know that apple obviously spent a ton of money developing the iPhone so why don't you stop wasting our time with a crappy little comment like that.

[Chris @ Jul 5th 2007 2:56AM]

Oh God, the only similarities between girlfriend and that nothing song is the "hey hey, you you" part just because it is repeated but it's nothing like let's say the vanilla ice song and under pressure. those people are so stupid! what the hell where they thinking???!?!?!?!?!! bah! lol

[Chris @ Jul 5th 2007 4:41AM]

IANAL.

The reason the Vanilla Ice / Under Pressure thing is allowed is because it's considered a new creation. Sampling's always been a difficult one, legally. The issue is of course that "Girlfriend" and "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" are considered way too similar for "Girlfriend" to not be a derivative work requiring licensing and royalties. Or something like that.

But WRT the video wall image, Apple have a history of infringing on other people's copyright. Anyone remember that shareware alt-tab (sorry, Command-Tab) replacement that Apple completely ripped off without any due credit when they came out with 10.3? I can't remember the name of the product, but the changes Apple put into the OS made their Command-Tab switcher look EXACTLY the same as the shareware one. The shareware guys were a bit upset.

More abstract, but same kinda thing with widgets and Konfabulator. In that case, though, the Konfabulator guys didn't really have any legal grounds. It was just Apple saying "screw you".

'Course, I'm going to have a bunch of fanbois now say that Apple can do no wrong. I'm a fan of Apple, but not to the extent that I believe they can do no wrong. They have some really great ideas, and most of their products are spectacular. But every now and then, they break the rules.

And I agree, distributing Avril's songs IS a crime.

[Chris Salguero @ Jul 5th 2007 4:57AM]

They are not very similar I'm sorry but go listen to the song yourself. the only part that exactly matches is the Hey Hey You You part. The Only other similarity is that they deal with significant others. Of course Avril's is That she hates the girl the guy she's crushing on has while rubinos is trying to woo a girl. saying they want to be her boyfriend. Their are a lot of other parts of songs that are even more similair than just these difference, some songs that are exactly the same lyric. The rubinoos are gonna loose this one big time. It is too minor of a thing and they are not even that similar.

[Karan @ Jul 5th 2007 4:38AM]

Hmm, why does that first part sound familiar? Oh yeah, the iPhone ad rip-off - http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/artist-says-iphone-ad-was-a-ripoff.php

Apple's marketing department sadly lacks the creativity of its design department, it seems.

[peshue @ Jul 5th 2007 7:14AM]

For all the times that Apple has screwed over artists in similar fashions I'm surprised so many still use their products. Most don't even seem to know about such things.

[mike @ Jul 5th 2007 8:11AM]

funny how when microsoft is sued you useless apple fanboys cheer but sue his royal steveness you all come out in his !!

[Johnnyg0 @ Jul 5th 2007 8:33AM]

"Apple had actually been negotiating with the photographer for the rights to use the image but backed out of the deal and went ahead and used the imagery without permission."

You shouldn't be surprised, this is standard practice at Apple, remember the copyrighted name "iPhone" they stole from Cisco? Same story : they wanted the name, they talked to the owners to make up a deal, they backed out, they used it anyway even if they don't own the rights, because after people will have seen it with an Apple logo on it, its belong to them forever (hey some people at work think my Palm Tungsten T5 is an iPhone..., some other people believe Apple invented the mouse..this is sad..)

[Miles @ Jul 5th 2007 12:06PM]

Boo hoo

Apple made a photowall that looks nothing like mine

boo hoo

I wanna sue

boo hoo

I think this idiot should get HIS ass sued. Apple didn't steal shit, and I doubt he has a copyright, so he can go fuck himself.

[treyd @ Jul 5th 2007 12:45PM]

All hear this! Apple is your master. Apple has just released the ifart. Its a silicon ass you strap to your face with a tube you ram up your cornhole. Now breath deep, and enjoy the scent of Steve Jobs sacred urine aka holy water. LOL AHHAHAHAHHAHHA!!!!!

[D W @ Jul 5th 2007 3:00PM]

It's really about time that Engadget hired some reporters who have a clue about legal issues before they kickoff yet another pathetic and baseless fanboy vs fanboy article (for the sake of yet more ad hits).

As a photographer, I can tell you that the owner has nothing to gain from Apple. Apple approached the photographer in good faith and I'll assume offered money to use the photo. What nobody above mentioned is that this offer must have been rejected.

When you take/make a photograph, it's automatically copyrighted. However SINCE APPLE NEVER USED HIS PHOTO, and ONLY A LIKENESS to that photo, they haven't done anything to break the law - the original still stands intact, and hasn't been copied (there's no guy sitting on a chair on Apples anyway).

You can't copyright a likeness to your photo! Just think of the implications of that if you could. If the guy had trademarked this image, he may have something to prove - but so far this is just another lame lawsuit at our expense.

[Matt @ Jul 5th 2007 3:49PM]

Verizon must of gotten the OK to use the picture in FiOS TV advertisements http://www22.verizon.com/content/FiosTV. May have to refresh to get http://www22.verizon.com/Content/FiOSTV/Images/X+1/FTV_TechAndChannels_New.jpg

I originally thought Verizon was copying Apple.