6 ms·

It's cool that Apple's using your stuff, it's not cool they're not giving you attribution. I'd add a JGuitar url and copyright notice to all your images, so th

It's cool that Apple's using your stuff, it's not cool they're not giving you attribution. I'd add a JGuitar url and copyright notice to all your images, so that this is displayed in Apple's results, and also call a lawyer.

geoah 8y ago
I really don't get why people suggest lawyers and c&d letters as step 1. Yes apple could have done this better and they should -- but why not just have a chat with apple before you go nuclear?
- hiergiltdiestfu 8y ago
  "For exposure......." Well they are placing an increased load onto the side and get nice resources for free, not even doing the cheapest form of flattery: attribution. That's happening a million times on the internet each day, where pictures and other copyrighted materials are redistributed without consent or attribution, and it's ridiculous that the currently most valuable company on earth feels the need to be a cheapskate about that, too. People lost their mind when Google did something like that in their image search, and unlike Apple, they provided attribution and a prime backlink. If Apple likes the service so much, they could just have bought it entirely and it wouldn't even show up in their balance, so proper attribution, and maybe ask the provider if he/she can handle the additional load, or even provide some support to handle the load, would just have been fair, don't you think?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- fredley 8y ago
  I agree, I'm not saying they should engage in litigation, just that talking to a lawyer to understand exactly where the law stands on such behavior is probably going to be useful when it comes to talking to Apple, particularly if they don't respond.
- aequitas 8y ago
  I think a lot of people feel that if it was the other way around (people using Apple copyrighted material) they would get a lawyer on their ass in no time. However it is debatable since Apple is 'only' providing a template/example which the user must actively turn into a 'shortcut' to have this functionality. Or at least that's how I understand this feature works. Then again, I think Apple surely could do a better job in attribution toward the sources. Maybe a standard for website owners to provide meta info with a fallback to the website URL.
  - robertlagrant 8y ago
    > However it is debatable since Apple is 'only' providing a template/example which the user must actively turn into a 'shortcut' to have this functionality. Or at least that's how I understand this feature works. According to the linked site, this is a premade shortcut that Apple supplied, not something the user needs to create. Just click install and it works, was how I read it.
- fredsted 8y ago
  > have a chat with apple How would you even do that?
  - laurent123456 8y ago
    Get on the front page of Hacker News.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  A person who represents themselves has a fool for a lawyer. A lawyer is a disinterested third party, who ought to know how to initiate negotiations without any emotional attachment. I know for myself I’d at least want to have a legal expert review anything I indended on sending, as otherwise I may inadvertently shoot myself in the foot.
- yAnonymous 8y ago
  >I really don't get why people suggest lawyers and c&d letters as step 1. Because that's exactly what Apple would do if you used their stuff without permission?
huhtenberg 8y ago
Apple essentially repackaged this guy's work, used it to enhance their own product in a way that all but eliminates any need to ever visit his website or even know it exists. Excellent.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  not only that - he was grateful for them to do so!
  - diyod 8y ago
    Apple invented outsourcing api support to some of their fans, that's new.
- adriand 8y ago
  Crazy thought, but, what if the primary motivation of the creator of JGuitar has nothing to do with his website, his reputation, etc.? For example, what if his primary motivation is to do something useful for others? What if his primary motivation is just to improve the enjoyment of people who like playing guitar? I agree that Apple should have handled this differently. At the same time, I think we should honour this guy's attitude. It's refreshing and if we all behaved that way - major corporations included - the world would be a better place. This story reminds me a little bit of the guy who made Flappy Bird, earned millions in ad revenue, then shut it down at its peak because he didn't want people to be addicted to it. Almost impossible for most of us to fathom, given that most of us are motivated by money. But it's nice to see that some people act according to different motivations.
  - tpush 8y ago
    > Crazy thought, but, what if the primary motivation of the creator of JGuitar has nothing to do with his website, his reputation, etc.? For example, what if his primary motivation is to do something useful for others? What if his primary motivation is just to improve the enjoyment of people who like playing guitar? The whole point is that Apple never asked for this guy's opinion. That he's OK with what Apple's doing is a happy coincidence, and the next guy whose work they're going to use may have a different opinion.
