∞ Apple sued for using copyrighted photo in TV ad

Written by

New York-based photographer Taea Thale is suing Apple for using one of her copyrighted photos in an iPhone television ad.

[ad#Google Adsense 300x250 in story]According to the court documents, Thale took photos of the band “She and Him,” which Apple used in the commercial. Thale’s lawyers say she only authorized one license of the photo to Merge Media for limited use in magazines and posters.

No license was ever granted to Apple, according to the lawsuit.

What’s interesting is that the iPhone “Concert Commercial” in question only shows a picture of the band’s album cover and a picture of the band when buying tickets for a concert.

It doesn’t seem like Apple used the photo in any way that isn’t publicly available.


  • Dice

    Apple then needs to look into her album sales (increase) since that commercial has aired & request for the amount to be paid to Apple then.

    • http://www.loopinsight.com Jim Dalrymple

      LOL!

    • Gustav

      Who? The band isn’t suing Apple. The photographer is. However, if she is suing over the album cover, then I doubt she’ll have leg to stand on. But the second photo, it’s quite possible that she only authorized that photo to the web site in question.

      • Anonymous

        Well she actually does have a leg to stand on. but not with Apple. The notion of acting in good faith will likely get Apple out of any trouble because they would have the developer’s signing off on having all the appropriate copyrights etc. Apple can’t be expected to assume that everyone is lying and checking every single item in every app

  • Anonymous

    Think she will have a tough time winning that lawsuit. 

  • http://rob53.myopenid.com/ rob53

    Most of this was cover art and I would hope Apple has permission to use cover art from the Label and/or artist. If they don’t, then I assume Apple wouldn’t be able to include it in their iTunes sale. Taea needs to check with the Label if she has a problem with distribution rights.

  • Anonymous

    Just because a photo is “publicly available” doesn’t mean that it’s licensed for use in an ad. How the photo got into the app matters as well as the terms of that license, if any. 

    • http://twitter.com/Questional Questional

      This is true- and symptomatic of a growing point of view that if its on the internet its fair game. Though looking through the ad i do have to wonder what the exact scenario is. Having put music on iTunes I know that they do reserve the right to ‘use’ your art in that way. As for the other photo it seemed to be shown in context of a website… Is meta-use a copyright violation? Probably, but just more example of how confusing laws can be with digital properties. 

  • Anonymous

    Show me the money!$!$!$

  • http://twitter.com/veggiedude Tony Martin

    Seems like the photographer should be suing the band, not Apple, because ultimately it is they who signed of on this and gave permission for the material to be used.

  • Player_16

    If you Google ‘El Ray Theatre – She & Him’, that picture shows up with the date.

    ‘Patent’ trolls come in all forms, don’t they?

    • Big Shorty

      @Player16:disqus Being able to find a photo with Google hardly makes it free to use commercially. I’m no fan of current copyright law, but arguments such as “publicly available” and “findable with Google” have nothing to do with the issue.

      • Player_16

        It’s not just the photo, it’s the entire ad for the event that can still be found. Where’s the water mark? Where’s the copyright symbol? Where’s the small print that says “reproduction of all or part of this advertisment is prohibited by law” or words to that effect?

        She should be shaking ‘Merge Media’ for not taking copyright precautions of her ‘limited licensed work’ being displayed on the interweb.

        • John

          Unfortunately, this post demonstrates a common but erroneous understanding of U.S. copyright law.  So to generally answer your questions; watermarks, symbols, and small print are completely unnecessary.  The thinking that you can just use anyone’s work you find on the internet unless they specifically tell you that you can’t will get you in trouble.

          • Player_16

            Can you tell me why was Apple allowed to use that commercial ad in their commercial ad with no reference to it being an registered product?

          • Big Shorty

            You’re just not even making sense anymore. You seem to have some strange version of copyright law that exists only in your head.

          • John

            This post really makes no sense. Apple was sued. That means they were NOT allowed to use that photograph in their commercial but they did it anyway. Do you even understand the concept that sometimes people do things they aren’t supposed to, and that’s why they get sued?

  • sip

    Is that commercial by AT&T, Apple, or a joint venture? And when did Apple run a commercial for the 3GS?