Apple may be in trouble with its Apple TV set top player and the iTunes store in regards to two separate lawsuits filed this week.
The first claims that Apple knowingly infringed on copyrights belonging to artistic photographer Louis Psihoyos with an Apple TV advertisement that uses a "video wall" consisting of many small videos playing at once with an Apple TV box in the middle. According to the lawsuit which was filed in Boulder, Colorado, the similarity between Apple's video wall and Psihoyos’ photo is too close to be merely coincidence. In fact, Apple and Psihoyos had been in negotiations over the use of his photo or concept but they never reached an agreement. Psihoyos' attorney Richard Kaudy wrote in the complaint that Apple knowingly ignored Psihoyos' "rights and feelings" and any profits that Apple generated from the Psihoyos' work were kept for itself.
The second suit is a civil complaint that claims Apple along with pop star Avril Lavigne of knowingly infringing on a song written in 1979. The complaint charges that Apple's iTunes music store is an acting catalyst for music infringement. According to the suit, Avril Lavigne's hit single "Girlfriend" is based on another song from the 1970's called "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" by James Gangwer and Tommy Dunbar. According to plaintiffs Gangwer and Dunbar, any company that sells and publishes Lavigne's song is infringing on their original work.
News source: DailyTech
The first claims that Apple knowingly infringed on copyrights belonging to artistic photographer Louis Psihoyos with an Apple TV advertisement that uses a "video wall" consisting of many small videos playing at once with an Apple TV box in the middle. According to the lawsuit which was filed in Boulder, Colorado, the similarity between Apple's video wall and Psihoyos’ photo is too close to be merely coincidence. In fact, Apple and Psihoyos had been in negotiations over the use of his photo or concept but they never reached an agreement. Psihoyos' attorney Richard Kaudy wrote in the complaint that Apple knowingly ignored Psihoyos' "rights and feelings" and any profits that Apple generated from the Psihoyos' work were kept for itself.
The second suit is a civil complaint that claims Apple along with pop star Avril Lavigne of knowingly infringing on a song written in 1979. The complaint charges that Apple's iTunes music store is an acting catalyst for music infringement. According to the suit, Avril Lavigne's hit single "Girlfriend" is based on another song from the 1970's called "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" by James Gangwer and Tommy Dunbar. According to plaintiffs Gangwer and Dunbar, any company that sells and publishes Lavigne's song is infringing on their original work.
News source: DailyTech
The second one, give me a break almost all music is recycled across all genres. Unless all she did was replace girlfriend with boyfriend in the song
I was listening to the radio earlier and they played the songs in question together and from what i heard it does sound like thats all they have done
I just listened to the "original" and I must say the only thing similar is the chorus and that's it. You can even check the lyrics for both if you'd like, and you'd see they're only similar with the chorus.
I just listened to the "original" and I must say the only thing similar is the chorus and that's it. You can even check the lyrics for both if you'd like, and you'd see they're only similar with the chorus.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) just infringement on the chorus is enough to make a case, especially that's what most people recognize. Naming Apple in the case, however, makes no sense. Why not sue Best Buy as well?
the first one would probably get somewhere though considering apple did the same with cisco and had to reach a settlement/agreement.
For a long time now, am pretty sure you dont need to copyright anything you put out for sale. Its assumed to be copyrighted by default unless otherwise stated
What happened with Cisco is completely different and involves trademark which is different then copyright. Trademark law says you actually have to use/defend your trademark...you can't be a company and just go about Trademarking terms in hopes someone wants to use them later..its like cybersquatting.
Cisco acquired the iPhone trademark when they bought another company. They NEVER used the trademark, they NEVER defended it and they KNEW Apple was going to want it....but Cisco dropped the ball. first they slapped the iPhone trademark on a OLD product, which is a no no, then they forgot to renew the trademark multiple times, nor did they try to defend the trademark when Apple began using it...they waited until it was too late for Apple to turn back then they cried infringement. Apple tried to come to a deal with Cisco at first, but after investigating the case they knew they weren't going to lose so they told Cisco to goto hell...Cisco then looked at the facts and said "well crap...guess we better get something rather then nothing"
these cases are not similar at all.
What happened with Cisco is completely different and involves trademark which is different then copyright. Trademark law says you actually have to use/defend your trademark...you can't be a company and just go about Trademarking terms in hopes someone wants to use them later..its like cybersquatting.
Cisco acquired the iPhone trademark when they bought another company. They NEVER used the trademark, they NEVER defended it and they KNEW Apple was going to want it....but Cisco dropped the ball. first they slapped the iPhone trademark on a OLD product, which is a no no, then they forgot to renew the trademark multiple times, nor did they try to defend the trademark when Apple began using it...they waited until it was too late for Apple to turn back then they cried infringement. Apple tried to come to a deal with Cisco at first, but after investigating the case they knew they weren't going to lose so they told Cisco to goto hell...Cisco then looked at the facts and said "well crap...guess we better get something rather then nothing"
these cases are not similar at all.
Hardly. Apple was in the wrong on this one, plain and simple. Cisco (and it's subsidiaries, though they may not have been so at the time) used the trademark iPhone in 1995, 2001, and 2005, and still Apple basically said "Let's just use it, then claim that the mean nasty Cisco is scaring us! Our rabid fans will defend us, and Cisco will back down to avoid bad PR!" Unfortunately, rabid Apple followers are actually so blasted deluded that they actually DID this.
I knew that Girlfriend song sounded like something else I've heard. Yes she can get in trouble if she sampled a song, music or words and didn't get permission to do it, but that has nothing to do with Apple so I don't see why they're going after Apple for it. Same thing happened with Vanilla Ice with Ice Ice Baby and the Play the Funky Music songs. He sampled Queen's bass line from Under Pressure and didn't get permission and he used the "play that funky music white boy" line from the orginal song and didn't get permission. The guy who wrote that song got a nice chunk of cash from Vanilla Ice.
Second one: Get the **** out. Seriously. The people suing this should be shot in the face. It's not Apple's job to regulate the music industry, they just sell the music. If Apple is liable, then every single store that sells CDs and every radio station that plays the song is liable for this. This will certainly be thrown out.
I think those guys are full of ****... going by the sounds of it she would have changed more that the work boyfriend to girlfriend...
When Louie Psihoyos is asked to illustrate a big concept, such as the mega-channelled future of cable TV for a 1995 National Geographic shoot, he takes the assignment literally. This composite image, using multiple exposures of 100 TV monitors, was recently used in an AOL ad and sells a dozen or more times per month.
Copyright © Louie Psihoyos/Science Faction Images
This one was made by him?
The 2nd is stupid, though.
2nd: no.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.