archi42 8y ago
I bet it's a nice feeling to get this kind of "your work is cool". But this would probably violate copyrights law (unless he uses e.g. a attribution-less CC variant). And Apple is but above that. I would also want to make sure Apple doesn't accidentally DDoS my service - I mean, if this gets broader use and if the service does not scale well this could be an issue. Or if it scales too well via AWS (doesn't seem the case here), there could be a huge surprise bill coming in. If I'd use some non-public Apple API without asking them for written permission (or strip content from their site) I bet all hell would break loose.
executesorder66 8y ago
> I'd add a JGuitar url and copyright notice to all your images If it was my site, I would have just replaced each image with goatse, if the user agent string was "Shortcuts/700 CFNetwork/974.2.1 Darwin/18.0.0"
- fredley 8y ago
  Acting childishly will just make everyone's day worse: Apple's, customers (and children) who see the image's, and ultimately yours too, when all that shit lands on your doorstep. Asserting your rights while finding a way forward that benefits both you and Apple is going to play out much better in the long run. Apple is almost certainly just negligent in this case (it's a data stream in an app they bought), not maliciously stealing content.
l5870uoo9y 8y ago
Is it realistic, as a private person, to take a company like Apple to court?
- Ws32ok 8y ago
  Yes. Depending on how you approach it. Get legal advice. Various courts operating at local level can do surprising things. Like impose small fines or settlements, as well as pass judgements if the company doesn’t turn up.
catoc 8y ago
Why call a lawyer? The OP put something on the internet with the intention for others to use it. Apple used it. Is there anything on his site (terms,"rules") that indicate what Apple is doing is considered non-acceptable use? Shouldn't we be happy the world can still work like this - bottom-up implementation with presumably good intentions - instead of having to talk to lawyers before every tiny step we take? We're taking about looking up a guitar chord for crying out loud. Of course better attribution is desirable. Why not let this be Step 2. I admit a bad turnout could be an unexpectedly high bill for the OP. And I would assume Apple to turn a deaf ear if he'd requested them to help pay that bill. But aren't those the consequences of putting up a public API? @asaph If you want: please follow up on this and let HN know how this plays out. What course of action you took, how Apple responded (if at all) Congrats... I guess [Edit: typo]
- torarnv 8y ago
  Did he put up a public API? From the post it looks like the shortcut is constructing a search result url, and then scraping the photo out of that page.
  - kowdermeister 8y ago
    Every URL is kind of an API. Some returns HTML, some JSON. If I write a custom browser that only loads images from web pages then I'm abusing the internet?
    - catoc 8y ago
      "Every URL is kind of an API" That is exactly what I meant, but better phrased - thanks.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      You're not abusing the web IMO, however, if you sell that browser there's a good case for contributory copyright infringement as you'd be commercial aiding others in making derivative works from the website owners content.
onion2k 8y ago
I'd add a JGuitar url and copyright notice to all your images, so that this is displayed in Apple's results, and also call a lawyer. That's because you're a nice person. I'd return images that were wrong and let Apple Support deal with users thinking their new feature was broken.
- martinraag 8y ago
  I’m genuinely stumped that anyone would even think of doing that. It would cause a lot of headache for the end users, while I doubt it would even put a dent in Apples Support.
  - onion2k 8y ago
    Everything I know about end users I got from reading BOFH posts. http://bofh.bjash.com/ http://bofh.bjash.com/
  - cdash 8y ago
    They are not your end users, they are Apple's.
- briandear 8y ago
  Childish.
jbeales 8y ago
It's not Apple that's using his stuff, it's the end user. Apple is providing software that enables the user to do so, but saying "Apple's using your stuff" here is like saying Mozilla foundation is "using your stuff" every time someone visits the website with Firefox or Thomas E. Dickey is "using your stuff" every time someone visits the website using Lynx. It would be cool if Apple had reached out to him, but as other commenters have mentioned this integration has existed for a long time in the Workflow app, so it's not even new.
nielsbjerg 8y ago
What would be the point of the passive agressive behaviour? If the intention is to get Apple to pony up some cash, he should reach out directly to them with valid concerns over traffic etc. If the point is self-promotion, he inadvertently got that now. I think the approach chosen is the right one

geoah 8y ago

I really don't get why people suggest lawyers and c&d letters as step 1. Yes apple could have done this better and they should -- but why not just have a chat with apple before you go nuclear?

hiergiltdiestfu 8y ago
"For exposure......." Well they are placing an increased load onto the side and get nice resources for free, not even doing the cheapest form of flattery: attribution. That's happening a million times on the internet each day, where pictures and other copyrighted materials are redistributed without consent or attribution, and it's ridiculous that the currently most valuable company on earth feels the need to be a cheapskate about that, too. People lost their mind when Google did something like that in their image search, and unlike Apple, they provided attribution and a prime backlink. If Apple likes the service so much, they could just have bought it entirely and it wouldn't even show up in their balance, so proper attribution, and maybe ask the provider if he/she can handle the additional load, or even provide some support to handle the load, would just have been fair, don't you think?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fredley 8y ago
I agree, I'm not saying they should engage in litigation, just that talking to a lawyer to understand exactly where the law stands on such behavior is probably going to be useful when it comes to talking to Apple, particularly if they don't respond.
aequitas 8y ago
I think a lot of people feel that if it was the other way around (people using Apple copyrighted material) they would get a lawyer on their ass in no time. However it is debatable since Apple is 'only' providing a template/example which the user must actively turn into a 'shortcut' to have this functionality. Or at least that's how I understand this feature works. Then again, I think Apple surely could do a better job in attribution toward the sources. Maybe a standard for website owners to provide meta info with a fallback to the website URL.
- robertlagrant 8y ago
  > However it is debatable since Apple is 'only' providing a template/example which the user must actively turn into a 'shortcut' to have this functionality. Or at least that's how I understand this feature works. According to the linked site, this is a premade shortcut that Apple supplied, not something the user needs to create. Just click install and it works, was how I read it.
fredsted 8y ago
> have a chat with apple How would you even do that?
- laurent123456 8y ago
  Get on the front page of Hacker News.
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
A person who represents themselves has a fool for a lawyer. A lawyer is a disinterested third party, who ought to know how to initiate negotiations without any emotional attachment. I know for myself I’d at least want to have a legal expert review anything I indended on sending, as otherwise I may inadvertently shoot myself in the foot.
yAnonymous 8y ago
>I really don't get why people suggest lawyers and c&d letters as step 1. Because that's exactly what Apple would do if you used their stuff without permission?

huhtenberg 8y ago

Apple essentially repackaged this guy's work, used it to enhance their own product in a way that all but eliminates any need to ever visit his website or even know it exists. Excellent.

beaconstudios 8y ago
not only that - he was grateful for them to do so!
- diyod 8y ago
  Apple invented outsourcing api support to some of their fans, that's new.
adriand 8y ago
Crazy thought, but, what if the primary motivation of the creator of JGuitar has nothing to do with his website, his reputation, etc.? For example, what if his primary motivation is to do something useful for others? What if his primary motivation is just to improve the enjoyment of people who like playing guitar? I agree that Apple should have handled this differently. At the same time, I think we should honour this guy's attitude. It's refreshing and if we all behaved that way - major corporations included - the world would be a better place. This story reminds me a little bit of the guy who made Flappy Bird, earned millions in ad revenue, then shut it down at its peak because he didn't want people to be addicted to it. Almost impossible for most of us to fathom, given that most of us are motivated by money. But it's nice to see that some people act according to different motivations.
- tpush 8y ago
  > Crazy thought, but, what if the primary motivation of the creator of JGuitar has nothing to do with his website, his reputation, etc.? For example, what if his primary motivation is to do something useful for others? What if his primary motivation is just to improve the enjoyment of people who like playing guitar? The whole point is that Apple never asked for this guy's opinion. That he's OK with what Apple's doing is a happy coincidence, and the next guy whose work they're going to use may have a different opinion.

