Photographer drops suit against Apple for lifting images in advertising

It's not clear whether or not a settlement agreement was reached, but photographer Louis Psihoyos, who sued Apple over what he claimed was an infringing use of his "wall of video" image (pictured) in marketing materials for the Apple TV, has dropped his suit. The suit was dropped with prejudice, which means a settlement is likely, but neither party is commenting on the matter. Either way, let's hope Apple is a little more judicious in appropriating art for advertising in the future.

[JohnPQ @ Dec 4th 2007 9:44PM]

The Apple TV is even more of failure now. iFlop!

[Leonard Nimrod @ Dec 4th 2007 10:12PM]

Name a Media Extender that sells more than the AppleTV? Even TiVo only matches the AppleTV's sales.

[Mark @ Dec 4th 2007 10:32PM]

@ Nimrod

How did you get access to Apple TV sales numbers? The only sales numbers I can find are rumours, as Apple hasn't disclosed sales results for the Apple TV.

And media center extender sales? About 15 million xbox 360s. ;)

[JohnPQ @ Dec 4th 2007 11:39PM]

I would rather have a Xbox 360 or PS3 7 days a week over the Apple TV.

[zenprime @ Dec 4th 2007 11:59PM]

Xbox 1 with XBMC beats all. Even does HD.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Dec 4th 2007 9:45PM]

I like apple and all, but why do they copy?

[Mike Cerm @ Dec 5th 2007 1:00AM]

Apple's ad and marketing team are probably the sleaziest in the industry. When they're not blatantly ripping people of, they're making Mac and PC commercials. While occasionally funny, the Mac and PC commercials are often mean-spirited towards Windows users, and make Mac users look like jerks. They're more interesting in spreading FUD about Vista than selling Mac's on their merits.

[Ryan Lynd @ Dec 5th 2007 2:37AM]

ditto...

The Mac vs. PC commercials were ten times funnier when they personified the idiosyncrasy of a PC. An actor entering a restart cycle, Funny! An actor consulting with a PR person on the merits of their new OS, not Funny!

[Ty @ Dec 5th 2007 11:58AM]

PC: "I'm a PC, and I'm playing a game."
Mac: "I'm a Mac, and I'm playing a game."
PC: "Hi Mac. What game are you playing?"
Mac: "Hi PC. I'm playing World of Warcraft. What are you playing?"
PC: "All of them."

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Dec 5th 2007 4:00PM]

touche` ty, touche`

[holycow @ Dec 4th 2007 9:45PM]

They probably bribed him with a 3G, 32GB iPhone!

[Gibson @ Dec 4th 2007 9:47PM]

Also a rip-off of The Matrix 2, complete with green code.

[SR_AC @ Dec 4th 2007 11:36PM]

FYI: This image was actually produced before the Matrix.

[matthew House @ Dec 5th 2007 7:49AM]

I wonder if Alan Moore or DC sue the photographer for replicating an image from Watchmen. There is a scene where Adrian Veidt sit in front of a bank of monitors that is very similar to that.

[John B @ Dec 4th 2007 10:03PM]

That image is also included with the LG VX9400 phone from Verizon. I guess they're next on his list.

[Vizion @ Dec 4th 2007 10:08PM]

I don't think any major company rips off other people's work more than Apple. Their advertising agency (or whoever) gets away with too much.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Dec 4th 2007 10:12PM]

This suit held no water. Apple probably did settle for a nominal fee just to end it. The image pictured above is not the first image of stacked monitors to ever appear. Hell, they only paid $10M to Burst for possible patent infringement. Apple didn't use the image above they just made an image of stacked monitors which was done long before Psihoyos came along. I'm not saying Apple is not guilty of stealing IP but in this case they are not guilty.

[crescentdavid @ Dec 4th 2007 11:43PM]

There's irony to be mined in your name, Nimrod ... here's from the cited article: "The similarities between the protectable elements of Psihoyos' photograph and the images used in Apple's ad campaign are striking," wrote professor Viva Moffat, who teaches copyright law at the university's Sturm College of Law."

