Author Topic: Lawsuit Against Us. Fair? Unfair? Need your advice (Read 62835 times)

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #225 on:** November 16, 2012, 08:33 »

So watching the news and everyone is wearing glasses so is this company getting paid from them? Are they suing them as well?

Just wondering how this part works since they are pretty much doing the same thing.

gostwyck · « **Reply #226 on:** November 16, 2012, 09:00 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on November 16, 2012, 08:33

So watching the news and everyone is wearing glasses so is this company getting paid from them? Are they suing them as well?

Just wondering how this part works since they are pretty much doing the same thing.

'News' is editorial usage not commercial.

ShadySue · « **Reply #227 on:** November 16, 2012, 14:01 »

I've never understood why the agencies don't research and publish a list of companies/shops whose products are fine for RF.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #228 on:** November 16, 2012, 15:12 »

Nobodies stuff in fine for Rf, really. It just depends on the uniqueness of an item and a company's interest in protecting it.

Mantis · « **Reply #229 on:** November 16, 2012, 17:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 16, 2012, 15:12

Nobodies stuff in fine for Rf, really. It just depends on the uniqueness of an item and a company's interest in protecting it.

I'm a nobody, okay fine. Would they have come after me? Would they be that interested in coming after me vs. Yuri? I doubt it because we'd see a lot more law suits going on now with the tens of millions of images in ms today. This is a "I am Yuri" law suit.

ShadySue · « **Reply #230 on:** November 16, 2012, 17:26 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 16, 2012, 15:12

Nobodies stuff in fine for Rf, really. It just depends on the uniqueness of an item and a company's interest in protecting it.

Is that first sentence to be interpreted "Nobody's stuff is fine for commercial use"?
That's the problem of the international trade. There are so many different laws in all the different countries that we have to take the lowest common denominator.

gillian vann · « **Reply #231 on:** November 16, 2012, 18:28 »

if it is Luxotica (sp?), who own 90% of all glass brand designs, then it would seem we are all in breach. But as has been said, this is about Yuri.

ShadySue · « **Reply #232 on:** November 16, 2012, 18:37 »

Quote from: vannphoto on November 16, 2012, 18:28

if it is Luxotica (sp?), who own 90% of all glass brand designs, then it would seem we are all in breach. But as has been said, this is about Yuri.

If they win against Yuri, they'll come after the other agencies, with a precedent to strengthen their case.

Suljo · « **Reply #233 on:** November 16, 2012, 20:26 »

Does it blend?
Thats the question...

cardmaverick · « **Reply #234 on:** November 16, 2012, 22:13 »

Quote from: leaf on November 16, 2012, 06:47

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on November 15, 2012, 15:51
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

Once upon a time this is how things were done to finance movies. Back in the 80's - product placement was a source of financing then one day, companies just said "hey, why don't you PAY US for the right to put our stuff in your movie." It's been that way ever since. I honestly don't see that changing back to the old paradigm.

Microbius · « **Reply #235 on:** November 17, 2012, 04:50 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 16, 2012, 22:13

Once upon a time this is how things were done to finance movies. Back in the 80's - product placement was a source of financing then one day, companies just said "hey, why don't you PAY US for the right to put our stuff in your movie." It's been that way ever since. I honestly don't see that changing back to the old paradigm.

Nope, still the way it done with movies now. Hence the beer drinking scene in the new bond movie. Product placement still a big source of finance for new movies. Got any examples of the opposite being the case?

ETA this link, maybe you should watch this to get a better idea of how it still works?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POM_Wonderful_Presents:_The_Greatest_Movie_Ever_Sold

ShadySue · « **Reply #236 on:** November 17, 2012, 06:59 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 17, 2012, 04:50

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 16, 2012, 22:13
Once upon a time this is how things were done to finance movies. Back in the 80's - product placement was a source of financing then one day, companies just said "hey, why don't you PAY US for the right to put our stuff in your movie." It's been that way ever since. I honestly don't see that changing back to the old paradigm.

Nope, still the way it done with movies now. Hence the beer drinking scene in the new bond movie. Product placement still a big source of finance for new movies. Got any examples of the opposite being the case?

cardmaverick · « **Reply #237 on:** November 17, 2012, 17:46 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 17, 2012, 04:50

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 16, 2012, 22:13
Once upon a time this is how things were done to finance movies. Back in the 80's - product placement was a source of financing then one day, companies just said "hey, why don't you PAY US for the right to put our stuff in your movie." It's been that way ever since. I honestly don't see that changing back to the old paradigm.

Nope, still the way it done with movies now. Hence the beer drinking scene in the new bond movie. Product placement still a big source of finance for new movies. Got any examples of the opposite being the case?

ETA this link, maybe you should watch this to get a better idea of how it still works?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POM_Wonderful_Presents:_The_Greatest_Movie_Ever_Sold

RF Stock images mean loss of control, they will never go for it, their product could be used in a zillion ways they don't want it used in... this is the one big reason for the Le Corbusier lawsuit. In a movie, it's one specified use, and it can be tightly controlled. RM images? It's possible, but it could be a real PITA for an end user who just needs an image ASAP with no extra crap to deal with - that's the big reason behind the success of RF images - buy it, use it, forget about any hassles. The trend here is clear with stock photo lawsuits - they want us to pay them, not the other way around.

If they want an ad, they want control over it. They can easily do it themselves.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #238 on:** November 17, 2012, 17:49 »

A bit off topic, but the inherent loss of control associated with RF stock photos is one reason why some modeling agencies won't let their models appear in stock images.

ShadySue · « **Reply #239 on:** November 17, 2012, 17:54 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 17, 2012, 17:49

A bit off topic, but the inherent loss of control associated with RF stock photos is one reason why some modeling agencies won't let their models appear in stock images.

Not just RF.
MRs can be very 'vague' for images which are going to be sold RM also.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #240 on:** November 17, 2012, 18:00 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 17, 2012, 04:50

Got any examples of the opposite being the case?

I do. I work in film. I was on set for the movie Kalamity for about a month. I witnessed first hand the systematic elimination of brands galore. Some major movies can sell product placement spots, but not all directors want to turn their films into obvious ads, ergo having too buy permission from the brand. It's an issue of control and appearance. You might think it's great to sell a spot for a beer can your character drinks until all the people interested start demanding more blatant exposure or even brand name utterances from key characters - before you know it, you're paying them so you can use it in a more subdued natural fashion that doesn't affect the story.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #241 on:** November 17, 2012, 18:09 »

I just had this pop into my head...

Let's say you did manage to get product placement to work with a big agency like Getty - would the end user have the right to remove the products logos etc...? If they did, it would be hard to sell product placement... the brand might never be visible, thus wasted money on "ads" that never materialize.

I think product placement in stock would be more of a nightmare than a solution the more I analyze it.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #242 on:** November 19, 2012, 19:16 »

Great stuff Card Maverick.

Cheers,
Jonathan

jbarber873 · « **Reply #243 on:** November 19, 2012, 21:31 »

You've been targeted because you painted a big target on yourself - Being very visible, starting your own agency, etc. If i were the eyeglass company, I'd target you first for the reason that, although you may be well funded, i doubt that you have the deep pockets of any of the majors, yet you have the notoriety to be a test case for other agencies.
Case law and precedents are very important in cases such as these, so I'm sure they picked you for the reason that you don't want, or can't afford, a long drawn out legal battle. If you settle, that makes it all the much easier for the next target.
The other agencies won't help you because of anti-trust considerations, but I'm sure they are glad you're the one.
If it were me, I'd first move to have the case thrown out. If that doesn't work, I'd work out a quiet deal to cut them in on the revenue of every image that has their glasses, on the condition that it is not disclosed. I used to sell a lot of globe shots, so I paid the 2 major globe manufacturers a yearly fee to shoot their globes and sell them for annual report usage. It was a great deal for both of us.
It's just business.

leaf · « **Reply #244 on:** November 20, 2012, 01:30 »

Nobody has any idea (including Yuri) who is all being targeted. Perhaps the top 10 sites also sit with a lawsuit regarding these glasses.

Poncke · « **Reply #245 on:** December 12, 2012, 19:08 »

Whats the story Yuri? Any updates? How is this panning out?

Poncke · « **Reply #246 on:** February 16, 2013, 03:43 »

How did this end?

sharpshot · « **Reply #247 on:** February 16, 2013, 03:44 »

Looks like it ended in silence.

ShadySue · « **Reply #248 on:** February 16, 2013, 04:13 »

As there are still 794 hits on 'spectacles' on peopleimages, I guess it was just a bit of sabre rattling from the company.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #249 on:** February 16, 2013, 10:06 »

What's up are you bringing back old threads in honor of President's Day?

Quote from: Poncke on December 12, 2012, 19:08

Whats the story Yuri? Any updates? How is this panning out?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Lawsuit Against Us. Fair? Unfair? Need your advice (Read 62835 times)

ruxpriencdiam

gostwyck

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Mantis

ShadySue

gillian vann

ShadySue

Suljo

cardmaverick

Microbius

ShadySue

cardmaverick

cardmaverick

ShadySue

cardmaverick

cardmaverick

Jonathan Ross

jbarber873

leaf

Poncke

Poncke

sharpshot

ShadySue

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors