Apple hit with Apple TV, iTunes lawsuits

While the first case may have merit... The second is BS! why the hell would u sue Apple for selling a song that someone else wrote? Apple just has rights to distribute the song, which was given to them by the record company. The suit should be limited to the record company or Avril herself.. Apple cannot be held liable!

Rights and feelings don't constitute a grounds for trademark or copyright infringement. It is unlikely he registered this picture as a trademark which means the only grounds would be on copyright infringement. If this is a new image which simply bears resemblance to the other then that doesn't work either.

Neither case has obvious merit and it would not be surprising if Apple makes no statements about such cases.

@eldarkus: in copyright law, there's what's called "contributory infringement." You don't have to knowingly sell something that's infringing in order to be held secondarily liable. If Apple were indeed put on notice, then, liability can also arise under "willful infringement" doctrines. All depends on the specific facts of the case, of which we have virtually none. @ttrostel: (1) the violation of an author's feelings is indeed a cognizable action - beyond just copyright law - in many countries, and vindicating "rights" are what lawsuits are all about! (2) you cannot register a photographic work as a trade designator under US trademark law. (3) the author of this picture could indeed have a copyright suit, ESPECIALLY if the later work bears sufficient similarity (look & feel) to the original. (4) Liability for infringement can result, EVEN IF the author hadn't registered the copyright at the time of the alleged infringement.

I'd recommend that we all leave the expert opinions those who specialize in it. There's a reason that it takes three years of school and a bar exam. At the very least, a good rule of thumb: don't make wild assertions without first doing some legitimate research. We all give the readers of this fora and others very misleading information when we do otherwise...

There both off base and have no legal grounds. Just because it may look close doesn't mean it's a copy. Apple looks like it uses it's own images and therefore there is no grounds for that suit. The other suit if Apple got permission to use the song then there is also no case period!

Don't mean jack to the innocent folk in prison. Nor does it mean Jack for the screwy Supreme Court decisions of late.

i'm aware of contributory infringement - "contributory infringement, requires (1) knowledge of the infringing activity and (2) a material contribution -- actual assistance or inducement -- to the alleged piracy."

So in this case, they would have to prove Apple had knowledge of the illegal activity by the record company. Good luck with that!!!! :)

Someone must REALLY de desperate for a buck! I think they'd have better luck on the street!

Copyright covers form but not idea. It applies to the tangible artistic result -- known as the "form of material expression" -- not the underlying concept. So your photograph has copyright, but not the idea or viewpoint behind it. For example, if you take a great photo of some natural thing, such as a beach or Yosemite Valley, you can't stop other people from taking the same photo.

This is copyright law as written in the United States. I cannot comment on laws of other countries.

I think youre right. The photographer holds the copyright to the photo and not the idea. I have seen the same ideas regurgitated over and over in many photographs.. hence why the word cliche is used so often (think girls naughty bits wrapped in caution tape as a prime example.)

and besides.. isn't the whole wall of TV thing from Matrix anyways? :)

Ok my creative thought is breathing so everyone on the planet better pay up because they are infringing on my creative rights on "breathing".

Avil wrote a song that seems simular to another and Apple is held liable just because they distributed it? So they would also have to include Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, and every record store that carries the album as well since they also sell this widely popular album.

It is truly sad that in the end laziness is popular that people are still trying to come up with far fetched ways to be a millionare and not have to work.

Fat? Sue McDonalds. Burn yourself on Hot Coffee out of stupidity? Sue McDonalds. Drop a toaster in the bathtub and fail to kill your self? Sue someone.

Bah what a waste. These lawsuits will never make it because they are really too far fetched.

This could be a good campaign to get off of crack though. Maybe I should sue for that since it is my "creative idea"

ROFLMAO