MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lawsuit Against Us. Fair? Unfair? Need your advice  (Read 39530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: November 11, 2012, 00:54 »
0
If the client has paid money for said glasses...they have paid the company to be photographed in said wear...If they got it for "free" as a perk for some reason...maybe not...my 2cents.  You will have a great legal team an you will prevail!


XPTO

« Reply #101 on: November 11, 2012, 03:00 »
0
Time to start pornstock with naked models only.
Make sure there are no 'props' in the photos.  ;)

But isn't our body also a piece of design made by "someone"... above?
 :)

« Reply #102 on: November 11, 2012, 03:35 »
0
In any lawsuit there has to be claim of the damages. And I am afraid that they can prove a case here. The issue is not that the model is wearing glasses - the issue is that the model is wearing a $800 dollar "status" glasses. No frames should be costing this much money unless they are A) made of pure gold or other precious materials B) allow the person wearing them distinguish themselves from "common folk" and show to the rest of the world that they are rich. This is what designer clothes and other items including glasses are made for.
Now, we're in business of selling photos for little money to "common folk" mostly. Imagine a person who bought expensive designer glasses for "status" reasons (I see no other reasons to do that) looking in their mail and seeing a flyer from local plumber featuring a model wearing the same glasses. The status is gone, and with that the value of the glasses. The company making these glasses can argue that selling stock photos with this glasses undermines their "status" value, which undermines their sales. Damages proved.
Why you Yuri - well sadly this is the price you pay for being successful and well-known. Like other people said they think they can fleece you. And, sadly again, they can. They have better lawyers and more money. So give them what they want (settle) and move on.
So photographers have to research everything all of their models are wearing?  If you're photographing 100 models in a day in different clothing, that's going to be a full time job.  We would have to be paid much more money and wouldn't be spending much time taking photos.

Has Yuri really done anything wrong here?  Isn't it the responsibility of the buyer to decide if elements in the photograph can be used for commercial use?  Why should it all be down to the photographer?  Do models have any responsibility for what they wear when they're modelling?  It seems the models decision to wear those glasses has caused this problem.  So will photographers get them to sign an indemnification waiver in the future?

« Reply #103 on: November 11, 2012, 03:56 »
0
My decision to be a mediocre unknown microstock photographer is paying off.

It would be interesting to get 100 people and see if any of them can pick the brand. Do they have any special features ?

Iphones, ferrais etc from the western world I'd expect >50% of people would pick them from a photo.


« Reply #104 on: November 11, 2012, 04:00 »
0
In any lawsuit there has to be claim of the damages. And I am afraid that they can prove a case here. The issue is not that the model is wearing glasses - the issue is that the model is wearing a $800 dollar "status" glasses. No frames should be costing this much money unless they are A) made of pure gold or other precious materials B) allow the person wearing them distinguish themselves from "common folk" and show to the rest of the world that they are rich. This is what designer clothes and other items including glasses are made for.
Now, we're in business of selling photos for little money to "common folk" mostly. Imagine a person who bought expensive designer glasses for "status" reasons (I see no other reasons to do that) looking in their mail and seeing a flyer from local plumber featuring a model wearing the same glasses. The status is gone, and with that the value of the glasses. The company making these glasses can argue that selling stock photos with this glasses undermines their "status" value, which undermines their sales. Damages proved.
Why you Yuri - well sadly this is the price you pay for being successful and well-known. Like other people said they think they can fleece you. And, sadly again, they can. They have better lawyers and more money. So give them what they want (settle) and move on.

Well said and +1

ShadySue

« Reply #105 on: November 11, 2012, 04:41 »
0
In any lawsuit there has to be claim of the damages. And I am afraid that they can prove a case here. The issue is not that the model is wearing glasses - the issue is that the model is wearing a $800 dollar "status" glasses. No frames should be costing this much money unless they are A) made of pure gold or other precious materials B) allow the person wearing them distinguish themselves from "common folk" and show to the rest of the world that they are rich. This is what designer clothes and other items including glasses are made for.
Now, we're in business of selling photos for little money to "common folk" mostly. Imagine a person who bought expensive designer glasses for "status" reasons (I see no other reasons to do that) looking in their mail and seeing a flyer from local plumber featuring a model wearing the same glasses. The status is gone, and with that the value of the glasses. The company making these glasses can argue that selling stock photos with this glasses undermines their "status" value, which undermines their sales. Damages proved.
Why you Yuri - well sadly this is the price you pay for being successful and well-known. Like other people said they think they can fleece you. And, sadly again, they can. They have better lawyers and more money. So give them what they want (settle) and move on.

Totally disagree.
First with the principle that a plumber should not be able to afford that brand of glasses, yet they supply opticians at all ends of the scale. One of our consumer programmes said that well over 90% of all specs sold in the UK come from one of two Italian manufacturers.
Secondly, give in to this and every other maker of anything will jump on the bandwagon.
Thirdly, as a specs wearer since I was 7, I want to be represented in images, and not just by the ugly frames chosen as the safe option by some.
(And note, I don't even sell people pics.)
That company is only flying a kite. In the EU, I'm astonished to read that Yuri's lawyers think they have a good chance, or indeed, any chance.

« Reply #106 on: November 11, 2012, 04:49 »
0
No company today can survive if they pursue a case on the principle of "status" vs. "the common folk". I hope Yuri and his team stand firm and pursue this to the end, using all legal means. The company initiating this attack will fall on their own sword if Yuri makes the right moves. So far he's doing well.

« Reply #107 on: November 11, 2012, 05:01 »
0
Something that strikes me is "why me". Should they not be suing the agencies that have actually sold these images? If the case is to stop the sales of their brand on stock sites, then why are they targeting me? In case they win all I can really do is make sure not to use their Glasses in any images in the future, but I can't demand a take-down on jurisdictions where this brand might not even have a design trademark filling? Makes sense?
Is the right procedure not to contact each of the agencies and demand that images showing their design be taken down?

...because you are a successful photographer with great financial power and you have the money to pay in case they win the lawsuit. As I said : embarrassing, especially for a company that wants to be on the high end/luxury product market.

« Reply #108 on: November 11, 2012, 05:43 »
0
....
In this 'case' it happens to be a pair of sunglasses but it could be anything.
....
And if they can, who is responsible for ensuring the correct permissions are in place? The photographer? The distributor? The publisher?

How did you come up with one pair of sunglasses when Yuri's post mentioned no sunglasses but several glasses: "few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots"

As well how did you come up with all those theorical questions?

Well for the first part, you have selectively quoted part of my statement and interpreted just that that very literally. OK... various pairs of sunglasses.

For the second part, they aren't theoretical questions, they are real questions that anyone in this situation should be asking. How did I come up with them? Well, thinking about the situation presented was part of the process. If I had to defend myself in this case, those are the sorts of questions one would need to consider.

But on the point of defending this case using discrimination law against people that wear glasses and taking away their vision is one of the funniest things I've read on a forum in a long time. Good luck with that defence.



CD123

« Reply #109 on: November 11, 2012, 06:37 »
0
This is much to technical for a bunch of photographers to make sense of (with all due respect). Not even highly paid, highly educated and experienced lawyers can always agree on these aspects, that is why it often goes to courts (where even judges often come to different conclusions, therefore appeal courts exists).  :P

Sorry Juri, but loosing the case might have its upside. I can tell my wife I have to take pictures of nudes out of fear of getting prosecuted by the clothes manufacturers ;)
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 08:40 by CD123 »

« Reply #110 on: November 11, 2012, 06:40 »
0
....
In this 'case' it happens to be a pair of sunglasses but it could be anything.
....
And if they can, who is responsible for ensuring the correct permissions are in place? The photographer? The distributor? The publisher?

How did you come up with one pair of sunglasses when Yuri's post mentioned no sunglasses but several glasses: "few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots"

As well how did you come up with all those theorical questions?

. OK... various pairs of sunglasses.

.......

taking away their vision is one of the funniest things I've read on a forum in a long time. Good luck with that defence.


Who said anything about sunglasses?

If a model has prescribed glasses, this could mean that she/he would not be able to model without taking them off. In fact, without taking her/his vision away. What is so funny about that?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 07:56 by cybernesco »

« Reply #111 on: November 11, 2012, 06:43 »
0
error
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 06:47 by cybernesco »

« Reply #112 on: November 11, 2012, 06:53 »
0
In any lawsuit there has to be claim of the damages. And I am afraid that they can prove a case here. The issue is not that the model is wearing glasses - the issue is that the model is wearing a $800 dollar "status" glasses. No frames should be costing this much money unless they are A) made of pure gold or other precious materials B) allow the person wearing them distinguish themselves from "common folk" and show to the rest of the world that they are rich. This is what designer clothes and other items including glasses are made for.
Now, we're in business of selling photos for little money to "common folk" mostly. Imagine a person who bought expensive designer glasses for "status" reasons (I see no other reasons to do that) looking in their mail and seeing a flyer from local plumber featuring a model wearing the same glasses. The status is gone, and with that the value of the glasses. The company making these glasses can argue that selling stock photos with this glasses undermines their "status" value, which undermines their sales. Damages proved.
Why you Yuri - well sadly this is the price you pay for being successful and well-known. Like other people said they think they can fleece you. And, sadly again, they can. They have better lawyers and more money. So give them what they want (settle) and move on.

$800 sunglasses yes I would suggest that they are no ordinary sunglasses. However, $800 prescribed glasses, it is not unusual.  If it is about non-prescribed sunglasses than I don't think Yuri has a chance.

« Reply #113 on: November 11, 2012, 09:17 »
0
If the client has paid money for said glasses...they have paid the company to be photographed in said wear...If they got it for "free" as a perk for some reason...maybe not...my 2cents.  You will have a great legal team an you will prevail!

Uh, no.  Possession does not give you the right to grant licenses for works in your image.  Sure, you can "photograph" them, but as we've mentioned, photographing is different from photographing and then licensing that image for commercial use.

« Reply #114 on: November 11, 2012, 10:32 »
0
Uh, no.  Possession does not give you the right to grant licenses for works in your image.  Sure, you can "photograph" them, but as we've mentioned, photographing is different from photographing and then licensing that image for commercial use.

Exactly. Nonetheless I wonder how that company is determining the actual damages where for instance at Shutterstock no DL numbers a provided but that's a different story.

« Reply #115 on: November 11, 2012, 10:48 »
0
it could be as simple as someone from the firm saw one of yuris shots selling a cheap knock off in front of a hock shop. they get butthurt and go on the warpath. here we are.
i bring up the example of a small ski shop in taos new mexico which had used the name of a famous warner brothers cartoon franchise. one day the co owner of the shop was on a chairlift yacking about her ski shop and how great it was. the other person on the lift happened to be a warner bro's executive. i'm not exactly sure of the time frame but shortly after a nasty legal missive arrived and the name of the shop promptly changed. they are no longer.
while i doubt yuri is going back to school to get his degree -somehow the private jet travel world gets cushy- and put the camera down, it's a reminder for all of us because lets face it, we would all enjoy the success his hard work has given him.

« Reply #116 on: November 11, 2012, 11:02 »
0
Personally I've never heard about a case where a photographer has been succesfully sued concerning IP. So I wonder. Has there ever been a similar case before and what was the outcome?


Microbius

« Reply #117 on: November 11, 2012, 11:23 »
0
I've heard a lot of stuff about threats and settlements, but like you have never heard of a similar case actually making it to court. I wonder if they would go there or if it is too risky, I mean if they get precedent against them the whole copyright trolling industry may collapse. While if they win all they get is one more payment

« Reply #118 on: November 11, 2012, 12:15 »
0
....
In this 'case' it happens to be a pair of sunglasses but it could be anything.
....
And if they can, who is responsible for ensuring the correct permissions are in place? The photographer? The distributor? The publisher?

How did you come up with one pair of sunglasses when Yuri's post mentioned no sunglasses but several glasses: "few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots"

As well how did you come up with all those theorical questions?

. OK... various pairs of sunglasses.

.......

taking away their vision is one of the funniest things I've read on a forum in a long time. Good luck with that defence.


Who said anything about sunglasses?

If a model has prescribed glasses, this could mean that she/he would not be able to model without taking them off. In fact, without taking her/his vision away. What is so funny about that?

Wow! ... You are so selective in the way you partially quote to take my comments out of context. Is that intentional or do you really only read what you want to read? Either way, there is little point in continuing this discussion.




ShadySue

« Reply #119 on: November 11, 2012, 12:17 »
0
@pjmorley and cybernesco~
Where are you getting the idea that this is about sunspecs?
The OP said: "quite a few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots".
And FWIW, my sunnies are prescription, 'own brand', but statistically quite likely to have been made by that company.

« Reply #120 on: November 11, 2012, 12:38 »
0
You have my sympathy and support.

The patent/trademark/copyright infringement system is a complete joke. 

My full time job is in software, the patents that go through there are ridiculous.

The system isn't used for what it was intended for... it's just not right.

It's all about cash grabs.

Governments need to realize that all this litigation just takes time and effort away from the actual production of wealth for the country.  (taking from those who have been successful) Lawyers get rich and the big guy usually wins.

Good Luck.

« Reply #121 on: November 11, 2012, 12:44 »
0
Sorry - the sunglasses thing is probably my fault.  The IS thread I linked to is about a sunglasses company that provided their wares to interested IS contributors to shoot.  Just showing that there is opportunity to secure the right permissions in the right place or right time.

ShadySue

« Reply #122 on: November 11, 2012, 12:51 »
0
Sorry - the sunglasses thing is probably my fault.  The IS thread I linked to is about a sunglasses company that provided their wares to interested IS contributors to shoot.  Just showing that there is opportunity to secure the right permissions in the right place or right time.
Yeah, but that style isn't being worn much these days.

« Reply #123 on: November 11, 2012, 13:23 »
0
....
In this 'case' it happens to be a pair of sunglasses but it could be anything.
....
And if they can, who is responsible for ensuring the correct permissions are in place? The photographer? The distributor? The publisher?

How did you come up with one pair of sunglasses when Yuri's post mentioned no sunglasses but several glasses: "few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots"

As well how did you come up with all those theorical questions?

. OK... various pairs of sunglasses.

.......

taking away their vision is one of the funniest things I've read on a forum in a long time. Good luck with that defence.


Who said anything about sunglasses?

If a model has prescribed glasses, this could mean that she/he would not be able to model without taking them off. In fact, without taking her/his vision away. What is so funny about that?

Wow! ... You are so selective in the way you partially quote to take my comments out of context. Is that intentional or do you really only read what you want to read? Either way, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

If your comment is out of context, it is because it is out of context.  I did not make it that way. There could be huge differences between sunglasses and prescribed glasses. You still could be right because Yuri did not specify the type of glasses.  However, the context of his post make it sound like all glasses in general.

Poncke

« Reply #124 on: November 11, 2012, 14:40 »
0
On Alamy everything that needs a PR, i.e. sunglasses, and you dont have one, needs to be sold as RM. Does that make a difference? I mean, its not the photographer being responsible but the buyer for using the photo lawfully. Might it be a problem the images are sold as RF?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2845 Views
Last post April 05, 2011, 14:49
by elvinstar
15 Replies
3447 Views
Last post February 07, 2013, 15:22
by blamb
Unfair rejection on 123RF

Started by Beppe Grillo 123RF

14 Replies
5511 Views
Last post April 17, 2013, 12:18
by mr
3 Replies
2352 Views
Last post March 15, 2014, 13:40
by Pauws99
30 Replies
6133 Views
Last post January 07, 2017, 07:55
by WorriedIstocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results