Hi All,

 Check out this link pretty funny. http://gizmodo.com/5669827/apples-lion-is-extreme-right-political-party-symbol

Best,
Jonathan

I guess when it was revealed they approached owner to buy it exclusively :-)

but since it is sold as RF before, there is no way to buy it exclusively right? even they make an agreement with the seller not selling that image anymore but the previous buyer of that RF image is still having the rights to use that image, right?

but i agree it will stop more usage of that image comes out, so it is kind of salvage for the worst scenario?

i assume a designer working with apple knows what is RF and RM..why make a mistake like this again?

Quote from: melastmohican on October 28, 2010, 11:29

I guess when it was revealed they approached owner to buy it exclusively :-)

That's my take. Seems like if Apple approached the owner for exclusivity, it would have been done before the purchase and the ad being released. Maybe Apple doesn't care if it's used other places, or maybe the owner lied to Apple and said it was exclusive but it actually wasn't. Who knows, but it's pretty freakin' funny! To me it's another case of "are you going to have me believe that Apple doesn't have the money to pay a photographer for an original shot?" Guess times are tough all over. And I would think that Apple would be a prime client for the likes of Getty.

I think there was one professional model who at some stage did a shoot for a microstock photographer.

She was later rejected from a top modeling contact because someone had used the microstock image and 'ported' it to sell cheap adult entertainment on billboards.

Yeah, this is bad.  It's a good idea to warn your models about this sort of thing if they want to pursue a serious modeling career. 

Hi All,

 Check out this link pretty funny. http://gizmodo.com/5669827/apples-lion-is-extreme-right-political-party-symbol

Best,
Jonathan

Wonder why they couldn't at least have bought an RM photo and got exclusive use of that. I know times are hard, but that's just embarrassing.

Another possible reason why the lion is not anymore on FT,SS etc. It is very obviously a picture shot in a Zoo, and I highly doubt the photographer got a property-release for it. That could be result in big problems for Apple AND the photographer.

I don't really see anything that says zoo. It's a close-up of a lion's head. Oh but wait...I'll bet the lion has some distinguishing mark that allows the zoo/owner/whoever to completely say without a doubt that that lion is their lion and therefore no one has the rights to use it! Sounds preposterous, but I guarantee it's coming, if it's not here already. Yikes.

The dark 'spots' which their whiskers 'come out of' are distinctive, like fingerprints, so lions can be individualy identified.

Interesting. I have heard that zebras are individually marked also.

However, Sean has posted a link to a site by some USian legal expert who says that zoo animals can be used in RF stock unless they are a particular animal which is a particular draw to that zoo. E.g. I noticed that Memphis Zoo said that its pandas (only) were trademarked (actually, it might only have been the names of the pandas. The wording was 'Ya Ya and Le Le are trademarks of Memphis Zoo".

Yes I have heard that too. For instance, you could not use pictures of Shamu.

I think it really shows how Apple even after that massive 4billion plus profit after expenses, is still cutting costs whenever they can. I am quite sure they would have had to pay around 10k for just the day rental of the lion plus the photographer expenses. I say they looked pretty darn cheap!

Funny 

Hi CC,

 When we use a persons horse or dog for a stock shoot we need a release from the owner of the animal, I wonder if the owner of the lion signed or was he just shot at a zoo. Interesting point thanks for pointing it out.

Since the top image is a poor isolation, how do you know it isn't a wild lion extracted from a natural background?

That's another good point Sue. I wonder if wild life sanctuaries allow images without property release or if it's just a wild lion. Seems pretty hard to pin down with a lion.

I can't find the original reference that I've seen Sean reference a couple of times, but here's one, specifically with re San Diego Zoo from Photo Attorney http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=121:

"First, the Zoological Society never cites a law to support its �policy� because selling photos taken there does not break any laws. Second, selling images in a gallery or on the Internet does not necessarily qualify as a �commercial� use. Third, the Zoological Society may not rely on a term on the ticket/receipt as binding since a person would have not noticed it at or before the contract was entered into when acquiring the ticket (hence the need for �I Agree� check boxes on websites and shrink wrap packaging on software signifying your agreement for the license).

An increasing number of organizations are complaining about photographs of their property. A list can be found on the Picture Archive Council of America�s website. They make all kinds of claims � trademark violations, trespassing, property ownership/control � but none of them are supported by law except for protection of other copyrighted works (statues, but not buildings) and in a very few cases, trademark infringement/dilution."

As I mentioned above, at Memphis Zoo, the only mention I could see, and I looked very carefully, was on a brochure someone else had discarded (I wasn't even given one!) which said that "Memphis Zoo", "Ye Ye" and "Lee Lee" are trademarks of Memphis Zoo. That was all, and it could be that it was only the names of the pandas which were trademarked, not the actual pandas themselves. (You can easily recognise individual pandas by the shape of their dark eye patches).

That of course if based on US Law. An animal collection in the UK used to have a clause on its tickets prohibiting 'commercial use' - this clause was visible nowhere else (e.g. website, adverts), and they advertised 'Photographers' Special Days' from time to time. I questioned one of their admins about it, and he admitted it had no standing in law. The clause isn't on their tickets any more.

Hi Sue,

Great info thank you for sharing and educating. Many agencies ask for releases on dogs and horses. Getty is one in their Macro collections. We have had to comply on several occasions.

Hi Sue,

Great info thank you for sharing and educating. Many agencies ask for releases on dogs and horses. Getty is one in their Macro collections. We have had to comply on several occasions.

From time to time on iStock, the same issue has come up on the forums, but I can't remember what the current 'bottom line' is, since the forum search feature is grim and searching 'pet property release' didn't help. I've had some horses accepted recently without PRs. {Of course, I've altered the blaze pattern!) But if often depends which inspector you get.

Well - at least lion on Apple's ad is much better masked out.