Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple settles 'Retina' promo image suit with Swiss artist

Photographer Sabine Liewald's "Eye Closeup" as seen on Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.

A filing with the New York District Court last week reveals that Apple settled a case out of court regarding the alleged misuse of the "Retina" eyeball used to promote the company's MacBook Pro with Retina display.


Apple last Wednesday settled the suit levied by Swiss photographer Sabine Liewald ahead of a court scheduled meeting slated for today, reports Cnet.

In the original complaint from October 2011, Liewald claimed that her image of an eyeball, titled "Eye Closeup," was illegally used during an Apple keynote in June. The photograph was used to show off the capabilities of the company's first high-resolution display laptop, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.

While Apple acquired rights to use the photograph, the terms did not extend to public displays and was meant for mock-ups only. The settlement terms remain undisclosed but the Liewald was seeking damages plus lost profits from Apple's use of the image.

Apple 'Eyeball' Settlement by Mikey Campbell



38 Comments

tallest skil 14 Years · 43086 comments

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 
Payday! Who says artists starve?

 

 

Seems pretty sweet to me.

cameronj 17 Years · 2355 comments

I'm sure the artist lost a ton of profits because of this. After all, once everyone had seen it in a semi-private Apple event, why would they ever buy it from her to display again? Apple should pay for the performance right and whatever penalty/interest it owes for misusing it, but lost profits are ridiculous here.

wubbus 12 Years · 67 comments

Claiming lost profits seems reasonable to me. The artist has effectively lost the opportunity to market or license this image to another company as it is now recognized as an Apple image. Not sure if a mistake on Apple's part or just a conscious decision to move quickly with the presentation material and settle up in court later...

charlituna 16 Years · 7217 comments

Course since we can't see the terms we don't know if the artist got any money, if the terms really didn't allow it etc. It is very possible at the terms could have been such that, as a marketing event, the use was covered. And that Apple really didn't owe her anything. But perhaps gave her a little extra anyway. To avoid her being embarrassed by the courts siding with Apple etc. We really can't say either way