5 ms·

How the heck does one copyright a whole-ass image of an apple, wtf?

by xslvrxslwt 3y ago

world-set-free 3y ago
It is suprising what you can do with hundreds of lawyers and several congressmen.
- amarant 3y ago
  It's especially surprising considering those congressmen should in theory have exactly 0 power over anything in the country where this lawsuit is taking place. But honestly, Apple has bitten a bitter fruit on this one; there's no way they'll win this.
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    Well, they look like bunch of arrogant clueless idiots to whole world (I am seeing this story in various tabloids across Europe), if that was their mission then congrats to success. It will also alienate non-trivial part of Swiss population, who are (rightly) patriotic to everything Swiss-made or grown. Few millions of direct losses in one of the wealthiest (albeit small) markets globally. Is somebody from brexit team, ie Boris Johnson employed as consultant on this brilliantly executed move?
- DrScientist 3y ago
  You are being slightly US centric there - while what you say may be true in the US - I don't think congressmen have much influence in the Swiss Courts. Lawyer point still stands of course.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  (Which simplifies down to "an obscene amount of money to throw at lawsuits".)
hnbad 3y ago
Trademark, not copyright. The weird thing is the expectation that trademarking an apple could be done in a way that is broad enough to cover all apple-based logos across all industries. I'm not sure how accurate this portrayal is given that Apple does indeed not sell fruit and the logo in question is likely pre-existing and does not actually resemble anything Apple has likely tried to file. Trade dress or so-called "design patents" are a different matter (see Apple suing over every smartphone copying its design of "a slate of glass with a camera cut-out and maybe a button" or German Telekom pretty much holding the exclusive rights to a specific shade of magenta in tech-adjacent products).
- amarant 3y ago
  The "infringing party" has existed and used this logo since a good 50 years before Apple Inc was founded. I kinda hope the Swiss Apple company turns this around and sues Apple for trademark infringement, since they can prove using it for longer, and according to Apples own argument, the fact that they're in completely different industries apparently doesn't matter. Would be fun to see Tim Cook announce the new "Banana iPhone" as a result of this suit getting turned around
  - Retric 3y ago
    First their isn’t a lawsuit, just someone concerned about hypotheticals. Neither party is infringing until Apple sells actual fruit or the fruit company starts making tablets etc. The only point of contention is likely Apple making Movies and other entertainment which could create conflict if the fruit company wants to make a documentary at some point in the future.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    It's a phone with appeal!
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > logo in question is likely pre-existing If the logo exists longer than Apple does, isn't Apple the one commiting infringement? Isn't this an open and shut case?
littlestymaar 3y ago
Nitpick: it's not copyright, trademarks are part of Industrial property[1] and have different legislation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_property
tinus_hn 3y ago
One does not. If an image is created, it is copyrighted automatically. But copyright is not what this article is about. It’s about trademarks.
as_bntd 3y ago
It is just this logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps WARNING, a download link: https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2...

How the heck does one copyright a whole-ass image of an apple, wtf?

world-set-free 3y ago

It is suprising what you can do with hundreds of lawyers and several congressmen.

amarant 3y ago
It's especially surprising considering those congressmen should in theory have exactly 0 power over anything in the country where this lawsuit is taking place. But honestly, Apple has bitten a bitter fruit on this one; there's no way they'll win this.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  Well, they look like bunch of arrogant clueless idiots to whole world (I am seeing this story in various tabloids across Europe), if that was their mission then congrats to success. It will also alienate non-trivial part of Swiss population, who are (rightly) patriotic to everything Swiss-made or grown. Few millions of direct losses in one of the wealthiest (albeit small) markets globally. Is somebody from brexit team, ie Boris Johnson employed as consultant on this brilliantly executed move?
DrScientist 3y ago
You are being slightly US centric there - while what you say may be true in the US - I don't think congressmen have much influence in the Swiss Courts. Lawyer point still stands of course.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
(Which simplifies down to "an obscene amount of money to throw at lawsuits".)

hnbad 3y ago

Trademark, not copyright. The weird thing is the expectation that trademarking an apple could be done in a way that is broad enough to cover all apple-based logos across all industries. I'm not sure how accurate this portrayal is given that Apple does indeed not sell fruit and the logo in question is likely pre-existing and does not actually resemble anything Apple has likely tried to file. Trade dress or so-called "design patents" are a different matter (see Apple suing over every smartphone copying its design of "a slate of glass with a camera cut-out and maybe a button" or German Telekom pretty much holding the exclusive rights to a specific shade of magenta in tech-adjacent products).

amarant 3y ago
The "infringing party" has existed and used this logo since a good 50 years before Apple Inc was founded. I kinda hope the Swiss Apple company turns this around and sues Apple for trademark infringement, since they can prove using it for longer, and according to Apples own argument, the fact that they're in completely different industries apparently doesn't matter. Would be fun to see Tim Cook announce the new "Banana iPhone" as a result of this suit getting turned around
- Retric 3y ago
  First their isn’t a lawsuit, just someone concerned about hypotheticals. Neither party is infringing until Apple sells actual fruit or the fruit company starts making tablets etc. The only point of contention is likely Apple making Movies and other entertainment which could create conflict if the fruit company wants to make a documentary at some point in the future.
- ta1243 3y ago
  It's a phone with appeal!
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> logo in question is likely pre-existing If the logo exists longer than Apple does, isn't Apple the one commiting infringement? Isn't this an open and shut case?

littlestymaar 3y ago

Nitpick: it's not copyright, trademarks are part of Industrial property[1] and have different legislation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_property

tinus_hn 3y ago

One does not. If an image is created, it is copyrighted automatically. But copyright is not what this article is about. It’s about trademarks.

as_bntd 3y ago

It is just this logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps WARNING, a download link: https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2...