Imagine the surprise if your photo was being used on the new promotional images of the iPhone 6 as it was announced earlier this week. Photographer Espen Haagensen was in for the shock of a lifetime as the opening images of the new iPhone 6 were released and his Milky Way photo was used for the new product announcement.
I do quite a lot of starscapes and Milky Way shots but this was the first time I brought a decent wide angle and full size tripod to Demmevass,” he told 9to5Mac’s Michael Steeber. “There was a rather big moon so the Milky Way was faint, but around midnight there were some skies and the moon disappeared and I was able to capture a nice series.
Haagenson's photo of the Milky Way has been added to the release of an iconic Apple product launch and will grace millions of customers hands come September 19th. Quite the kudos by Apple as the photo was first published on 500px where it originally gained popularity and eventually noticed by the company. The photo was taken while on a yearly excursion to the Norwegian Tekking Association where a group stays in the hut pictured in the original photo below, which was later removed by Apple. Apple contacted Espen for non-broadcast use and then upgraded the license to broadcast in July.
Obviously quite the honor for any photographer to have his worked attached to such an iconic company during a new product launch especially Apple. See the comparison photos below along with the promotional images of the iPhone 6/6 Plus as they were announced earlier this week.
Be sure to check out more of Espen's landscape and nature photography here on his website.
[via Business Insider]
CONGRATS Man....
I hope he got paid for that!
I find the title a bit misleading, If Apple contacted the photographer and some sort of agreement was made, then why the photographer was shocked?!
And if the photographer was shocked by a certain use, then there was something wrong or unclear in the agreement.
I also want to know if Apple asked for a permission from the photographer to alter his image and remove that hut!
I have to say it on a seperate comment too...
Are you FUCKING SERIOUS with this title? Do you need to be on par with "techniques" from buzzfeed and huffington post and so on to attract visitors?
Ridiculous and unworthy of Fstoppers... Pretty disappointed here.
Hi Andrew ( Griswold ) - would you like to let folk know what you recieved from Apple for their usage of this image? Hope it was more than the $250 menioned by another poster. Nice shot BTW.
I still am very interested on how much apple paid for non broadcast and for the licence upgrade.
Also
What is the difference with the thousands milky way images they can get for 9$
Less likely it has been purchased and used before. Eventually you need to choose one, so why not this one? I'm pretty sure Apple is overly concerned about the price.
Too bad they photoshopped out the cabin, that's what made the scene.
I was thinking the same thing, but look where the cabin would have been on the screen. It would have been in the middle of the icons. So it makes sense, but I love the cabin.
Bunch of cry babies up in here. The tile says nothing about it being stolen. Who wouldn't be shocked if Apple used their image for their new product? The title needs to be catchy to get attention, welcome to marketing 101. Don't start hating on the writer because your assumptions were incorrect. Dry your tears.
Still crying?
Marketing 101? Are you serious? What kind of shitty marketing 101 course did you attend where you learned to mislead you customers?
Besides, this isn't marketing. It is journalism. Catchy titles is great, but misleading titles is poor journalism.
And beside, the photographer has never said he was shocked. That is something Fstoppers writer invented to lure readers.
You're funny.
No need to swear. When is the last time you had a McDonald's burger that looked like it does in the commercial or in print? There are ample examples on a much larger scale. It's part of the landscape Guate. This headline is intended to engage the reader. It can be interpreted many ways, but it doesn't say the image was stolen.
Funny, I wasn't aware I had been swearing, Adam. Still can't fint it in my post. Maybe you just are a cry baby because i pointed out the stupidity in your post?
You have fundamentally misunderstood the difference between advertising/ marketing and journalism. I have close to 30 years experience as a journalist and editor. You do not have to tell me the title needs to engage the reader and that it can be interpreted in different ways. My problem is that the title in this case has nothing to do with the reality.
I have never suggested that the tilte says the picture was stolen, but maybe you didn't read my post before you responded to it. What I said was that is was misleading because it says the photographer was shocked. He was not.
And to all the people who says that the title does not suggest the picture was stolen: That defence is as hollow as Bill Clintons defence that he did not have had sex with Lewinsky because she only had performed oral services on him...
I read the article and your post. It doesn't really matter. We could try to poke holes in each others opinions all day. I think we are both above where this is going so lets just agree to disagree on this one. Now, I have to go empty this bucket of my tears before it overflows. :)
You're clearly very upset, but you don't need to stoop to name calling.
That's awesome! Big kudos to Espen!
my 2 cents is that if they had the headline as "photographer happy apple used his pic" probably 1/2 the people would not have read it. i agree the title is very misleading but aren't most of them ? look at any paper or web site. people love to bash people every chance they get. it does surprise me a bit that guys here would post a response saying "sue them" or something like that and never read it. it kinda makes them look silly. at least read it before you think you know what it's about.
The title is somewhat misleading in this day and age I suppose, LOL! We all know how much Apple has ripped off everybody and their mother in the past, so it's no surprise about people's reactions to the title without reading the article. It's certanly the first thought that popped into my mind when I saw the title. Glad to see they've actually decided to pay a poor sod for a change.
If I'm not wrong they used also this image to present the Retina HD display:
http://500px.com/photo/46859744
I know this shot! pretty awesome!
This is just another example of the, unfortunately, degrading standard on Fstoppers. The title in this article does not have any basis in either the content or the real facts. There is no mentions in the text that he was shocked.
The photographer was not shocked at all. Apple had licensed the photograph and had been in contact with him several time about the picture. But, he did not know what they wanted to use it for. He was, when he saw his picture in the Apple presentation, very surprised. Not shocked.
The title suggest a very different story than what actually is the story. It is lazy and very poor journalism. And regrettably, just another example of how badly Fstoppers understands the ethics and standards that we should expect from one of the biggest photography sites on the internet.
The easy click bait strategy that this article is a part of is a lazy way of producing content purely for the purpose of selling ads.
Come on guys, you can do better than adapting the garbage strategy of sites like Buzzfeed and other sites who only pray on others effort to generate clicks. If you really do not know better, ask someone who knows.
The sensationalist title is silly and really unnecessary, I agree. But perhaps the photographer was "shocked" in that Apple didn't exactly tell him what purpose his licensed photo would be used for.
I can see that one might be «shocked» when you suddenly see your picture on the new iPhone, even if you knew that Apple had licensed the shot. However, the photographer has been quoted in Norwegian newspapers that he was surprised.
Shocked is, however, the product of the imagination of journalists/ bloggers that are prone to an ever increasing hyperbole.
Title is a bit misleading.
I think the hut was a nice touch and made the photo more interesting, if less suitable as an iphone wallpaper.
Great, another clickbait...