archi42 8y ago

I bet it's a nice feeling to get this kind of "your work is cool". But this would probably violate copyrights law (unless he uses e.g. a attribution-less CC variant). And Apple is but above that. I would also want to make sure Apple doesn't accidentally DDoS my service - I mean, if this gets broader use and if the service does not scale well this could be an issue. Or if it scales too well via AWS (doesn't seem the case here), there could be a huge surprise bill coming in. If I'd use some non-public Apple API without asking them for written permission (or strip content from their site) I bet all hell would break loose.

executesorder66 8y ago

> I'd add a JGuitar url and copyright notice to all your images If it was my site, I would have just replaced each image with goatse, if the user agent string was "Shortcuts/700 CFNetwork/974.2.1 Darwin/18.0.0"

fredley 8y ago
Acting childishly will just make everyone's day worse: Apple's, customers (and children) who see the image's, and ultimately yours too, when all that shit lands on your doorstep. Asserting your rights while finding a way forward that benefits both you and Apple is going to play out much better in the long run. Apple is almost certainly just negligent in this case (it's a data stream in an app they bought), not maliciously stealing content.

l5870uoo9y 8y ago

Is it realistic, as a private person, to take a company like Apple to court?

Ws32ok 8y ago
Yes. Depending on how you approach it. Get legal advice. Various courts operating at local level can do surprising things. Like impose small fines or settlements, as well as pass judgements if the company doesn’t turn up.

catoc 8y ago

Why call a lawyer? The OP put something on the internet with the intention for others to use it. Apple used it. Is there anything on his site (terms,"rules") that indicate what Apple is doing is considered non-acceptable use? Shouldn't we be happy the world can still work like this - bottom-up implementation with presumably good intentions - instead of having to talk to lawyers before every tiny step we take? We're taking about looking up a guitar chord for crying out loud. Of course better attribution is desirable. Why not let this be Step 2. I admit a bad turnout could be an unexpectedly high bill for the OP. And I would assume Apple to turn a deaf ear if he'd requested them to help pay that bill. But aren't those the consequences of putting up a public API? @asaph If you want: please follow up on this and let HN know how this plays out. What course of action you took, how Apple responded (if at all) Congrats... I guess [Edit: typo]

torarnv 8y ago
Did he put up a public API? From the post it looks like the shortcut is constructing a search result url, and then scraping the photo out of that page.
- kowdermeister 8y ago
  Every URL is kind of an API. Some returns HTML, some JSON. If I write a custom browser that only loads images from web pages then I'm abusing the internet?
  - catoc 8y ago
    "Every URL is kind of an API" That is exactly what I meant, but better phrased - thanks.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    You're not abusing the web IMO, however, if you sell that browser there's a good case for contributory copyright infringement as you'd be commercial aiding others in making derivative works from the website owners content.

onion2k 8y ago

I'd add a JGuitar url and copyright notice to all your images, so that this is displayed in Apple's results, and also call a lawyer. That's because you're a nice person. I'd return images that were wrong and let Apple Support deal with users thinking their new feature was broken.

martinraag 8y ago
I’m genuinely stumped that anyone would even think of doing that. It would cause a lot of headache for the end users, while I doubt it would even put a dent in Apples Support.
- onion2k 8y ago
  Everything I know about end users I got from reading BOFH posts. http://bofh.bjash.com/ http://bofh.bjash.com/
- cdash 8y ago
  They are not your end users, they are Apple's.
briandear 8y ago
Childish.

jbeales 8y ago

It's not Apple that's using his stuff, it's the end user. Apple is providing software that enables the user to do so, but saying "Apple's using your stuff" here is like saying Mozilla foundation is "using your stuff" every time someone visits the website with Firefox or Thomas E. Dickey is "using your stuff" every time someone visits the website using Lynx. It would be cool if Apple had reached out to him, but as other commenters have mentioned this integration has existed for a long time in the Workflow app, so it's not even new.

nielsbjerg 8y ago

What would be the point of the passive agressive behaviour? If the intention is to get Apple to pony up some cash, he should reach out directly to them with valid concerns over traffic etc. If the point is self-promotion, he inadvertently got that now. I think the approach chosen is the right one