Yup, cardmaverick is our resident anti IP extremist, with a very polar view of IP.
"some IP law is bad or badly implemented therefore throw out all IP law"
Life is simple when you think in black and white.

Avoid the use of the phrase "Intellectual Property"! It is a misnomer used to attack copyright, in an indirect way. The attack works by pretending that "IP" incorporates patents and copyright on an equal footing. In fact, it's used to promote the ever more intrusive and damaging power of the patent holders, at the expense of copyright holders. Technology companies (if you consider software to be "technology") have everything to gain from disempowerment of copyright. Their role is to provide means of finding and interacting with "content", while licensing the content is a nuisance they don't need.

And they are winning. Just the other day, David Cameron in England announced a set of very generous tax breaks for companies that profit from "intellectual property". But the scheme applies to patent holders only, not copyright. If you understand there is a conflict between patent and copyright, you'll understand the competitive advantage just granted to patent.

We're on the losing side, but there's no reason to help the enemy. Buy yourselves some time, slow them down! Don't use their language.

It very much depends from country to country.
For example, according to Wikimedia, in the UK:
United Kingdom

✓OK (for 3D works, not always for 2D) {{FoP-UK}}

Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

        buildings, and
        sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public).

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.

Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship are defined separately from graphic works - defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.

The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist. Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher -v- Restawhile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'.

In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. Copinger and Skoane James suggests that original jewellery is another candidate.

Other works that have been held to fall under this definition include hand-knitted woollen sweaters, fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements, a range of pottery, and items of dinnerware. The cases are, respectively, Bonz -v- Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216 (New Zealand), Coogi Australia -v- Hyrdrosport (1988) 157 ALR 247 (Australia), Walter Enterprises -v- Kearns (Zimbabwe) noted at [1990] 4 EntLR E-61, and Commissioner of Taxation -v- Murray (1990) 92 ALR 671 (Australia).

and incidentally:
The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. According to Copinger and Skoane James, The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment. Again, this is broader than 'public place' which is the wording in many countries.

    Section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988 including amendments
    Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, including amendments
    Sculpture and Works of Artistic Craftmanship on Public Display, Design and Artists Copyright Society factsheet
    http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/confusion.htm An article on copyright law in the UK from artquest.org.uk (April 27, 2006 copy from archive.org)

NB: I have not followed up any of the references.

It looks like there is a reason why they chose Denmark. According to that same wikimedia article:
Denmark

✓OK for buildings only {{FoP-Denmark}}

The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for architecture. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture.
    English translation
    Heirs of the mermaid earn lots on copyright (in Danish)

Can I got a little bit off topic?
I just got a photo session commissioned by a glasses retailer.  They invited 6 children (children of their customers) to pose for me with their glasses on, evidently bought with this retailer.  The retailer is paying for the photo session, and will put the framed photos in their display window.
I bet these glasses won't be cheap rubbish, but nice (expensive) frames.  Suppose they are Luxottica stuff?  This is not (micro)stock photography, so I suppose it's the retailer who will be in trouble if ever Luxottica (or any other glasses manufacturer) "finds out". 
Though for me it's just a small commissioned shoot, I will ask the retailer to sign an order form, just to be sure that I have proof.  And I'll also tell them why I want everything in writing.  If they cancel the photo shoot, so be it.

Quote from: Sadstock on November 14, 2012, 13:57

The concern I have is that even if the manufacturer lose the suit in Denmark they could file suit in Japan, South Korea, Australia, Brazil, USA, Canada and just about anywhere else.  Each country has different laws and effectively the manufacturer only needs to win in one jurisdiction to force the micros, because of their license everywhere model, to remove all images with this company's glasses.

Is there actually an issue ? There are plenty of places to source rights issue free spectacle frames to use as props.

It's not that simple. Many "no-name" brands etc... are just producing knock-offs of the designer versions that are protected. Getty Images specifically addressed this with the Le Corbusier problem. It's not enough to get a knock-off.

I'm not so sure this glasses manufacturer will win though. Last time I checked, there is no copyright protection for fashion designs, only trademark. Glasses would be considered clothing by many... but I'm sure the manufacturer will argue otherwise if it helps it win.

The other issue is that photographers are not physically reproducing and selling a physical product. That's what copyright is supposed to protect, a real reproduction of an item and a photo just isn't even close to that.

Trade Dress laws are basically an attempt to extend trademark laws.

This lawsuit is frivolous.  Attractive models in nice light were seen wearing glasses.  They will not be able to prove loss of sales or actual monetary damages... because there are none.   

It's not that simple. Many "no-name" brands etc... are just producing knock-offs of the designer versions that are protected.

There are professionals who specialize in sourcing and researching branding free objects for use as props. Typically sourced from antique dealers and flee markets.

Today 3D printing is on the verge of making this specific example into a non issue. Everyone can have their own designs. You can already 3D print glasses frames and the technology looks likely to significantly impact that industry.

The people who make frames are probably going to be far more bothered about people pirating and distributing the actual designs via the web for 3D printing. The lenses you can already order from the far east if you have your prescription details.

Hi Yuri,

 I haven't read all the posts so this may be redundant but their was a french designer furniture company ( Le Corbusier ) last year that won just such a battle and every image with their furniture in it had to be pulled ( Getty is still trying to fight it ). It took our agency a lot of work but that was the final verdict, now their furniture is not in any of our stock agencies. This case sounds very similar and I am afraid might be the catalyst that will cause a great deal of stock imagery to be removed by copy written products. Best of luck I hope this isn't the beginning of the end for stock, please keep us posted. Here is a link to the topic. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court

Cheers,
Jonathan

P.S. All props should be purchased at Walmart 

Thanks for the BJP link. I note that the French court views the 'Le Corbusier' furniture as 'works of art'. Interestingly, Le Corbusier himself said, "Chairs are architecture, sofas are bourgeois". (from Wiki). Isn't 'bourgeois' another description of 'kitsch' rather than art!

IMO no way can you describe spectacle frames as works of art........not when they churn out millions of 'em every year but then again, no-one here knows the basis of the complaint against Yuri.

Quote from: OM on November 15, 2012, 19:37

IMO no way can you describe spectacle frames as works of art........not when they churn out millions of 'em every year but then again, no-one here knows the basis of the complaint against Yuri.

 that's why Yuri's models paid $800 for them rather than cheap 'non-art' tat that they could have paid far less for. It wasn't the optics that they were paying a premium for but the design of the frames.

Non-prescribed sunglasses costing $800.00 is unusual but prescription glasses including the frame costing $800.00 is not unusual.  In my town prescription glasses start at around $400.00.  If you want gradual bifocal + anti scratch + auto shade it is $550.00 +.  If you want gradual tri-focal + anti scratch + auto shade it is $600.00+ .

Coincidently this morning a friend of mine just got a pair of glasses with Nikon lenses for $600.00 and the frame is very subdued.  Another friend of mine  has double vision and his glasses need a prism which is $1000.00+.

When Yuri said that a model bought an expensive pair of glasses for $800.00, everybody assumed that this must be a fancy frame. Not necessarily true because simply put prescription glasses are expensive in general and it is not something you want to buy every month.  Yes he did say that it has a trademark but so almost everything else if a company want to sue.  All companies think that their shapes are special. Look at Apple trying to trademark the rectangular shape of their iPhone. It is only a rectangle. So what!

Now if Yuri write back telling us that this is about non-prescribed sunglasses than this is totally different and yes I don't think he would have much of a chance.

Anyone notice Yuri is no longer posting here.  His lawyers likely got to him and told him to stop.  He's likely reading what's being posted, but no longer can respond or add information.

Quote from: w7lwi on November 15, 2012, 21:21

Anyone notice Yuri is no longer posting here.  His lawyers likely got to him and told him to stop.  He's likely reading what's being posted, but no longer can respond or add information.

you need to check the forum more often

I mean in this specific thread.  Just took a look back and the last post by Yuri here was on November 10.

Its getting nerdish and I cannot follow you anymore.
Too many things taken for granted.
However it is clear that the French eat frogs. Dont they?

Isn't that cannibalism? Sorry, I still love you France. 

Hi Yuri,

 I haven't read all the posts so this may be redundant but their was a french designer furniture company ( Le Corbusier ) last year that won just such a battle and every image with their furniture in it had to be pulled ( Getty is still trying to fight it ). It took our agency a lot of work but that was the final verdict, now their furniture is not in any of our stock agencies. This case sounds very similar and I am afraid might be the catalyst that will cause a great deal of stock imagery to be removed by copy written products. Best of luck I hope this isn't the beginning of the end for stock, please keep us posted. Here is a link to the topic. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court

Cheers,
Jonathan

P.S. All props should be purchased at Walmart 

I don't think it would be the beginning of the end, but the beginning of companies making products specifically for stock.  I can't think of a better advertising source than stock photographers using your glasses, jeans, shirts etc.  If a clothing company were to say stock is OK, they could stand to get a lot of advertising out of the deal and we'd save having to remove logos   I'd guess top stock artists would get free clothing / accessories