Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by sledwreck13, Mar 7, 2012.
Designers use stock photos all the time. Who else did you think is the major market for stock photo agencies?
I'm puzzled at why this would be out of the ordinary?
Sure, designers use stock photos all the time... but I would think design concious Apple would either come up with something more unique than a stock photo that has been downloaded 9400 times.
...and then leave it essentially the same as the stock photo.
...and then not buy the exclusive rights to the photo - anyone can still license the photo and use it in a salacious manner.
...and someone else could still buy the exclusive rights to the image and potentially cause issues for Apple's further use of the image.
It just doesn't strike me as very business wise.
The screen has such resolution that you can see the watermark.
What exactly is wrong with using a stock photo in your opinion?
Alright, I don't know if you noticed this or not, but it's an icon on a website. It isn't a product design, and as far as I can tell, it isn't even a stock iApp icon. No big deal really...
I'm likely wrong, so don't quote me but if I'm not mistaken, because it's been downloaded (purchased) 9400 times, it would be hard to prove "exclusive rights", let alone sue Apple over it.
Redundant and.. I think you are fighting a losing battle.
Geez, you're right!! They should fire the designer responsible. </sarcasm> Do you really think Apple should take a unique photo or pay ludicrous amounts of money (as apposed to a insignificant licensing fee) for every little icon they use on their website? And that's supposed to be business wise. There is a reason stock photo sites are popular.
I stand by my original comment.
Trust Apple to use iStockphoto
Nothing wrong at all. Its the *way* it is used that is my point here.
Using a stock photo to visually enhance an article? Perfect.
Using part of a stock photo as an element of a larger design? Wonderful.
Using a common stock photo as a logo for a major product feature? Come on.
I mean using a stock photo as the logo on Bob's Landscaping business card I can understand... $500 billion Apple using it as a logo for world renowned Retina Display though?
Yeah, you're right.
You miss my point. The image is still available for license. That means Apple has no control over the brand association.
For example, what is stopping this from being NAmbLa's new logo?
First off, its hardly a battle. More of a discussion. Secondly, if I were to strike a deal with the owner of the image to buy exclusive rights of the photo it wouldn't affect any existing sales/licenses of the image retroactively. Going forward however, if Apple wanted to use the image for other means... that is a different story.
I'm starting to think you work at Apple and designed the Retina Display logo.
Wow. You paint with an incredibly wide brush.
Again, no... nothing wrong with using a photo of some hipster drinking a Starbucks and using his iPad for the site. Also nothing wrong with purchasing a stock vector image of a left or right arrow for site navigation.
But we aren't talking about those kinds of elements. We are talking about a brand identifiable logo that represents an Apple specific, major product feature. Big difference.
I'm with you OP. Interesting find! I don't know why so many people are being smart @sses or getting offended.
Steve Jobs paid half a million dollars to a design company to create the NeXT logo, I know Steve Jobs doesn't own Apple anymore, but they are still using the same business sense that he used to make it a great company.
It's a graphical representation of a feature, not a logo. Let's keep to the facts. Also see my last comment about their investment in the graphic. Also, a major product feature is most definitely part of a larger design. A damn good one too.
Okay, so they used it at a keynote. I would especially use a iStock photo at a keynote to be honest. And outside of the event type environment, where is it used? A tiny icon on a website. Personally, I still don't see how this is a big deal. The other way to look at it in reference to Apple being a $400 billion company is this, time is also a cost. The time to take the photo would most likely be worth more than the cost of licensing fees. Especially if you were dealing with a photographer and a graphic artist separately! I think Apple has more to worry about that one obscure graphic.
We're not talking about a product (physical or digital) here, just a feature. (And for those about the argue that Apple is all about detail, the fact that they included this graphic at all is a pure testament to that fact!)
Haha, i wish I was the designer and fair enough about it not being a 'fight'. I used the wrong word, but I wasn't sure it would become a discussion. At least you can discuss unlike some people around here! Now, don't quote, but I believe many stock photo stores give the options to purchase licensing rights forever. So little problems if someone purchased exclusive rights. Buy exclusive rights does not just null and void previous license holders.
The only thing I have to say about this is I've never seen that picture (I don't even remember that picture, but even when I saw it now I had to check what it referenced) and thought, oh that's Apples retina graphic! I really don't think that Apple is that invested into that graphic that it would cause major problems. Also, as I said above, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple holds right for all of their own future use - they wouldn't need exclusive rights then and their exclusive rights to names such as iPad or iPod or iPhone would hold enough precedence to prevent any major problems.
This is an icon to represent a single product feature, not a company logo. I would pay half a million for the right company logo. Also, I know nothing about about how Apple runs their business, but I am knowledgeable about web and graphic design, and have a good mind when it comes to the logistics of running a business in general, and where is a wise spend of money in that respects.
I think as part of the owner's deal with iStockPhoto, exclusive rights to the image can no longer be purchased.