It's all over now, except for the payments to Psihoyos.

[billy bob thorton @ Dec 5th 2007 10:22AM]

@Nimrod

get the facts before you blindly defend your religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKG4rgqPJWM

this is willful infringment because they were in talks with him first. This is not just some random image. This is an award winning photograph that has been seen in several publications and websites.

[Noah @ Dec 4th 2007 10:27PM]

Haha! I knew that this wasn't my imagination! My Spanish book (Imagina) has that SAME image. I was flipping through the book, and just stared for a second as I thought, "Why is Apple in my book?" I looked up the photo, and my first reaction was, "Apple did it again."

[Anthony @ Dec 4th 2007 10:30PM]

I just can't figure out why a company that claims "innovation" in everything they do so frequently appears to have a complete disregard for intellectual property rights & appropriates so many others' work w/o permission.

[Ram @ Dec 4th 2007 10:50PM]

They may also want to sue the last Matrix movie when the Architect is talking to Neo... or maybe every Best Buy location for having a wall of televisions.

[michaelM @ Dec 5th 2007 1:04AM]

Is this the image that's he's complaining about: http://www.slipperybrick.com/category/apple-tv/ (scroll down for pic of Steve Jobs)?

It seems kind of a mixed case; the reflection in the bottom does seem similar (though Apple has been reflecting images for ages already, so it seems possible that someone created the Apple image without even being aware of the video wall image...not that it means anything, but I don't remember seeing it before.)

The coloring is very similar....that, along with the reflection, is perhaps the strongest part of the case - copyright doesn't protect an idea (video wall) only the expression. The odd thing is that any artist I know, if they were "using that image for inspiration" would purposely change the colors specifically so that it wasn't so similar. First rule of art theft; students plagiarize; great artists steal.

As to the images in the video wall being similar; again if I was "appropriating" that image, I'd hardly bother copying the individual images. Yet, I bet if you had two people go out separately and find 200 stock images that looked "different but interesting' I bet you'd be amazed at how many of them were similar.

Apple might have lost in court. I don't know; it's definitely similar, but it doesn't seem as cut and dry as other examples of image plagiarism (like the case of the sculpture copied from a photograph.)

[KC @ Dec 5th 2007 3:04AM]

Heh. This post should have been tagged KIRF.

[Almadi @ Dec 5th 2007 4:33AM]

I knew I saw that image somewhere before:

http://www.mobily.com.sa/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN443NzQGSZnFm8abugGZKGIgphGamEG8I0LEW9_XIz83VT9AvyA3NDSi3FERAK_OO28!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzFfNkU5?resetPortlet=true

[Trane @ Dec 5th 2007 8:47AM]

BBC article from 1998 with the same concept. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/161671.stm

Actually looks more similar to the image that Psihoyos says he took in 1999 than the Apple image does to his, in that this has a square entrance in the middle. This seems to indicate that Psihoyos's art is unoriginal in this case.

[skim @ Dec 5th 2007 9:21AM]

The monitor image in the bottom row, 4th from the left, looks an awful like one I created.

[billy bob thorton @ Dec 5th 2007 10:27AM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE

[generalPublic @ Dec 5th 2007 11:01AM]

Psihoyos is a litigious arsehole. He sues people more often than he takes a photo.

[GDR @ Dec 5th 2007 8:48PM]

Those alleging that Apple rampantly violate others' IP rights really ought to consider each case independently rather than drawing broad conclusions. I'm not taking sides, just think things need to be considered in context.

Copyright infringement analysis is complex and this case is too close to call based on what has been reported.

Did Apple (its ad agency) copy the idea (not infringement) or the artist's precise expression of that idea?

[wyszkow @ Dec 6th 2007 4:11PM]

The Apple make new shop POLAND!
www.apple.com/pl/ next branch. Please write about it.