“Apple Inc . was sued by a Colorado resident who accused it of misappropriating an ‘iconic’ photo he possesses for the company’s popular iPhone,” Jonathan Stempel reports for Reuters.
“In a lawsuit filed Thursday with the federal court in Manhattan, widely published photographer Louis Psihoyos contends that Apple is using his ‘1000 TVs’ image in its ‘i.TV’ movie guide application for the iPhone,” Stempel reports.
“The plaintiff accused the Cupertino, California-based company of copyright infringement of his image, which was created in 2005,” Stempel reports. “He is seeking actual damages and other remedies that together are ‘reasonably believed’ to exceed $2 million, according to the complaint.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple didn’t produce “i.TV” for iPhone. The seller is clearly listed on the App Store as “Brad Pelo” and the app is copyrighted by i.TV, LLC.
We believe the image in question can be seen here and the case is against Apple for the opening sequence displayed by Apple TV, not the iPhone app “i.TV.”
We even covered that startup sequence here: Apple TV startup sequence still shots posted online – February 19, 2007
Apple TV startup movie:
Direct link to video via YouTube here.
If that’s really what Psihoyos is objecting to, it has nothing to do with iPhone, but might be of interest to LOGAN.
my god he is right, who could have ever thought of this independently of his creative brilliance!
Whoever has used the art, just pay up on the royalties. Give the artist a break and work with them.
So he owns forever any image of a multitude of TV screens in a black matrix. Wow!
You can copyright an image, but you can’t copyright an idea.
No sale.
Maybe he should ask for $1 billion.
@Deus Ex Technica, you are right, you cannot copyright an idea. But a copyright also covers “derivative works,” even if the derived art was created from scratch and changes to another medium or artistic style.
The big question is whether the concept is “generic enough” that Apple cannot be justly accused of copying. I actually created a vaguely similar design for a publication (I work for a TV network), back in 2002. By “vaguely similar,” I mean it was a grid of TV monitors each showing different shows, floating over a blue background. Maybe I should be exploring my legal options! Ha, ha.
So is he going to sew the people that made the Matrix movie too?
Ah, the American Way to making money–lawsuits and the lottery.
Is this a great country or what!
sew? jesus christ, Mac-nugget.
Sounds like this guy is fishing. $2,000,000 , not happening similar shots have been used by HBO and Direct TV and I’m sure they didn’t pay anywhere near that.
The Apple TV intro an the image are similar but, Apple didn’t copy the image. They might have gotten the idea from the image. But, the copyright on the image doesn’t protect the concept of the image. it just protects the image itself.
@Military Police
I did the same thing for a station in Providence, RI back in 1998 or so, so I am first in line.
@ Botvinnik
There is a bag making company in town here that used to run want ads for “seamstresses.” Someone pointed out to them that seamstress was slightly sexist. They needed a gender neutral word. Soon, they started running wand ads for “sewers.” :o)
Yes, He will make them into sock puppets.
To kirkgray – that is very funny! LOL! I think the concept for multiple tv screens on any colored background have been in use for many many years. Hell, I did a series of images on my own with me as the subject.
wand ads for sewers?
now they’re gonna sew the guy?
“jesus christ” is right.
Geez, let’s sue (or sew) Walmart and every other TV retailer for displaying their TVs in a grid.
No wonder Apple is accused of only using products developed internally if they continue to get sued for $2m for even looking like someone else’s work! No wonder they keep everything secret, patent every idea and only release when products are complete.
Someone has not done their homework. MDN is right. If the lawsuit is for an ad for the app i.TV then it is not Apple’s fault. I have never seen an ad for i.TV in an iPhone ad. I have the app it is cool, a hell of a lot better than Comcast’s guide.
If it is for Apple TV than they screw up. The suit should be thrown out, they don’t even know what product they are complaining about.
I am very disappointed in Reuters, they are a good news service and should have done a better job at investigating the story. Other news media pays Reuters for their information, sadly some will just repeat this crap.
Did this guy sue the people who made the Matrix movies, too?
he’ll need to sue a lot Flash developers as well…
http://www.flashloaded.com/flashcomponents/3dwall/
So if I build a similar vdeo wall with 1000 iPhones and take a picture of it to sell my multimedia processor system I can get sued by this guy?
1 of 3
Again? Psyhosis sued Apple for this 27 June, 2007 Apple Insider: Apple sued for duping Apple TV image. He withdrew his claim in October 2007 prompting speculation a settlement had been reached. Photo Business New & Forum: Louis vs. Apple – Settled?.
The image in question is too generic for copyright to cover similar of derivative works. Point Apple.
Apple reported was in negotiation with Psyhosis for image rights before making their own. Point Psyhosis.
The AppleTV image is an animated sequence. The Psyhosis image is static. Point Apple.
2 of 3
Here are a couple of screen grabs from Matrix Reloaded (2003)
” rel=”nofollow”>Neo & Architect
” rel=”nofollow”>Architect
pastrychef,
No, he’s not going to sue the guys who made the Matrix, because Matrix Reloaded, which contains the similar image, was released two years before he copyrighted his image.
3 of 3
Here’s a site that tracks mysterious coincidence in ads: AdMirror
Here’s a site that discusses art plagiarism: You thought we wouldn’t notice…
And in closing—Psyhosis, Psystar, coincidence?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />