MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lawsuit Against Us. Fair? Unfair? Need your advice  (Read 62304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: November 12, 2012, 06:31 »
0
As for the glasses : the eyeglass company is right because these images would have never sold well if the author used some cheap 1$ chinese plastic glasses, these photos are so successful because the girls look good AND the glasses look good, the author makes money while giving nothing back to eyeglass company, it's not fair no matter if the logo is not visible the design might be unique and easily recognizeable, which indeed is the same logic for previous lawsuits about jeans or cars.
You'd better check the entire catalogue and back catalogue of the Italian maker in case the Chinese specs are rip-offs of some of their designs. Then you could be caught in the middle, and you'll be easier to chase than the rip-off merchants (if they are such).

Sorry, I don't know Yuri, but I can assure you that I've sold lots of photos of models wearing cheap chinese glasses. Cheap chinese glasses can be fragile and don't last years (not even months, sometimes not even weeks) but, when new, for photographic purposes, are ok.

What if? I dind't buy them as replicas but, anyway, I have the glasses to produce and prove that they are not made by these people. If they want sue the chinese, ok, that's not my problem.


« Reply #151 on: November 12, 2012, 06:34 »
0
BTW... italian... Italians seems to have a special ability for making obnouxious demands. Last one I remember is when they tried to copyright some LANDSCAPES at San Quirico d'Orzia, Tuscany. BTW, they didn't succeed.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 07:24 by loop »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #152 on: November 12, 2012, 06:55 »
+1
I see on Yuri's own site, he has this clause in his T&C:
"Warranty
    5.1 Copyrights We guarantee that all Media for sale on the Site used in accordance with this Agreement will not infringe on any copyright laws, moral rights, trademarks or other intellectual property rights or any other entitlements.
    5.2 Releases We guarantee that all necessary model and/or property releases for use of the Media in the manner specified in this Agreement have been legally obtained."

By that warranty, he may have left himself wide open to this sort of legal case.
I'm really surprised his contract lawyers didn't advise him better.


MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #153 on: November 12, 2012, 07:40 »
+1
I see on Yuri's own site, he has this clause in his T&C:
"Warranty
    5.1 Copyrights We guarantee that all Media for sale on the Site used in accordance with this Agreement will not infringe on any copyright laws, moral rights, trademarks or other intellectual property rights or any other entitlements.
    5.2 Releases We guarantee that all necessary model and/or property releases for use of the Media in the manner specified in this Agreement have been legally obtained."

By that warranty, he may have left himself wide open to this sort of legal case.
I'm really surprised his contract lawyers didn't advise him better.

It's a gray area.
I don't think the eyeglass maker will win.

However, agencies should make an effort to be very clear on what is allowed or not, they're the ones responsible for all this mess, they're the ones accepting these images and telling us it's all right, and they should be the ones liable in case of legal issue, NOT the photographers !


« Reply #154 on: November 12, 2012, 09:00 »
0
I would start by drafting up a letter to all the stock sites you distribute through, asking for legal/financial backing, this is just as much their case, as yours. I would then create a donation link for all stockers to contribute to, a loss from this case this will effect us all. Thirdly i would hire a fantastic PR advisor to get the news of this disgraceful case out to the public eye for when the case goes live. This in turn will put pressure on the claimant to drop the case for fear of a consumer backlash.

He doesn't need a donation link.  His business presumably has liability and other insurance to protect in claims like this.  To not would be silly.  I'm also not sure it's that disgraceful or that the public would particularly care, especially if the case is about the types of images where the glasses are the main subject and not incidental, like we've been discussing.  Since we don't know the details, we're just wasting our time throwing out random guesses about things.

« Reply #155 on: November 12, 2012, 13:05 »
0
hi Yuri, get a few lawyers for advices.. the worst is only settled by cash, that always can earn back.

and somehow the thread is just showing who is the jealous *.

why throw stones to someone in a well?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 13:10 by mtkang »

« Reply #156 on: November 12, 2012, 13:08 »
0
double post

CD123

« Reply #157 on: November 12, 2012, 14:14 »
0
Oh my goodness, seven pages further and the photographers have still not resolved this little legal issue.  How embarrassing!

Well then back to reading the Argentinian Netball Team's blog on nuclear physics......  8)

« Reply #158 on: November 12, 2012, 19:46 »
0
Why don't they just pay a Shutterstock subscription and download all your great pictures to promote their glasses.

Are they that desperate to get money that they prefer losing money on lawsuit instead of investing in marketing. Your images should be a gold mine for them. Like many said, plain stupid. Hope you find your way out, this is definitely not the fun part of business.

« Reply #159 on: November 12, 2012, 21:24 »
0
I am a 56 years old security guard in Ottawa, Canada, and each time I take the bus to go to work, as it travelled by the Ottawa university, 10-20 students get into the bus. Tonight , I noticed that out of those 15-20 students, 6-7 are wearing prescription glasses. 19-21 years old young guys and girls that need their glasses to make it in life. No glasses, no university. One of them had very tick lenses. Probably, eventually, once they pay their school bills, they will all be able to get their vision corrected with laser surgery. For them, although some glasses frames may be fashionable, but above all, it is an item necessary to see.  If clear glasses are so fashionable like this company would like us to believe why don't we see people with perfect vision wearing them? Would it be great if laser surgery could fix degrading vision as you get to my age as well. This unknown company would sure hate that would they.

Glasses companies profit on your defective eyes to prosper. You primarely pay them to have your vision corrected. Now, this particular company is saying we really don't care about your defective eyes anymore, because we found another way to make money if you happened to be a model and by obliging you to take them off.

« Reply #160 on: November 12, 2012, 21:39 »
0
I am a 56 years old security guard in Ottawa, Canada, and each time I take the bus to go to work, as it travelled by the Ottawa university, 10-20 students get into the bus. Tonight , I noticed that out of those 15-20 students, 6-7 are wearing prescription glasses. 19-21 years old young guys and girls that need their glasses to make it in life. No glasses, no university. One of them had very tick lenses. Probably, eventually, once they pay their school bills, they will all be able to get their vision corrected with laser surgery. For them, although some glasses frames may be fashionable, but above all, it is an item necessary to see.  If clear glasses are so fashionable like this company would like us to believe why don't we see people with perfect vision wearing them? Would it be great if laser surgery could fix degrading vision as you get to my age as well. This unknown company would sure hate that would they.

Glasses companies profit on your defective eyes to prosper. You primarely pay them to have your vision corrected. Now, this particular company is saying we really don't care about your defective eyes anymore, because we found another way to make money if you happened to be a model and by obliging you to take them off.

Que? Soooo __ your solution to Yuri's problem is?

« Reply #161 on: November 12, 2012, 22:09 »
0
I am a 56 years old security guard in Ottawa, Canada, and each time I take the bus to go to work, as it travelled by the Ottawa university, 10-20 students get into the bus. Tonight , I noticed that out of those 15-20 students, 6-7 are wearing prescription glasses. 19-21 years old young guys and girls that need their glasses to make it in life. No glasses, no university. One of them had very tick lenses. Probably, eventually, once they pay their school bills, they will all be able to get their vision corrected with laser surgery. For them, although some glasses frames may be fashionable, but above all, it is an item necessary to see.  If clear glasses are so fashionable like this company would like us to believe why don't we see people with perfect vision wearing them? Would it be great if laser surgery could fix degrading vision as you get to my age as well. This unknown company would sure hate that would they.

Glasses companies profit on your defective eyes to prosper. You primarely pay them to have your vision corrected. Now, this particular company is saying we really don't care about your defective eyes anymore, because we found another way to make money if you happened to be a model and by obliging you to take them off.

Que? Soooo __ your solution to Yuri's problem is?

I am not that good...sorry

« Reply #162 on: November 12, 2012, 22:59 »
0
I only know that eyewear industry is strongest No1 in Italy. Not cars, not fashion, not pasta... Just few grams of steel and plastic, 2 screws and few grams of additional crap.
Anyhow most expensive drug from second, third etc etc hand is much cheaper than any crap of glasses/shades.

« Reply #163 on: November 13, 2012, 02:48 »
0
Maybe it would be interesting to persue the relatively new law of derivative works that has been issued in great Britain?

« Reply #164 on: November 13, 2012, 03:54 »
0
I am a 56 years old security guard in Ottawa, Canada, and each time I take the bus to go to work, as it travelled by the Ottawa university, 10-20 students get into the bus. Tonight , I noticed that out of those 15-20 students, 6-7 are wearing prescription glasses. 19-21 years old young guys and girls that need their glasses to make it in life. No glasses, no university. One of them had very tick lenses. Probably, eventually, once they pay their school bills, they will all be able to get their vision corrected with laser surgery. For them, although some glasses frames may be fashionable, but above all, it is an item necessary to see.  If clear glasses are so fashionable like this company would like us to believe why don't we see people with perfect vision wearing them? Would it be great if laser surgery could fix degrading vision as you get to my age as well. This unknown company would sure hate that would they.

Glasses companies profit on your defective eyes to prosper. You primarely pay them to have your vision corrected. Now, this particular company is saying we really don't care about your defective eyes anymore, because we found another way to make money if you happened to be a model and by obliging you to take them off.
I don't understand what you're getting at because people can buy cheap frames for their prescription glasses.  Isn't this about expensive designer frames that are easily recognizable, not ordinary looking frames?  Wouldn't it be easy to quash the argument that people had to wear these very expensive glasses to see?  I'm also not clear why someone with poor eyesight would have to be wearing their glasses to have their photo taken.  Many people with poor eyesight take their glasses off when they're having their photos taken.  Is it a health and safety hazard?  It might be if they're moving around but not if they're still in front of a camera.  And lots of people wear clear glasses, especially if they're sunglasses.

I don't understand how this company has allowed RF photos of their designer glasses to be sold for years without asking the sites to remove them.  Now they're going after an individual photographer.  They should of asked the sites to remove the images years ago.  There's a list of things that can't be sold as RF on some sites, why haven't these glasses frames appeared on that list?  Wouldn't it be fair to ask us to take down any photos with these glasses frames in them first before taking legal action against one photographer?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #165 on: November 13, 2012, 05:20 »
0
I don't understand what you're getting at because people can buy cheap frames for their prescription glasses.  Isn't this about expensive designer frames that are easily recognizable, not ordinary looking frames? 
No, this company has a near-stranglehold on the spec frame market in many countries. Some are sold by designer labels, some in the buy-one-get-a-second-pair-free outlets. It's the manufacturer who is threatening, not one of the designer labels.

It now looks as though the issue is more that some photos look like specs adverts.

« Reply #166 on: November 13, 2012, 05:25 »
0
OK, this is probably a totally stupid observation - but then legal points often are stupid so maybe this could muddy the waters.

Doesn't the copyright specify the shape of the glasses in three dimensions? A photo is two dimensional and the angle at which the object is viewed changes the shape. So is it possible to claim that the copyright of a three dimensional physical object can also apply to a two-dimensional representation of that object which is a related but different shape from the one described in the copyright?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #167 on: November 13, 2012, 05:31 »
0
OK, this is probably a totally stupid observation - but then legal points often are stupid so maybe this could muddy the waters.

Doesn't the copyright specify the shape of the glasses in three dimensions? A photo is two dimensional and the angle at which the object is viewed changes the shape. So is it possible to claim that the copyright of a three dimensional physical object can also apply to a two-dimensional representation of that object which is a related but different shape from the one described in the copyright?
That is certainly the case in the UK for copyright.

eyeidea

  • visualize your brainstorm
« Reply #168 on: November 13, 2012, 05:43 »
+1
This really is a drag Yuri. I wear prescription Persol eyeglasses and prescription Ray-Ban sunglasses. I have been looking for a new pair lately that DO NOT have any trademarks in anyway so I can do shots of myself. Fair it is not, but the law is the law. It is our job to know. I am working on a very popular USA TV show right now that almost used a trademarked lamp post, legal caught it before it aired. This stuff is a pain in the a$$.

Microbius

« Reply #169 on: November 13, 2012, 05:52 »
0
OK, this is probably a totally stupid observation - but then legal points often are stupid so maybe this could muddy the waters.

Doesn't the copyright specify the shape of the glasses in three dimensions? A photo is two dimensional and the angle at which the object is viewed changes the shape. So is it possible to claim that the copyright of a three dimensional physical object can also apply to a two-dimensional representation of that object which is a related but different shape from the one described in the copyright?
I always thought that, think about those photos where the photographer lines up objects so they look like something different from just the angle the photo is taken from. If you did this with something copyright protected could you get sued even though there is nothing in the photo that is actually anything like the product?

OM

« Reply #170 on: November 13, 2012, 06:18 »
+1

I don't understand how this company has allowed RF photos of their designer glasses to be sold for years without asking the sites to remove them.  Now they're going after an individual photographer.  They should of asked the sites to remove the images years ago.  There's a list of things that can't be sold as RF on some sites, why haven't these glasses frames appeared on that list?  Wouldn't it be fair to ask us to take down any photos with these glasses frames in them first before taking legal action against one photographer?

Company probably totted up the number of lawyers Getty has and thought, "Hmm, better find an easier target that strikes at the very heart of the RF industry."...Eureka (or whatever that is in modern Latin)....Yuri...household name in the bizznizz but small in relative terms and doesn't have a floor of his building filled with lawyers!

« Reply #171 on: November 13, 2012, 06:34 »
+1
I am a 56 years old security guard in Ottawa, Canada, and each time I take the bus to go to work, as it travelled by the Ottawa university, 10-20 students get into the bus. Tonight , I noticed that out of those 15-20 students, 6-7 are wearing prescription glasses. 19-21 years old young guys and girls that need their glasses to make it in life. No glasses, no university. One of them had very tick lenses. Probably, eventually, once they pay their school bills, they will all be able to get their vision corrected with laser surgery. For them, although some glasses frames may be fashionable, but above all, it is an item necessary to see.  If clear glasses are so fashionable like this company would like us to believe why don't we see people with perfect vision wearing them? Would it be great if laser surgery could fix degrading vision as you get to my age as well. This unknown company would sure hate that would they.

Glasses companies profit on your defective eyes to prosper. You primarely pay them to have your vision corrected. Now, this particular company is saying we really don't care about your defective eyes anymore, because we found another way to make money if you happened to be a model and by obliging you to take them off.
I don't understand what you're getting at because people can buy cheap frames for their prescription glasses.  Isn't this about expensive designer frames that are easily recognizable, not ordinary looking frames?  Wouldn't it be easy to quash the argument that people had to wear these very expensive glasses to see?  I'm also not clear why someone with poor eyesight would have to be wearing their glasses to have their photo taken.  Many people with poor eyesight take their glasses off when they're having their photos taken.  Is it a health and safety hazard?  It might be if they're moving around but not if they're still in front of a camera.  And lots of people wear clear glasses, especially if they're sunglasses.

I don't understand how this company has allowed RF photos of their designer glasses to be sold for years without asking the sites to remove them.  Now they're going after an individual photographer.  They should of asked the sites to remove the images years ago.  There's a list of things that can't be sold as RF on some sites, why haven't these glasses frames appeared on that list?  Wouldn't it be fair to ask us to take down any photos with these glasses frames in them first before taking legal action against one photographer?

Firstly, in my town, the average price for a pair of prescription glasses with gradual bi-focal is around $400-$500.  Trifocals with anti-scratch and auto-shade could be above $600.00. Add a fancier frame, yes $800.00

When Yuri said expensive glasses, it is simply because prescription glasses are really expensive in general. It is not something that you buy every month even if you paid just $400. And it is not something that a model should take off just because a certain company thinks that their frames are so special. I am sorry I don't buy that argument.

Secondly, no I guess it is not a health hazard if a model is willing to take his/her glasses off. However, if a model feel obliged to take them off she/he might feel intimidated as her/his world become a blur around him/her. Being isolated is not a good feeling and could show in the photo.  Not knowing where to look because you can't see ect..

The model should have the right not to feel obliged to take them off.

What I meant by you don't see people with perfect vision wearing clear glasses, I meant you don't see people with perfect vision wearing non-colored, non-prescription glasses just for the fun of it.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 06:42 by cybernesco »

« Reply #172 on: November 13, 2012, 06:47 »
0
OK, this is probably a totally stupid observation - but then legal points often are stupid so maybe this could muddy the waters.

Doesn't the copyright specify the shape of the glasses in three dimensions? A photo is two dimensional and the angle at which the object is viewed changes the shape. So is it possible to claim that the copyright of a three dimensional physical object can also apply to a two-dimensional representation of that object which is a related but different shape from the one described in the copyright?

For some reason, I really like that argument

rubyroo

« Reply #173 on: November 13, 2012, 06:49 »
0
Wow.  How awful.  Sorry to hear this Yuri.  I hope you can take them on and win.  When things like this happen, microstock starts to feel like a zero fun game.   It's so unfair that we, who take the smallest revenue from the sales, should have to carry all this on our shoulders.  But if we don't agree to the contracts, we can't reach those markets, so the agencies have us over a barrel.

I've never heard of the 3D vs 2D issue.  If that were to stand up in court, it sounds as though
things would become a lot simpler for us and the agencies. 

« Reply #174 on: November 13, 2012, 07:35 »
0

...What I meant by you don't see people with perfect vision wearing clear glasses, I meant you don't see people with perfect vision wearing non-colored, non-prescription glasses just for the fun of it.
Yes you do.  I've known people who wear non-colored, non-prescription glasses just for the fun of it.  For example, there's lots of John Lennon fans wearing the glasses he used to wear.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 07:41 by sharpshot »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5023 Views
Last post April 05, 2011, 14:49
by elvinstar
15 Replies
6136 Views
Last post February 07, 2013, 15:22
by blamb
Unfair rejection on 123RF

Started by Beppe Grillo 123RF

14 Replies
7616 Views
Last post April 17, 2013, 12:18
by mr
3 Replies
4344 Views
Last post March 15, 2014, 13:40
by Pauws99
30 Replies
15208 Views
Last post January 07, 2017, 07:55
by worriedistocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors