MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Yuri_Arcurs on November 10, 2012, 05:53
-
Hi Guys.
Recently my legal team has been working overtime battling a case against us made by a company manufacturing glasses. I can't mention their name here until the case opens to the public. The problem is that quite a few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots, which then turn out to of this particular brand and are "design trademarked". (There are no trademarks or logos on these glasses, just a shape of that particular design series from that year for that brand). These models have paid prices in the range of 800 USD for just one pair of glasses so they are quite expensive.
The problem is, that if this case goes into court and I lose, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the industry and we estimate that about 100000 images (at least) needs to be removed from all the online stock libraries, because as you know stock agencies don't want content online where their customers risk a lawsuit if using the images. Istock has done several of these "mass take downs" in the last few years. So if you shoot people like I do, and you have 10000 images in your portfolio, you should expect to have to remove 50-200 images.
Another effect we might expect, is that other brands of glasses will follow suit or that the agencies themselves will request you to remove all images with XXX brands, at which point we are looking at having to remove about 30-50% of all images on all stock sites with glasses. For me personally about 1500-3500 images. Potentially the biggest take down in stock history.
However. Is this fair?
1. Glasses are by the very nature something you wear on your face in all circumstances and thus are almost imposible not to take pictures off. Brands making glasses are aware of this and make them for this very purpose. Cars, computers and other everyday items are similarly recognisable, but are part of every day life. We can remove the logo, but can't remove the car.
2. Is it fair that a photographer that removes all trademarks, now have to risk being sued because of "design"in something as generic as glasses?
3. Is it fair that a photographer has to research into patent registrations prior to a stock shoot or a portrait series of a client? And in fact remove the model's/clients own glasses if they are of a particular brand? Even when this client has paid top dollar for them?
I think this case is ridiculous as you can probably hear, but it could become quite a big problem for us and all other photographers especially portrait photographers or other commercial photographers doing client work.
Any advice that we can use in our case preparations are very welcome. Good arguments, links to similar cases, reflections, law experience. Whatever you think is relevant is very welcome. If this case becomes a reality (which it looks like it will, because they are now already expanding their demands to more images) we want to take it to supreme court. Our lawyers are however not positive about our chances. :(
Best Yuri Arcurs
-
That's funny, I was just yesterday looking at some rather expensive sunglasses for a trip to Australia, now I read this! Which brand is it? I want to be sure I don't buy their model. Commiserations, Yuri, and good luck in resolving this.
-
No advice, just sympathy.
These lawsuits are total b*llshit.
You can't wear a photo of glasses.
I can understand lawsuits against other glasses manufacturers that copy their designs, but suing over a stock photo with someone incidentally wearing your glasses is just plain copyright trolling.
-
There are thousands and thousands of copies of sunglasses of this brand (that cannot be mentioned but it is obvious from Yuri's photos which manufacturer it is) produced daily. It is possible to buy very good copy of them at marketplace for 5 euro. Instead of lawsuit against these producers and sellers, manufacturer's concern is to battle against someone who spent money for their original product. World goes crazy. Time to start pornstock with naked models only.
-
The law must depend on the country involved and the actual image/s.
For example, incidental use of even a logo on an object is OK in the UK (so that old iStock chestnut of a YKK logo possibly distinguishable on a zipper on a full body person in an evironment would be fine in the UK). So if the glasses were on a model who was doing something and they were quite small in the photo, you'd be OK in the UK. But if the image was a close-up of the model looking like a specs ad, that might be problematic.
To be honest, they're probably just rattling your cage, as you have a very high profile and they think they can fleece you. They'll no doubt be hoping that you'll settle out of court, like Getty did when they sent these huge bills out to people who had illegally used their files for e.g. educational or charitable purposes. Damages awarded by a court, at least in the UK for these misuses would (probably) have been much lower than the amount demanded.
Let's face it: everything man-made has a designer. So if they are still alive, they could theoretically sue us for use of their product in a photo. I can sometimes recognise the brand of a generic-looking item of clothing in UK model shots, and I'm not remotely a fashionista. There's one US basics brand which has a different shoulder seam type than normal. (It's a standard seam type, I learned it at school; but it's not usual to do t-shirt shoulders that way.) So if I spot that on a photo, it's easy enough to look at the colour, length and other small details.
I'm sure your own lawyers have a far better handle on international law that I have, and they'll have seen the photos concerned. It's worrying if they think you have little chance.
Good luck. If you lose this, the world of stock will be reduced to nudes, nature and editorial.
IANAL
PS: wonder if you might get some unexpected support from some sort of (theoretical, I have no idea) organisation that promotes glasses. They are not going to want the idea reinforced that attractive people don't wear glasses.
-
In which country is the case going to be tried?
You may want to consult a copyright specialist lawyer from that country.
You might hold the following argument valid: The glasses are NOT a major part of the picture, that compares to shooting buildings with strangers in the frame.
And you may also hold valid that you have promoted their product for free by distributing pictures.
At least they will have to prove that the pictures has a negative effect on their brand, and its rather the opposite.
Secondly... You are allowed to shoot anything, and probably also to distribute it. It is the final use that can cause copyright infringements.
You may want to team up with other agencies.
-
If you loose this case Yuri, all future model photos will have to be in the nude. Clothes manufacturers will sue you for not having property releases, so will manufacturers of any jewelry the models might be waring.
Do not know American law, but in South Africa there is a principle that no interpretation of law will lead to a ridiculous (inapplicable) outcome and this will be utterly ridiculous!
-
Hi Yuri,
from personal sad experience with court cases in patent law I can tell you that you might find that you will indeed in the future have to research what kind of glasses, clothes, fabrics your models can wear, what chairs to sit on, what computers/tablets to use and will always be taking down files if there are new aggressive product design companies.
Law has nothing to do with fairness.
Only with who has enough money to push through his demands.
You might be able to argue that glasses are such a small part of the image, that their design rights are not affected, but I doubt you will be able to get through with it. At the last Lypse in Berlin, we were shown images of chairs that were so hotly copyrighted, that they couldn´t even print a flyer for us to take home to make sure we avoid them.
Yes, I believe as a professional stock photographer you will need to keep updating yourself on the current trends in copyright law. It is one of the areas were a company like getty/istock spend a huge amount of money on.
After all your whole business model revolves around copyright, so the legal stuff becomes part fo our job.
You might want to reach out to other agencies to share the cost of the case because they will be affected as well.
But all kinds of images get deactivated every year, because of copyright problems.
I hope you can come to a reasonable agreement with the company that is suing you, but I am afraid you will probably have to deactivate those images.
Like I said, Law is not fair. But neither is life.
ETA:
Going forward you might want to consider actually working with a clothes designer who will be proud that your models are using his or her clothes and glasses. They will get the added exposure from your blog and marketing.
And you get a property release for all items used.
With your brand name I wouldn´t be suprised if you get many offers. Who wouldn´t want to be able to outfit you with the hottest business suit of the year?
-
The case will be on Danish Jurisdiction at first trying to hit us in our own country. Then it will obviously expand to other countries to make sure we are forced to remove the images from all countries at which point all major stock sites will be forced to do the same. It will be a game changer yes and unfortunately limit the types of images we can produce quite a lot because if a generic everyday item such as a pair of glasses can be the subject of an infringement, then everything can. All recognisable car brands, all furniture, household items, computers, electronics... you name it. :(
-
In my opinion they are actually being very stupid. You have the most widely used files in the world and your pictures are a massive passive advertising campaign for them.
The only risk for them is that someone who copies their design could use your pictures for advertising. But then they would have to sue the copy cat anyway.
I would go and talk to their main competitor and get a deal so that in future you only use their glasses...and I would also present this option very clearly to teh company that is suing you. Maybe their business and marketing department can be convinced to sit down and calculate how much added free exposure their competition will then be getting and come to their senses...
Oh and of course point out that there will be lots of negative press once the case is open to the public. What kind of starlet, actor, model to be, celebrity will want to use their glasses if there is a risk of being sued??
Your models and business partners would obviously be reporting about this horrible case on all their blogs and discourage people from wearing them.
And again there competitors could advertise with "we don´t sue our customers"..."we are proud that Yuri Arcurs has chosen our designs for his next collection" etc...
I think the fallout from negative press might be the only thing to get idiots to think. But it is a longterm strategy, not something that will help you with the judge.
-
Might be worth contacting Getty and asking for their advice on this. If you lost a case like this, how many images would Getty have to take down? As they're the big stock images site, it's going to hit them the hardest. If this would set a president, they might want to use their resources to make sure you don't lose this action. And they must be used to dealing with cases like this.
-
Hi Yuri - This may be relevant. Given your being hit in Denmark, would CEPIC be able to offer any advice, similarly some of the traditional Danish agents such as Polfoto? I'd fire fire an Email off to them directly I'm guessing you have some contacts, mine are out of date.
Judged from the below, each photo would gave to be judged on a case by care merit, rather than a complete take-down notice. Your a businessman - make a decision based on your own financial implications rather than a point of order - unless you get some backing.
Oldhand
The test of trademark infringement is the likelihood of consumer confusion. If you sold a photo of a car showing the BMW logo, might it look as though you are connected to BMW? It doesn’t matter that you are not; it matters that the public might think you are.
Lanham Act
In the U.S., trademark infringement and false advertising are covered by federal statutory law known as the Lanham Act. Named for Congressman Fritz Lanham, (D-TX), a proponent of strong trademark protection, the Act forms title 15, chapter 22 of the United State Code.
False Designations of Origin
(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or;
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person''s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
— Lanham Act, 1946, 15 USC 1125
Source: http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-property-trademarks (http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-property-trademarks)
-
The glasses company ''smelled'' the chance to make some money without selling any glasses... embarrassing :-\
Yuri will be very helpful to post a link/photo of the sunglasses type/model that you talking about.
-
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?
-
Can't post brand name at this point. That would conflict with the case.
-
In my opinion they are actually being very stupid. You have the most widely used files in the world and your pictures are a massive passive advertising campaign for them.
The only risk for them is that someone who copies their design could use your pictures for advertising. But then they would have to sue the copy cat anyway.
I would go and talk to their main competitor and get a deal so that in future you only use their glasses...and I would also present this option very clearly to teh company that is suing you. Maybe their business and marketing department can be convinced to sit down and calculate how much added free exposure their competition will then be getting and come to their senses...
Oh and of course point out that there will be lots of negative press once the case is open to the public. What kind of starlet, actor, model to be, celebrity will want to use their glasses if there is a risk of being sued??
Your models and business partners would obviously be reporting about this horrible case on all their blogs and discourage people from wearing them.
And again there competitors could advertise with "we don´t sue our customers"..."we are proud that Yuri Arcurs has chosen our designs for his next collection" etc...
I think the fallout from negative press might be the only thing to get idiots to think. But it is a longterm strategy, not something that will help you with the judge.
Slightly oblique approach but if starlets/celebs are photographed by paparazzi and the celeb is pictured wearing sunglasses of a certain design, will the designer sue the paparazzo for taking a picture for commercial purposes without their permission. Of course not, because the designer wants their product shown associated with celebs. Unless that designer is prepared to sue every paparazzo/publisher for every photo in which their product appears (without permission), then they shouldn't be suing you. Sounds like they are trying it on. My 2c and not legal advice.
-
Only isolated nudes from now on Yuri! ;)
-
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?
Hi!
Theyre trying to get money out of you and who better to pick on then you? They are not worried about you showing the design, they just want money, thats all. After all, you showing their design is free ( gratis) adverstising, isnt it.
Danish courts are very relaxed. I doubt very much you will have a problem in the whole of Scandinavia. UK and US however is another problem.
I would have thought the right procedure was to first ask the agencies to remove all the shots and go from there.
The whole thing is getting ludicrous, you cant shoot anything without somebody filing for lawsuits.
Anyway, the reviewers at the agencies accepted the pictures, then they should have more knowledge about the industry. They have the final say! so its their problem, not yours. Bad judgement on their behalf ( since they should be trained to lookout for this, their agencies claim they are trained, right? ).
I would spin on that line, you havent got the final say but the agencies.
-
They sue you because of your "deep pockets" thats all.
I would settle out of court, the eyewear company want money thats all, they don't really care if you use them on stock photos or not.
In court not only will you probably loose you will also pay hefty lawyer fees.
Settle!
-
This is about every single commercial photo in the world. Apple successfully patents rectangle with rounded corners. I would never guess that it is possible. Is it time to produce triangle tablets? What's next? No more isolations because someone's going to register white background patent? Will all the models wear plain white t-shirts and lying on grass in the future? Well - maybe there will be special triple upside down reversed stitching on the shoulder visible patented by Stitchers Worldwide Inc. and particular color of lawn grass cultivar registered by United Grass Artists.
I hope that this patent madness has some limits.
-
This is about every single commercial photo in the world. Apple successfully patents rectangle with rounded corners. I would never guess that it is possible. Is it time to produce triangle tablets? What's next? No more isolations because someone's going to register white background patent? Will all the models wear plain white t-shirts and lying on grass in the future? Well - maybe there will be special triple upside down reversed stitching on the shoulder visible patented by Stitchers Worldwide Inc. and particular color of lawn grass cultivar registered by United Grass Artists.
I hope that this patent madness has some limits.
The differance is Apple is a multi billion corp. They can afford to fend off almost anybody. In a situation like this, you chose your battles.
-
I have no idea why a glass company wants to shoot themselves in the leg. It's not like you are stealing their designs, you are providing them much exposure, perhaps even more than their own advertising campaigns. They should be sending you free glasses to use in photoshoots.
They should be happy for the free exposure instead of trying to squeeze some pennies from photographers. Very short-sighted and greedy actions, but that's how the world seems to work nowdays :(
-
Wow. What a S**th*l* company. Whatever happens when the name of this company comes to public I will never ever buy from them again anything. I get increasingly intolerant about this type of stupid behavior.
From the legal side: I am afraid they might get through with that since I know of other cases like this, but it might simply depend on the particular judge. As I remember you are based in Denmark (?) and this countries are much more sane than the US when it comes to legal stuff but who knows...
-
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?
Why you? Because you're the creator of the images. The self proclaimed world's number one stock photographer. Of course you're going to attract attention. You're also an agency. And you can contact all the agencies you have distributed to, to take them down, since you know where you sell through. They would also have to contact all the buyers individually, with information from you and the agency, I guess.
I'm of the opinion that things you use in everyday life should be able to be incidentally used in stock images. As said, a photo of glasses aren't a pair of glasses. No one is making glasses from a photo. Same for cars, etc.
The question is, why come here? Your company obviously has a staff of maintained lawyers to deal with this. We're not going to give advice you haven't already gotten. Are you looking for a mobilized outrage campaign?
This isn't new though. Surely, you've been affected by the Le Corbusier lawsuits: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court)
BTW, here is an IS thread on sunglasses: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54397&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54397&page=1)
-
Sean is right as usual about incidental use. Of course this is a crazy scenario but it’s happened with cars and shoes and now gonna happen with shades. However, there is an element of swings and roundabouts here - producers of stock imagery are very protective, even paranoid, about their intellectual property which makes it hard to make a case against someone else defending theirs.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/wow-have-you-guys-seen-this/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/wow-have-you-guys-seen-this/)
-
In Denmark. Good.
Then law and not lawyer will be important, and that is good.
The copyright law was originally made to protect a work to not be copied for a certain period of time, so the inventor could earn his money back.
You have not produced glasses, and they can still earn their money, your photos actually promotes them. You have not stolen anything and have not been exploiting any of their idears (and you can prove that, by showing your pictures with a percentage of glasses). The glasses is a minor detail and not important in the picture that mainly expresses an expression or a situation.
Then remember they have to prove their case.
And what is it? Violation of copyright?
You have not produced any glasses of that shape. You have not used their trademark.
Undermining their sales?
You have promoted if, if any.
And who are the parties in the case?
You as a photographer, a named person and a distributor? The legal entity "Peoples photos"?
OK then, but what has peoples photos done wrong, that they can sue you for? That needs to be very clear.
Then its always a good thing, to let them bear the burden of evidence. Like having them say which pictures, and where they found them, then might have downloaded illegally.
Dont get too stirred up, they might not have a case. And if they have, it might not be expensive, since they cannot realy prove much damage.
They might have a case against a competitor who used one of your photos to promote copycat glasses. But thats not you. You just take the photos and distribute them.
Precedens might be sought in Nike shoes and the little mermaid.
Then.. Fishermen and farmers in Denmark, in the old days, never caught anything and crops always failed.
You can never hear a fisherman say he had a good catch.
That was for a reason.
-
"your photos actually promotes them"
Just like with us and Pinterest, it is not up to you to decide whether 'free advertising' is something wanted.
-
Oh I forgot.
Do not provide them with evidence, be carefull what you write.
-
Couple of thoughts. You could choose to fight on principle - I am entitled to use your product as an insignificant prop in an image that is about something else - or on the details - those aren't your glasses.
I would have someone start scouring all the cheap places that sell knock-off products with no brand names that are designed to look like famous stuff. I'm assuming if this type of eyewear is popular (like Sarah Palin's glasses) then there'll be plenty of cheap imitations available. If your lawyers had 10 examples of glasses that were just like the brand name ones to show their lawyers and asked them how they planned to prove that the glasses in your images had the brand name items in them, perhaps they'd decide this was not worth their time.
Of course you would want to remove all references from the web that admitted you had used the designer glasses if you wanted to pursue this approach :)
And, I'd insist on using cheap knockoff eyeglasses in all future shoots, not the model's own expensive stuff
-
"your photos actually promotes them"
Just like with us and Pinterest, it is not up to you to decide whether 'free advertising' is something wanted.
It is an argument.
They might or might not want, but it is an argument against that they loose money, value, brand or whatever.
Arguments count in court.
-
Not being able to control the exposure of their product, including the people used in the advertising with it, is an argument. Spreading images of a zombie with their eyewear would not be beneficial.
Anyways, if that was an argument, I'd rent a Ferarri and use it, as it is 'promoting the product'. If anything, he could be reducing the value because 'joe average in every image wears these'. No exclusive or luxury panache anymore.
-
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?
my guess is that they think you are an individual and less likely to have expensive lawyers and more likely to say 'oh no' and just pay up, rather than fight it :)
I would have thought though that is like any image usage, it comes down to what the final user does with it. I have editorial images, if someone licences one and uses it commercially that isnt (or at least shouldnt) be my problem. I cant see how they can sue the photographer.
you could always say they are cheap chinese brands (who ripped off the design ;)
-
Yuri this case is absolutely ridiculous!
I hope you will win in court and crush them. If you loose what next? Clothing companies will follow?
Wish you the best!
-
Not being able to control the exposure of their product, including the people used in the advertising with it, is an argument. Spreading images of a zombie with their eyewear would not be beneficial.
Anyways, if that was an argument, I'd rent a Ferarri and use it, as it is 'promoting the product'. If anything, he could be reducing the value because 'joe average in every image wears these'. No exclusive or luxury panache anymore.
If you are massproducing material goods and put them on people, they are going to be photographed, since people photograph eachother.
point is, that the photographing does not take value out of the good.
And that goes for Ferrari also.
-
...
I would have someone start scouring all the cheap places that sell knock-off products with no brand names that are designed to look like famous stuff. I'm assuming if this type of eyewear is popular (like Sarah Palin's glasses) then there'll be plenty of cheap imitations available. If your lawyers had 10 examples of glasses that were just like the brand name ones to show their lawyers and asked them how they planned to prove that the glasses in your images had the brand name items in them, perhaps they'd decide this was not worth their time.
...
this is the best advice so far imo, how can they prove that the glasses in the photo actually theirs? let's say that you bought these glasses in Thailand flea market with a cheap brand name, the actual people violated their glasses design copyright is the glasses maker, not you.
i would never settle this type case outside courthouse though.
-
"If you are massproducing material goods and put them on people, they are going to be photographed, since people photograph eachother."
We aren't talking about just people photographing each other. We are really discussing using the content for commercial use in advertising.
-
Right.
Point is they dont collide.
People are photographed with shooes and glasses.
The shoe and glasses producers do not lose money because their products are photographed.
If they did not want them to be photograpohed, or spilled on, or thrown in canals they could keep their product in the basement and never sell them.
A photograph is not a material product, it is no copy of the product, but a collection of pixels that produce an image of something. The product, that someone distributed so eagerly, and was already paid for, might be illustrated in the picture.
-
Seems to me that a court finding in favor of the eyeglass company would be opening a slippery slope. That would mean that any image with an "object" in it would be subject to design infringement.
-
...Is it fair that a photographer that removes all trademarks, now have to risk being sued because of "design"in something as generic as glasses...
It's ridiculous and it will kill this industry. We've seen this stuff happen before with jeans, particular jeans manufacturers not wanting their products in stock images. Then cars. Now glasses. What's next?
I read a lot of design magazines and I always see those ads run by the air freshener company, the one with the car air fresheners shaped like trees. They run these ads to let people know that the tree shape is trademarked and can't be used in any designs without a license. And while I appreciate them spending money to inform designers, I think the ads come across as obnoxious and the notion that a stupid air freshener tree shape needs a license to use in a design is absurd to me. I'd never license an air freshener design, if only because I find the efforts they go to to be so excessive, to protect something that is so mundane and everyday.
What's next? We need to license everything that appears in a design, a photo, an illustration, etc? The clothes, the furniture, the brand of lightbulbs? Next thing you know, a carpet manufacturer will identify a particular weave of carpet in a stock photo and start suing people.
It's sad, but stuff like this will force talented artists out of this business. It's already hard to keep photo shoots within tight budgets for microstock. Having to do all of this additional research, contacting product manufacturers to check on legal protections, etc., will make it impossible to work anymore.
-
Right.
Point is they dont collide.
People are photographed with shooes and glasses.
The shoe and glasses producers do not lose money because their products are photographed.
If they did not want them to be photograpohed, or spilled on, or thrown in canals they could keep their product in the basement and never sell them.
A photograph is not a material product, it is no copy of the product, but a collection of pixels that produce an image of something. The product, that someone distributed so eagerly, and was already paid for, might be illustrated in the picture.
Yes, however, you've slid from "but it's free advertising" which is not a valid argument, imo, to "we aren't selling copies of the product", which I agree with.
-
Eyeglasses have been made for centuries. The invention of eyeglasses goes back to the 13th centuries. The earliest pictorial evidence for the use of eyeglasses is Tommaso da Modena's 1352 portrait of the cardinal Hugh de Provence reading in a scriptorium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasses)
Billions of them have been made ever since. Thousands of shapes and colors have been created. I wear cheap 20 dollars reading glasses. If models wear a generic shape and color, how can someone prove beyond any doubt that it is not something from 1895, 1952 or 1999.
Denis
-
Problem is that Yuri already admitted to using design trademarked glasses without a property release.
From his original post:
"I can't mention their name here until the case opens to the public. The problem is that quite a few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots, which then turn out to of this particular brand and are "design trademarked".
Fully agree though that it is ridiculous and hard to keep up with what is not allowed - although generally it is good to stay away from "brand" anything or PS . out of them. Hopefully Yuri is somewhat insured against lawsuits or legal fees
Also is the lawsuit only against Yuri, excluding all the agencies that are/have been actively selling them - don't they have ANY responsibility as an agent? It all sounds like a fishing expedition to me, but who knows.
-
A quick reminder to all readers, that Dan Heller already wrote at length about photographs of trademarked items:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html (http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html)
-
Would it make any difference that the models supplied their own personal glasses, rather than Yuri supplying them? How about a counter suit demanding the manufacturer include instructions to the consumer, along with the product, to the effect that this product may not be used for any commercial purpose other than the purpose for which it was designed. Warn the consumer they may not be photographed while using the product or they could face legal action. Lord knows there are enough idiotic warnings out there right now, such as warnings on cans of peanuts that state "WARNING: This product may contain peanuts."
-
My guess is the company in question is Luxottica. They're notoriously aggressive. They bullied Oakley into being bought out by them, for example. http://www.luxottica.com/en/ (http://www.luxottica.com/en/)
-
There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from wearing their precription glasses at anytime for the same reason you would not prevent someone from wearing their prescribed hearing aids or denture. There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from working as a model just because he/she is wearing precribed glasses for the same reason you would not prevent someone to be a model just because he/she is wearing denture or an hearing aid.
Denis
-
There isn't any law in Denmmark against people or companys making frivolous threats or demands?
-
The only other thing I can think off, but that surely your lawyers already now - have they ever defended their brand in a similar court case before? And for how many years have your files been online? And how many other images are out there with their glasses by other photographers. You might be able to negotiate a different settlement if you can prove that their glasses have been widely used for years in advertising by many different artists and companies without them ever taking any action.
If you have a trademarked designed you are also required to protect it actively, i.e. by suing a lot. Which is why companies like Apple, Hermes, Ferrari are always in court. If they stoop suing, there are clauses that the design loses value and can finally be used freely. The details depend on the different countries.
What this might be bring is that you are only liable for files from the last 3 years instead of the last 10 for example, which would lower your risk and the value of the court case as a whole.
-
Something that strikes me is "why me".
Because you're so high profile, and apparently so successful.
-
Youre all leading him up the garden path. None of you have ever been in this situation and will never be. So just dont say anything, rather just be quiet.
-
Law and common sense aren't always seen together. The glasses become part of the appeal of the image. Whether this is good or bad is another question. For the longest time I used Apple products in images with no problems as long as the logo was not visible. I still brush out the Nike swish, not the shoe. That too seems acceptable. As far as agency lawyers are concerned anyway. But a lawsuit could quickly change all that for everyone. I hope the case goes nowhere but like I said, common sense has little to do with it.
-
Youre all leading him up the garden path. None of you have ever been in this situation and will never be. So just dont say anything, rather just be quiet.
Except that he asked for advice and anything that people think is relevant. So that's what he's getting, good or bad.
My own view is that there is more to the story that hasn't been revealed.
Yuri, shouldn't your lawyers be advising you not to discuss this case at all, especially in a public forum?
-
...Anyway, the reviewers at the agencies accepted the pictures, then they should have more knowledge about the industry. They have the final say! so its their problem, not yours. Bad judgement on their behalf ( since they should be trained to lookout for this, their agencies claim they are trained, right? ).
I would spin on that line, you havent got the final say but the agencies.
Don't think that will work. Reviewers are very low paid, so they aren't going to be experts. Have you ever read the sites contributor agreements? They all seem to have an indemnification clause. Have a look at section 12 of the Shutterstock submitters TOS as an example.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml)
I don't know if that has ever been tested. It doesn't seem fair that we should have to be legal experts and I think the responsibility should be with the buyers, as all we are selling is a license to use our images. The buyer should check that the image is suitable for the use they want.
-
There's always the context in which the purchased photo might be used.
However, in editorial use, it would be perfectly fine (if true) to use an isolated photo of a pair of glasses, with logo, and say "X glasses are badly made and fall apart in a short time" or "Y glasses are made in sweatshops in Z country, and the materials used are making the workers ill".
Just like for a while it was common (in the UK) on the news or in newspapers to see criminal-types wearing real or rip-off Burberry scarves or hats, which certainly lowered the value of that brand which positions itself in the luxury market.
It's hard to see how a commercial use of the image could be worse than examples like the above two editorial examples. Unless it was one of these negative comparison adverts that seem to be illegal in the UK. And then surely the onus would be on the advertiser to prove their point.
But again IANAL, common sense doesn't always apply and the Law is often an Ass.
-
There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from wearing their precription glasses at anytime for the same reason you would not prevent someone from wearing their prescribed hearing aids or denture. There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from working as a model just because he/she is wearing precribed glasses for the same reason you would not prevent someone to be a model just because he/she is wearing denture or an hearing aid.
Denis
Absolutely true! Denmark probably has (like Belgium) a law against discrimination. That is against discriminating people for anything, including what they wear. If we start hiring ONLY models without glasses, that would be discriminating and against this law. You can hardly expect Yuri to order generic brandless glasses for every model he hires.
-
It is my understanding that you do not need permissions to make images available for sale. It is the responsibility of the publisher to ensure that permissions to use the image are in place.
-
It is my understanding that you do not need permissions to make images available for sale. It is the responsibility of the publisher to ensure that permissions to use the image are in place.
It may depend on the agency t&c. E.g. iStock advertises that their images are 'safe', where Alamy clearly puts the onus on the buyer.
-
It is my understanding that you do not need permissions to make images available for sale. It is the responsibility of the publisher to ensure that permissions to use the image are in place.
It may depend on the agency t&c. E.g. iStock advertises that their images are 'safe', where Alamy clearly puts the onus on the buyer.
In which case it is the agency that is taking responsibility if they claim the images are 'safe'. However, within the context of the original question, unless Yuri has made that claim on his own website, he is merely making the images available for sale and the responsibility then falls to the publisher or to other agencies making those claims for his images.
But as I said. Perhaps there is more to this story than has been revealed so far.
-
Can you suggest us which glass company we should recommend our models to use/buy? If you cannot tell us this company name, you can probably help us not to choose this one.
-
There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from wearing their precription glasses at anytime for the same reason you would not prevent someone from wearing their prescribed hearing aids or denture. There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from working as a model just because he/she is wearing precribed glasses for the same reason you would not prevent someone to be a model just because he/she is wearing denture or an hearing aid.
Denis
Absolutely true! Denmark probably has (like Belgium) a law against discrimination. That is against discriminating people for anything, including what they wear. If we start hiring ONLY models without glasses, that would be discriminating and against this law. You can hardly expect Yuri to order generic brandless glasses for every model he hires.
That's a nonsense argument. Like saying you can't discriminate against a model driving his Ferrari in an image talking on an iPhone at the same time. Obviously we choose models because they fit the target audience we are aiming at. Otherwise, Yuri would have to use anyone that walked in the door, and not slim, modern, attractive models, wearing glasses to give them an air of "intelligence" or other subconscious reason.
-
Youre all leading him up the garden path. None of you have ever been in this situation and will never be. So just dont say anything, rather just be quiet.
Except that he asked for advice and anything that people think is relevant. So that's what he's getting, good or bad.....
Indeed
-
It is my understanding that you do not need permissions to make images available for sale. It is the responsibility of the publisher to ensure that permissions to use the image are in place.
It may depend on the agency t&c. E.g. iStock advertises that their images are 'safe', where Alamy clearly puts the onus on the buyer.
In which case it is the agency that is taking responsibility if they claim the images are 'safe'.
Not at all. iStock's ASA says, inter alia:
" The Supplier acknowledges that iStockphoto prohibits any Content or any other material that infringes on any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, right to privacy, right to publicity, or any other applicable law or proprietary right to be uploaded to the Site.
By uploading Content, you are warranting that you own all proprietary rights, including copyright, in and to the Content with full power to grant the rights contemplated in this Agreement. ... You also warrant that where required by applicable law, you have also obtained a valid and binding release in substantially the same form as [property release] relating to any identifiable property contained in the Content that might sensibly lead to the identity of or be required by the owner of such property to permit the broad uses, including commercial use, of Accepted Content by iStockphoto and its Distribution Partners’ customers. ...
The Supplier agrees that neither iStockphoto nor any of its directors, officers, employees, partners, affiliates or agents shall be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, consequential or incidental, arising out of the use of, or the inability to use any Content or Description Information, or any error, omission or other matter relating to a model or property release respecting Content or Descriptive Information.
-
There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from wearing their precription glasses at anytime for the same reason you would not prevent someone from wearing their prescribed hearing aids or denture. There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from working as a model just because he/she is wearing precribed glasses for the same reason you would not prevent someone to be a model just because he/she is wearing denture or an hearing aid.
Denis
Absolutely true! Denmark probably has (like Belgium) a law against discrimination. That is against discriminating people for anything, including what they wear. If we start hiring ONLY models without glasses, that would be discriminating and against this law. You can hardly expect Yuri to order generic brandless glasses for every model he hires.
That's a nonsense argument. Like saying you can't discriminate against a model driving his Ferrari in an image talking on an iPhone at the same time. Obviously we choose models because they fit the target audience we are aiming at. Otherwise, Yuri would have to use anyone that walked in the door, and not slim, modern, attractive models, wearing glasses to give them an air of "intelligence" or other subconscious reason.
However the difference between an iPhone and prescribed glasses is that glasses could be a necessity so that the model does not fall down when she/he walks. If that is the look you want with her/his glasses, are you going to exchange her/his good prescribed glasses for a pair of non-prescribed glasses?
-
My guess is the company in question is Luxottica. They're notoriously aggressive. They bullied Oakley into being bought out by them, for example. [url]http://www.luxottica.com/en/[/url] ([url]http://www.luxottica.com/en/[/url])
That is my guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica)
If so, these guys are ruthless, funded and ready (and looking) for a fight. We will need to know more before we can give advice. Are they seeking damages or a simple request to remove images? Lawsuits are expensive. You may end up winning the battle but losing the war.
-
I hope you're successful fighting this Yuri. It seems like BS to me. This glasses company should be thrilled their glasses are getting so much exposure.
I am certain that you are only being targeted because they assume you have deep pockets.
Best of luck with this.
-
There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from wearing their precription glasses at anytime for the same reason you would not prevent someone from wearing their prescribed hearing aids or denture. There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from working as a model just because he/she is wearing precribed glasses for the same reason you would not prevent someone to be a model just because he/she is wearing denture or an hearing aid.
Denis
Absolutely true! Denmark probably has (like Belgium) a law against discrimination. That is against discriminating people for anything, including what they wear. If we start hiring ONLY models without glasses, that would be discriminating and against this law. You can hardly expect Yuri to order generic brandless glasses for every model he hires.
That's a nonsense argument. Like saying you can't discriminate against a model driving his Ferrari in an image talking on an iPhone at the same time. Obviously we choose models because they fit the target audience we are aiming at. Otherwise, Yuri would have to use anyone that walked in the door, and not slim, modern, attractive models, wearing glasses to give them an air of "intelligence" or other subconscious reason.
However the difference between an iPhone and prescribed glasses is that glasses could be a necessity so that the model does not fall down when she/he walks. If that is the look you want with her/his glasses, are you going to exchange her/his good prescribed glasses for a pair of non-prescribed glasses?
I guess what I am trying to say is that no one should have the right to take someone else vision away at any cost, for any reason and for any amount of time.
-
It is my understanding that you do not need permissions to make images available for sale. It is the responsibility of the publisher to ensure that permissions to use the image are in place.
It may depend on the agency t&c. E.g. iStock advertises that their images are 'safe', where Alamy clearly puts the onus on the buyer.
In which case it is the agency that is taking responsibility if they claim the images are 'safe'.
Not at all. iStock's ASA says, inter alia:
" The Supplier acknowledges that iStockphoto prohibits any Content or any other material that infringes on any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, right to privacy, right to publicity, or any other applicable law or proprietary right to be uploaded to the Site.
By uploading Content, you are warranting that you own all proprietary rights, including copyright, in and to the Content with full power to grant the rights contemplated in this Agreement. ... You also warrant that where required by applicable law, you have also obtained a valid and binding release in substantially the same form as [property release] relating to any identifiable property contained in the Content that might sensibly lead to the identity of or be required by the owner of such property to permit the broad uses, including commercial use, of Accepted Content by iStockphoto and its Distribution Partners’ customers. ...
The Supplier agrees that neither iStockphoto nor any of its directors, officers, employees, partners, affiliates or agents shall be liable for any damages, whether direct, indirect, consequential or incidental, arising out of the use of, or the inability to use any Content or Description Information, or any error, omission or other matter relating to a model or property release respecting Content or Descriptive Information.
Yes but terms and conditions aren't the law. They are always written heavily in favour of the company but they don't have legally binding status if they contradict the law and that has to be tested.
-
BTW, doesn't the agencies have any responsibility? It's THEM who accepted the images even if they contained trademarked elements...?
-
Youre all leading him up the garden path. None of you have ever been in this situation and will never be. So just dont say anything, rather just be quiet.
on the rocks?
-
Send them the images along with an invoice for the commercial product shot.
-
This is all about photographing property and/or the need for Property Releases (I suspect Yuri didn't get a property release from the glasses source). There seem to be numerous opinions that Property Releases are not (never?) required in various countries around the world. Here are a few references. Of course the laws vary by country. Property Release may be different than Copyright/Trademark regulations.
Property Releases
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=401 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=401)
Property Releases not Needed
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=75 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=75)
Threats
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=121 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=121)
Houseboat
http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/your-houseboat-my-sculpture_16.html (http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/your-houseboat-my-sculpture_16.html)
Free use of people, Places, Things
http://centerforsocialmedia.org/sites/default/files/free_use.pdf (http://centerforsocialmedia.org/sites/default/files/free_use.pdf)
House in Advert
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1561 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1561)
Photos of Property
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1118 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1118)
Legal issues
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=267 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=267)
Valid Claim?
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=147 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=147)
-
Yuri, there is a high chance you're dealing with a company that is owned by Luxottica (as mentioned before).
If so and you haven't seen this short documentary (by 60 minutes) I urge you to watch it:
Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUiWOGv8ec#ws)
or (if it's blocked in your country) - http://www.styleite.com/media/luxottica-60-minutes/ (http://www.styleite.com/media/luxottica-60-minutes/)
This company is ruthless and don't expect an easy way out of this as they took down Oakley like nothing.
Their legal leverage is huge.
I wish I could provide you with better support. Good luck to you!
-
"I guess what I am trying to say is that no one should have the right to take someone else vision away at any cost, for any reason and for any amount of time. "
If the look needed requires no glasses, the person who needs glasses can't participate. Easy enough. That isn't discrimination.
-
I like the medical argument. I would definately get some copies of the doctors prescription for some models. Although the model can of course freely chose their glasses, yuri can indeed not be expected to provide free generic glasses with the right prescription at every shoot. If the model was a one legged amputee using a prosthetique, should they be required to remove their designer leg?
Glasses that are medially required are not the same as a normal designer accessoire. Very interesting.
If at least the case can be limited to sunglasses, versus all glasses and then again to the few cases were it is a close up and the glasses take up say 30% of the image you will significantly lower the number of files you might be liable for.
This again encourages the company to come to a settlement. Especially if money is their main goal.
The court case has to make them more money than they pay for lawyers and judge.
And again, the glasses are just a small part of a stock image, so they should not be able to able to claim damages and money from your full profit on the image. Obviously the models face is the important/valuable part.
Instead they should only be able to demand a much smaller percentage related to the value the glasses add to the whole image. To determine that, the court will need to call in an independent expert.
I had an 8 year patent court case that was based on a minor part of a machine, in fact and additional add on, that wasn´t necessary all the time. The patent holder originally wanted money as percentage for the whole machine, as if he had invented it all. But instead the judges immediatly said, that he cannot make claims for the whole machine if he is only a patent holder for one of 1000 parts and especially if it is an add on that is not included in the basic model.
Obviously we believed we weren´t violating his patent at all, but using a different version from 1942 where the patent had already run out. We even had a patent lawyers statement for it.
It is a long story, but in the end the judges decided that our version was still to similar and did infringe on the patent, but the patent was just a very minor part of the machine and thus the guy was only eligible for a few euros per machine, not several hundred as a license fee. He got some money, but probably lost over 50 000 euros in all the legal fees he had to pay. He also had to pay all of my personal lawyers bill, because he lost the case by 97%.
It was a German court case, not sure if it would help yours in any way, but if you are interested, send me a site mail.
There are many ways to reduce your liability. You lawyers will obviously need to look at this case from many angles and attack from many sides.
However, all court cases use up a lot of your time and money. So if you can come to a reasonable agreement, i would always recommend to settle.
-
Interesting Video. I had not seen that and am a fan of 60 minutes. Makes me wonder ... is there an Anti-Trust suite here?
-
... If the look needed requires no glasses, the person who needs glasses can't participate. Easy enough. That isn't discrimination.
If this suit would be successful, microstock is in for a treat:
Remove all images of people wearing:
- glasses
- hats
- shoes
- clothes
- any other accessories
because the companies trademark their shapes, materials, colors and whatnot.
The costs for trademarking their stuff would be so negligible knowing that they can sue for billions from photographers and agencies worldwide.
It's not about discrimination I would think. It's about representing our reality and our environment.
-
Interesting Video. I had not seen that and am a fan of 60 minutes. Makes me wonder ... is there an Anti-Trust suite here?
To know that this conglomerate owns all those brands, stores and even vision insurance companies turns my stomach.
One day we'll find out that one head-company just owns all the companies in the world and just stages world wide economical crisis situations just to rake in more $$$.
-
"I guess what I am trying to say is that no one should have the right to take someone else vision away at any cost, for any reason and for any amount of time. "
If the look needed requires no glasses, the person who needs glasses can't participate. Easy enough. That isn't discrimination.
However, If I want the look with glasses. Are you saying that models with prescription glasses cannot participate?
For the few, glasses can be a highly fashionable item. However, above all, for the many, glasses are a necessity to SEE, and therefore, because of this necessity, the item become more of a facial feature than a fashionable item. I will always remember when I was 6, my dad came home without his glasses after he broke them, I had a big fit because, for the first few seconds, I did not know who he was.
-
"It's not about discrimination I would think. It's about representing our reality and our environment."
Right. Avoid this discrimination silliness, and stick with the "everyday objects" theme. Of course, if our picture was inside a picture frame in the back of another image, we would freak out. So are the glasses art? And protected? Like an image would be?
Congrats Yuri, on taking on the design and manufacturing industry on our behalf. Let us know how it turns out.
-
There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from wearing their precription glasses at anytime for the same reason you would not prevent someone from wearing their prescribed hearing aids or denture. There are absolutly no reason why anyone should be prevented from working as a model just because he/she is wearing precribed glasses for the same reason you would not prevent someone to be a model just because he/she is wearing denture or an hearing aid.
Denis
Absolutely true! Denmark probably has (like Belgium) a law against discrimination. That is against discriminating people for anything, including what they wear. If we start hiring ONLY models without glasses, that would be discriminating and against this law. You can hardly expect Yuri to order generic brandless glasses for every model he hires.
That's a nonsense argument. Like saying you can't discriminate against a model driving his Ferrari in an image talking on an iPhone at the same time.
That's illegal. It would clearly not be discriminatory to require a model not to do that.
In the EU, discrimination legislation seems to trump most other legislation. So it might come down to whether the specs were medically prescribed or not.
-
Shirts, pants, suits, socks, coats and sweathers you can change and mixe twice, three times a day if you want. Prescription glasses are not the same, you have them for 2-4 years or longer if your eyes stay the same. 98% of all glasses owners wear the same pair every single day of their life not because it is fashionable but because they need them to see.
Else, if clear lens glasses are so fashionable like this unknown company would like us to believe, why don't we see people with perfect vision wearing them?
-
EU legislation is supposed to be harmonised across the whole Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/index_en.htm (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/index_en.htm)
I don't know Danish, but in the UK, "3-D articles will only normally be protected if they are 'works of artistic craftsmanship'. "
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources-and-events/Business-and-public-sector/Guides/Intellectual-Property (http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources-and-events/Business-and-public-sector/Guides/Intellectual-Property)
There's a difference in whether a 3D object is designed primarily to be functional or primarily to be only decorative. Clearly prescription specs or sunspecsare designed primarily to be functional:
http://www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/3d-artworks1 (http://www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/3d-artworks1)
This may, or may not be of interest (UK, Canadian and US law)
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/files/76_rushtoneconomicscopyright00.pdf (http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/files/76_rushtoneconomicscopyright00.pdf)
In the UK, a 2D representation (e.g. photograph) of a 3D object does not breach its copyright, as a direct copy would. Presumably as the EU legislation is supposed to be aligned, Denmark probably has similar legislation.
As noted above, it too often comes down to who has the most expensive lawyers. Maybe it would be worth getting in bed with Getty for this.
-
No need to panic, Yuri.
You only need:
1. Good lawyers. Do you remember someone got away with murder? Counter claim damages, including punitive damages if Danish law allows it.
2. Good publicist. You must know any publicity is good for your business? Try to keep your own mouth shut, as your lawyers will surely tell you.
-
Isn't this going off topic a little with discussions of discrimination and new world order?
My understanding is that the 'case' is about whether a company can control the incidental use of their product in photos that are later licenced for commercial use. 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?
-
Of course, if our picture was inside a picture frame in the back of another image, we would freak out. So are the glasses art? And protected? Like an image would be?
Interesting analogy, I give you that, yes the glasses frame could be art. However, it is attached to prescribed lenses that the owner need to see. It is impossible for the glasses owner to separate the frame from the lenses and wear just the lenses without the frame. Therefore, the medical element should be uphold at all cost, above the fashion element. This is not just a fashionable item, above all, the lenses attached to the frame are prescribed medical items and therefore absolutely nothing should get in the way of wearing them.
-
No need to panic, Yuri.
You only need:
1. Good lawyers. Do you remember someone got away with murder? Counter claim damages, including punitive damages if Danish law allows it.
2. Good publicist. You must know any publicity is good for your business? Try to keep your own mouth shut, as your lawyers will surely tell you.
And if it all goes wrong, get to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and seek asylum :)
-
Interesting. On October 7th, 60 Minutes (American News Program) aired a feature about why eyeglasses are so expensive. Here is the news story...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n)
As far as advice....well, that's for the lawyers to determine. The best way to cover yourself is to get insurance against this sort of thing (I use Hill & Usher and have a special rider on the policy for circumstances like this).
-
Well you opened my eyes about the sun glass industry if nothing else. I hadn't seen that 60 minutes video either. It needs to be shown more. My next pair will be generic.
You might be able to drum up public support for the law suit (much like those I happen to belong to in Canada for internet freedom), and get assistance and donations with paying your fees, possibly good lawyers that want publicity etc. If enough feel like I do (who knows) they could tarnish their own brand with the case. I would love to see this go to court and be won but that would be for my own selfish reasons and I'm not the one that has to pay for it. I don't agree with many copyright cases these days and I wish the huge brands didn't have such control, but it is what has always run the world in one form or another. I'd love to see a win take them down a notch and clearer laws on copy rights.
-
Something that strikes me is "why me".
I come from a very different background than you. I do recall a moment about 20 years ago though when I was in the corporate offices of a television broadcast company. The CEO, COO, and Treasurer of the company were around a speaker phone. The person on the other end suddenly screamed (literally) "BUT YOU'RE SUING ME!". The COO calmly responded "Look, it's business, don't take it personally."
For your own sanity, I think you need to view this the same way...and prepare for it. Have insurance on hand, have a good legal team assembled to deal with these situations. Don't take them personally.
-
I worked for a lingerie manufacturer years ago. Copies of our most successful products were coming from every imaginable country. We were told by our attorneys beforehand to copyright in every country, which was prohibitively expensive, so we had to look the other way. Each design patent required separate action. Additionally, each country had it's own laws to deal with such infringements. Be sure you find and carefully interview a top-notch patent attorney with international experience to work with your attorneys. That way you will be able to trust what those with whom you have a relationship tell you. I highly doubt this company covered themselves internationally, but go after them with all you have.
One more thing. They have the burden of proof to claim the glasses are indeed their design. Since everything successful is knocked off these days, have someone do research to see if this company has gone after copyright infringement in the past, and what the outcome was. A legal assistant can do it, but not with the same passion as your own employees. If there are copies of the product out there, it will certainly cloud their case.
-
If the look needed requires no glasses, the person who needs glasses can't participate. Easy enough. That isn't discrimination.
Maybe not in the US.
I see there's no danger of your proportion of spec-wearers reflecting reality even in the US.
-
....
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?
-
surely this is ridiculous. Every item of clothes - even generic Target clothing - worn by our models is recognisable to the original designer, right? same logic should prevail: don't wear our brand in your shoots, but of course it doesn't because it's ridiculous to ask our models to be naked.
whatever brand of glasswear your model wears is not recognisable to me, and yet I'm sure it's already imbedded in my mind as 'cool, beautiful, desirable' merely by seeing them on beautiful women in ads around the world. enough media attention could have a negative impact on the brand, and I love an earlier suggestion to contact their biggest competitor to exclusively use their glasswear in your future shoots. you are in a great position to be able to do that.
-
Another thing.
When the glasses were issued, did they come with a pice of paper thet limited the use and mention photography?
(Lack of licensing mechanism).
http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/files/2009/10/fairusechecklist.pdf (http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/files/2009/10/fairusechecklist.pdf)
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1118 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1118)
-
sorry to hear about this yuri. i can only suggest you review the chase jarvis case against k2 skis. if nothing else it will set you up for the length of the battle and the depth to which is could go.
a quick google of chase jarvis vs k2 will give you all you need.
good luck and again, sorry man. thats a kick in the nuts.
-
Seems to me that a court finding in favor of the eyeglass company would be opening a slippery slope. That would mean that any image with an "object" in it would be subject to design infringement.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
-
Time to start pornstock with naked models only.
Make sure there are no 'props' in the photos. ;)
-
Interesting. On October 7th, 60 Minutes (American News Program) aired a feature about why eyeglasses are so expensive. Here is the news story...
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n[/url] ([url]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n[/url])
As far as advice....well, that's for the lawyers to determine. The best way to cover yourself is to get insurance against this sort of thing (I use Hill & Usher and have a special rider on the policy for circumstances like this).
v interesting.
and makes the idea of going to competitors laughable.... apparently there are none.
-
After thinking about this and spending my life in marketing it seems any company without their head up their azz would welcome the opportunity to have a world class photographer showcasing their products internationally. They should be sending Yuri all the newest products and have him use them almost like an endorsement.
Having beautiful models photographed perfectly with your product circulating the world? What could be better? And have him leave the logos on for his own collection.
Am I missing something here? ::)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
:)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
....
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.
-
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 ;)
-
....
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?
-
error
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
....
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
....
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.
-
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?
-
Is it possible that all stock agencies could help you out in terms of legal aid/advice seeing as if the ruling comes out in their favor they could then go after every single other agency out there if they were feeling greedy.
-
....
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.
No, it is your partial quote of my comment that I'm referring to. Where you partially quote a statement to make it look like I am saying that taking away someone's vision is funny. I am not saying that taking away someone's vision is funny. I am saying that using that as a defence is funny or perhaps I should have said it's not a good argument for this case.
I admit my error on thinking it was sunglasses but I don't believe it would make a difference whether it glasses, sunglasses or even shoes that the company was suing for. After all, you could argue that it would be unfair for someone to remove their shoes before being photographed but that's a silly argument of you need shots of someone barefoot for example. I think it's a weak argument for the purpose of a court case. After all, if the photographer wants a shot without glasses, would the model be so offended if asked to remove them? I don't think so. I am saying that argument wouldn't stand up.
If I was defending myself here I would be arguing that the incidental use of the glasses in an image isn't an infringement of copyright/trademark. And secondary to that, even if it was shown that the incidental use was an infringement, then I would be arguing that it is the publisher of the images and not the photographer that is responsible for ensuring that the necessary permissions are in place. The point being, it isn't Yuri they should be suing. It is the publisher of the images, the end user they should be pursuing if they use them for commercial purposes.
I'm pretty certain that European law places the onus on the publisher not the photographer to ensure that images are fit for purpose. The company suggesting that the photographer is responsible but they can't win on that because the photographer, is only licensing the image, they have no control over it's final specific use and that's what the law says.
The main point being is that the law says it is legal to sell photos even of they do have trademarked items in them, thereby getting Yuri off the hook. The company are simply chancing their arm.
On another note, if Yuri's team of lawyers are saying they aren't optimistic, I would also suggest that he gets another team of lawyers.
-
Also, are they going after Yuri as photographer or after People Images the agency? Big difference.
-
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?
No, RF and RM are just different ways of licensing files.
Alamy have chosen not to market unreleased images as RF.
-
Something that strikes me is "why me"....
Obviously someone is mad that you have "taken" sales revenue from them—quite possibly with your new website. Success breeds envy. Envy leads to slander. I don't think they have a chance against you. As others have written, no one will be able to be photographed in anything but generic sheets or nothing.
-
....
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.
After all, you could argue that it would be unfair for someone to remove their shoes before being photographed but that's a silly argument of you need shots of someone barefoot for example.
However and again, regarding this case, the biggest difference between shoes and prescribed glasses is the medical element .
The prescribed glasses frame, which could be a form of art, is attached to prescribed lenses that the owner need to see. It is impossible for the glasses owner to separate the frame from the lenses and wear just the lenses without the frame. Therefore, the medical element should be uphold at all cost, above the fashion element. This is not just a fashionable item, above all the lenses attached to the frame are prescribed medical items and therefore absolutely nothing should get in the way of wearing them.
This is not just about one model that would gladly take off her precribed glasses for a shoot, this is about the right to wear your prescribed glasses at all time, regardless of circonstances. This is about the right not to have anyone hendering with your vision at anytime, anywhere regardless of what you do. For the same reason no one should be hendering with the right of wearing hearing aids or denture.
If someone is willing to take off their prescribed glasses for a look that you want, yes it is ok, however If someone is obliged to take off their prescribed glasses just so she/he can continue on as a model, this is totally wrong, immoral and probably infringing on human right.
-
Obviously someone is mad that you have "taken" sales revenue from them—quite possibly with your new website. Success breeds envy. ...
I don't agree. This is political and not about money.
If it so happens that the eyeglass company is indeed owned by Luxottica they don't need the god-knows-how-much they could squeeze out of Yuri.
It's a global leader in a market and all they want to do is make a point.
I feel like Yuri has been chosen as a victim for making this point.
There are thousands of photographers out there making a killing and living by shooting photos of people who happen to wear eyeglasses and out of all of them they choose the "king" of Microstock?
Unless they are currently trying to sue all of the photographers with the same approach like in Yuri's case but haven't announced it publicly.
-
Unless they are currently trying to sue all of the photographers with the same approach like in Yuri's case but haven't announced it publicly.
It may well be that they are concurrently flying the same kite over other agencies but we just don't know about it.
-
F**k, after reading this topic i realize two of my best selling models on SS are wearing Ray-Ban sunglasses. Despite the fact that are no brad logo visible the shape of this brand of glasses is unique and more certain copyrighted... hmmm :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I had an 8 year patent court case that was based on a minor part of a machine, in fact and additional add on, that wasn´t necessary all the time. The patent holder originally wanted money as percentage for the whole machine, as if he had invented it all. But instead the judges immediatly said, that he cannot make claims for the whole machine if he is only a patent holder for one of 1000 parts and especially if it is an add on that is not included in the basic model.
Obviously we believed we weren´t violating his patent at all, but using a different version from 1942 where the patent had already run out. We even had a patent lawyers statement for it.
It is a long story, but in the end the judges decided that our version was still to similar and did infringe on the patent, but the patent was just a very minor part of the machine and thus the guy was only eligible for a few euros per machine, not several hundred as a license fee. He got some money, but probably lost over 50 000 euros in all the legal fees he had to pay. He also had to pay all of my personal lawyers bill, because he lost the case by 97%.
Jasmin, it's great to hear how this was finally resolved. Sorry you had to pay anything, but at least the cost was minor and he had to pay your court and attorney's fees for bringing such a nuisance suit. Congratulations!! I can imagine how happy you must be for this to all be behind you! :D
-
Thanks!
The long and exhausting court case certainly tested all my ideas about how I want to spend the rest of my life. I´ve had many, many court cases when I was in business, it seems to be considered just another tool for some competitors in the market. We won most of them, actually with this case probably all, in the end. But it is very nerve wrecking and we´ve had some very surprising outcomes over the years. I certainly appreciate a good lawyer. But we also researched as much as we could ourselves. After all it was my case, nobody will protect me as much as I can protect myself. Lawyers will make their money irrepective of wether you win or you lose. But I did have an exceptionally good lawyer.
One of the reasons I went exclusive with istock, was so that they deal with all the legal stuff and run after the customers money. If you spread your files, it becomes a lot more difficult to follow things up.
But from what I hear in this industry court cases are actually quite rare. This is the first big case I hear of. In the last industry I worked in staying informed on all things legal in our field was mandatory. And a lot of stuff was so difficult and new, you could never really have a guarantee that everything you did was legally correct.
So now I shoot my still life and the occasional model in peace. Will try to make sure they don´t wear glasses...
-
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?
This is a good point - the difference between the micros and Alamy is the EULA. On the micros, the photographer warrants that everything is released....on Alamy, the responsibility is with the buyer in the usage of the image. I realize that doesn't answer the RM/RF question (which there really isn't a difference) but that may be an option for Yuri going forward - change the EULA so it reads more like Alamy's than it does Shutterstock's or Dreamstime's.
-
"However and again, regarding this case, the biggest difference between shoes and prescribed glasses is the medical element ."
I really think you're imagining this as an important element in this discussion.
-
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.
I remember that. I still have some of those sunglasses. They were also kind enough to send some reading glasses with various frame styles. Those are what I use when I do a shoot requiring glasses. Although my vision is getting bad so I may start using those reading glasses myself :)
-
"However and again, regarding this case, the biggest difference between shoes and prescribed glasses is the medical element ."
I really think you're imagining this as an important element in this discussion.
I really think you're imagining this is not an important element in this discussion.
-
Has nothing to do with fair. It's just wrong!
Someone at a big unnamed company that owns pretty much everything in eye wear, wants to flex their muscles and protect their product exclusive designs. That's what it's about. Usually these cases the company will come after someone like me or a small independent, who can't possibly mount a defense. The idea is, they have a history of protecting their trademark.
Problem is, the eye wear is the same as shoes, a hat, a belt, a purse, and clothes and the buttons on a dress. It's not the subject. Unless someone is selling just images of the glasses or using the brand name. It's going to be difficult to say, there is any infringement.
Think about this. Someone shoots a photo of the busy traffic on the highway and every car maker sues. This case is overboard and there's always hope that the court will not only charge the company filing the complaint for all the court costs for Yuri, but also fine them for a frivolous lawsuit.
Only people making out on this are the attorneys as usual.
-
This is very disappointing news for all stockers.
If i were in your shoes Yuri, i would not settle out of court, but face this head on and fight on principle.
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.
-
Good advice.
Best would be to find some of your pictures in use that promote their glasses, in their shops or on the net.
If you can find such one, their case is dead.
-
Problem is, the eye wear is the same as shoes, a hat, a belt, a purse, and clothes and the buttons on a dress. It's not the subject. Unless someone is selling just images of the glasses or using the brand name. It's going to be difficult to say, there is any infringement.
Think about this. Someone shoots a photo of the busy traffic on the highway and every car maker sues. This case is overboard and there's always hope that the court will not only charge the company filing the complaint for all the court costs for Yuri, but also fine them for a frivolous lawsuit.
You'd be right if the glasses were an unimportant part of the image, but some of Yuri's photos show a tight closeup of a woman wearing designer glasses, were the glasses are definitely the main subject. Even the caption is something like "attractive young woman wearing designer glasses". Possibly the court case is only about these closeups. I've even seen photos by Yuri were the woman is photographed twice, once with and once without glasses, which means that for that particular model, he cannot claim she is not able to work without her glasses.
-
Don't shoot the messanger but i guess this lawsuit however it turns out could be a nice and well deserved smack in the face for the RF industry.
I also see some potential for pushing agencies into being more restrictive and taking more seriously the legal aspects of selling images, they will also realize they can't possibly run these risks while selling the images for a pittance as they do now.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Problem is, the eye wear is the same as shoes, a hat, a belt, a purse, and clothes and the buttons on a dress. It's not the subject. Unless someone is selling just images of the glasses or using the brand name. It's going to be difficult to say, there is any infringement.
Think about this. Someone shoots a photo of the busy traffic on the highway and every car maker sues. This case is overboard and there's always hope that the court will not only charge the company filing the complaint for all the court costs for Yuri, but also fine them for a frivolous lawsuit.
You'd be right if the glasses were an unimportant part of the image, but some of Yuri's photos show a tight closeup of a woman wearing designer glasses, were the glasses are definitely the main subject. Even the caption is something like "attractive young woman wearing designer glasses". Possibly the court case is only about these closeups. I've even seen photos by Yuri were the woman is photographed twice, once with and once without glasses, which means that for that particular model, he cannot claim she is not able to work without her glasses.
Think you've hit the nail on the head there. I must say that I hadn't taken the trouble to look at Yuri's images of girls wearing glasses but it's clear that some images appear almost as if they're advertising shots for the glasses themselves. And any large design company wouldn't want that.
They design and market their product along the lines of their clearly defined marketing strategy. They determine how their design is presented for sale and can control every aspect of the image-making process.......until 'unapproved' images from microstockers start turning up in the marketplace.
Whilst Yuri's images maybe excellent images of an attractive person wearing their 'frames' it's not their photo and they want control over every part of the process. From a corporate point of view, a monopoly is the highest form 'enterprise'.
(As an aside, I have a bro-in-law that works for an importer of the top/hot studio flash equipment maker and he reports that whereas the average photostudio is closing down, they are now making their money from the designer clothing/accessory brands that are setting up their own 'in-house' studio's so that they have absolute control over the images of their wares that reach their target group).
Edit: Should the company win the case, it's going to cause huge problems for the stock industry as a whole. All the big microstock names have similar images in their portfolios and who will decide which images infringe whatever it is they're purported to be infringing. A general takedown of all images with spectacle frames by the agencies would ensue, just to be safe. And in a broader sense, any product (used in an image to show a 'concept') has been designed by someone. The designer/producer of that product could claim that they didn't approve the use of their product in that way and have the image (and all similar images) taken down. A very slippery slope indeed.
-
Problem is, the eye wear is the same as shoes, a hat, a belt, a purse, and clothes and the buttons on a dress. It's not the subject. Unless someone is selling just images of the glasses or using the brand name. It's going to be difficult to say, there is any infringement.
Think about this. Someone shoots a photo of the busy traffic on the highway and every car maker sues. This case is overboard and there's always hope that the court will not only charge the company filing the complaint for all the court costs for Yuri, but also fine them for a frivolous lawsuit.
