TGIW

Back in June while most people were drooling over Apple Marketing VP Phil Shiller’s announcement of a Retina Display (RD) on the new MacBook Pro, one person in Switzerland was getting angry. When Shiller got to showing off the updated RD-ready version of Photoshop, photographer Sabine Liewald‘s vibrant image – Eye Close-up – was prominantly showcased for several minutes.

As we got closer to the MBP release date, Liewald’s image moved to Apple’s website as part of the ‘Design and Layout’ features page, and could be seen in a number of Retina Display related advertisements. It was at this point (I assume) that the words of the great philosopher RZA rang through Sabine’s head.

You best protect your neck.

Why might this beautiful phrase have passed through her head you ask? Well, there’s a little thing in the professional photography world called “licensing”, and in this case Apple had none.

As reported first by Patently Apple, the world’s most valuable company had acquired license to use the image from Liewald’s agent, but solely for layout/ mock-up purposes. According to the paperwork submitted to the District Court for New York,

Despite representing that it did not intend to use the photo and knowing that it had not obtained a license, Apple proceeded to copy, publish, and exploit Plaintiff’s photograph, including in its MacBook Pro advertising campaign, keynote addresses and related advertising materials without permission or compensation.

At this point there’s probably some people feeling like the whole situation is probably an oversight by the legal department regarding what kind of licensing was purchased, but what if I told you this isn’t the first time Apple has used an image without first obtaining proper license?

Way back in 2010 durring the keynote for the first gen iPad, the background image on the tablet – Pyramid Lake (at Night) by Richard Misrach – was used without proper licensing from the San Francisco based artist. Times must have been simpler back then because Misrach kept his cool and waited on Apple to throw him the bone he deserved; and by the time the product hit shelves he had a proper deal cut with his image shipping as the default background on every unit. No such luck has come by Miss Liewald’s way.

For now we will have to wait and see what comes from the case of Liewald v. Apple Inc., but until the gavel falls I only have one question for Apple Inc. As a company caught up on both sides of a number of copyright infringement cases, and one that knows it has a stronghold on the computing side of the photography industry, why show such a lack of respect to an artist?

{ 0 comments }