You'd be right if the glasses were an unimportant part of the image, but some of Yuri's photos show a tight closeup of a woman wearing designer glasses, were the glasses are definitely the main subject. Even the caption is something like "attractive young woman wearing designer glasses". Possibly the court case is only about these closeups. I've even seen photos by Yuri were the woman is photographed twice, once with and once without glasses, which means that for that particular model, he cannot claim she is not able to work without her glasses.
Think you've hit the nail on the head there. I must say that I hadn't taken the trouble to look at Yuri's images of girls wearing glasses but it's clear that some images appear almost as if they're advertising shots for the glasses themselves. And any large design company wouldn't want that.
They design and market their product along the lines of their clearly defined marketing strategy. They determine how their design is presented for sale and can control every aspect of the image-making process.......until 'unapproved' images from microstockers start turning up in the marketplace.
Whilst Yuri's images maybe excellent images of an attractive person wearing their 'frames' it's not their photo and they want control over every part of the process.
Yup, Yuri ~ that will certainly put you at more risk than if it had just been people wearing specs while engaged in normal pursuits, where the specs were a very incidental part of the image.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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?
-
double post
-
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)
-
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.
-
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 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 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
-
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.
-
Maybe it would be interesting to persue the relatively new law of derivative works that has been issued in great Britain?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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$$.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
...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.
-
The model should have the right not to feel obliged to take them off.
Modeling is based on a look. If the look doesn't require glasses you take them off. Or you don't get the job. It isn't discrimination.
-
It would be hard to argue that the model couldn't remove their glasses if there are photos of the model not wearing glasses. I suppose they could say they had contact lenses that were causing them problems and they had to go back to wearing their glasses but that might not work.
-
It would be hard to argue that the model couldn't remove their glasses if there are photos of the model not wearing glasses. I suppose they could say they had contact lenses that were causing them problems and they had to go back to wearing their glasses but that might not work.
I don't think that you could argue that they couldn't remove them, just that they can't be compelled to remove them.
-
It would be hard to argue that the model couldn't remove their glasses if there are photos of the model not wearing glasses. I suppose they could say they had contact lenses that were causing them problems and they had to go back to wearing their glasses but that might not work.
Er ... yeah. I suppose you could also photograph the model driving a Ferrari and just say they had hurt their leg so couldn't walk.
-
...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.
Well I guess maybe they are but they must be a very small minority. I dealt with a lot of public in my life while travelling all over and I personally haven't met anybody wearing such glasses yet.
I found this text below about the percentage of the population that wears glasses. From it we should be able to deduce that people wearing non-colored, non-prescription glasses just for the fun of it is very very small:
http://www.glassescrafter.com/information/percentage-population-wears-glasses.html (http://www.glassescrafter.com/information/percentage-population-wears-glasses.html)
What Percentage of the Population Wears Glasses?
It's difficult to estimate how many people in the U.S. wear glasses because there are so many variables to consider. Some people only wear glasses to read, and others wear them only to drive. Many people only wear eyeglasses part of the time and contact lenses the rest of the time. Some sunglasses are prescription, and some are protection from the sun or simply a fashion accessory.
According to the Vision Council of America, approximately 75% of adults use some sort of vision correction. About 64% of them wear eyeglasses, and about 11% wear contact lenses, either exclusively, or with glasses. Over half of all women and about 42% of men wear glasses. Similarly, more women than men, 18% and 14% respectively, wear contacts. Of those who use both contacts and eyeglasses, 62% wear contact lenses more often.
Drugstores sell non-prescription glasses for reading; that is, anyone can buy them without seeing their eye doctor for an exam. Fourteen percent of Americans use these. The majority of people, about 85% of the American population, wear sunglasses. Some sunglasses are prescription and others are used only to protect the eyes from damage from the sun.
Approximately 30% of the American population is near-sighted, and must use glasses for activities such as driving and schoolwork. Near-sighted people have no trouble seeing things that are close to them, such as newspapers or needlework. About 60% of Americans are far-sighted; they have trouble reading or sewing without glasses, but can focus well at a distance. The majority of young people who wear glasses are near-sighted. As people age, they are more likely to need vision correction for far-sightedness. About 25% of people who wear glasses to see distances will end up needing reading glasses or bifocals as they get older. About one-third of people who wear glasses have astigmatism in one or both eyes. Astigmatism is when the shape of the cornea or lens of the eye affects vision.
Certain types of visual disturbances affect some races more frequently. Asian-Americans, for example, are more likely to be near-sighted than Caucasians or African-Americans. African-Americans have the lowest incidence of near-sightedness, but are more prone to cataracts and some other eye diseases. Eye problems, including the need to wear glasses, also can run in families.
Many famous people wear glasses, and for some, specs are a fashion accessory. Some famous celebrities who wear glasses include Johnny Depp, Elton John, and Groucho Marx. Other celebrities wear glasses even though they do not need them for vision correction. Drew Carey, for example, had laser surgery to correct his vision, but still wears eyeglasses as an accessory. Masaharu Morimoto, from the popular cooking show Iron Chef, wears non-prescription glasses at times.
With three-quarters of the population in specs, it is fortunate that there is a huge variety of eyeglass styles, shapes, and colors on the market. Contact lenses and laser surgery are available for those who prefer not to wear eyeglasses, but still want to see clearly.
-
It would be hard to argue that the model couldn't remove their glasses if there are photos of the model not wearing glasses. I suppose they could say they had contact lenses that were causing them problems and they had to go back to wearing their glasses but that might not work.
I don't think that you could argue that they couldn't remove them, just that they can't be compelled to remove them.
This is exactly my point
-
The model should have the right not to feel obliged to take them off.
Modeling is based on a look. If the look doesn't require glasses you take them off. Or you don't get the job. It isn't discrimination.
Agree! But what about if the needed look require glasses?
-
Er ... yeah. I suppose you could also photograph the model driving a Ferrari and just say they had hurt their leg so couldn't walk.
Just to keep me in the loop... Where do they hand out prescription-Ferraris? I'm suffering from rheumatoid arthritis so I could really need one!!!
-
The model should have the right not to feel obliged to take them off.
Modeling is based on a look. If the look doesn't require glasses you take them off. Or you don't get the job. It isn't discrimination.
Agree! But what about if the needed look require glasses?
I guess the answer on that one is an unpleasant one is it not? In the event that Yuri does not succeed, the ultimate ramification of this would eventually require us to get a very specific generic set of non-prescribed non-colored glasses which would not interfere with any copyright and trademark rules. Models that already have prescribed glasses would be forced to take off their glasses to put on non-prescribed glasses or say goodbye.
-
Er ... yeah. I suppose you could also photograph the model driving a Ferrari and just say they had hurt their leg so couldn't walk.
Just to keep me in the loop... Where do they hand out prescription-Ferraris? I'm suffering from rheumatoid arthritis so I could really need one!!!
LOL! Sign me up too ;D
-
We're a recent start-up and although we're not into the microstock model we did had a similar discussion with our legal contact concerning these type of issues when we went through our policies. These cases affect the whole stock industry and is not only against Yuri's microstock agency.
The following is my personal opinion after a brief contact with our legal today;
- the jurisdiction is important where this case is going to take place
- were there similar cases and what was the outcome of those ?
- were the glasses in question the main subject of the images ?
- do the glasses make or break an image trying to communicate something to the viewer ?
- the EU has specific IP laws which could help both parties in this case
- law in many IP cases is subject to interpretation and reasoning by judges
- buyer agreed to responsibility for enduse aim or publisher takes responsibility in contract ?
Those are just a few important things to consider and try to answer to even get close to understanding what is in play here and the importance for many in our industry.
I wish Yuri a strong defense and hopefully a positive outcome without dragging too long !
-
^^^ Some very interesting points there. I note that Apple were unsuccessful in their patent infringement case against Samsung in the English courts. The judge examined both products, decided that the Apple design was 'cool' whereas the Samsung was 'not as cool', therefore no consumer could possibly be confused which was which ... and threw the case out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9635516/Apple-acknowledges-Samsung-UK-patent-loss-in-unapologetic-advert.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9635516/Apple-acknowledges-Samsung-UK-patent-loss-in-unapologetic-advert.html)
-
Couple of thoughts. You could choose to fight on principle - I am entitled to use your product as an insignificant prop in an image that is about something else - or on the details - those aren't your glasses.
I would have someone start scouring all the cheap places that sell knock-off products with no brand names that are designed to look like famous stuff. I'm assuming if this type of eyewear is popular (like Sarah Palin's glasses) then there'll be plenty of cheap imitations available. If your lawyers had 10 examples of glasses that were just like the brand name ones to show their lawyers and asked them how they planned to prove that the glasses in your images had the brand name items in them, perhaps they'd decide this was not worth their time.
Of course you would want to remove all references from the web that admitted you had used the designer glasses if you wanted to pursue this approach :)
And, I'd insist on using cheap knockoff eyeglasses in all future shoots, not the model's own expensive stuff
The bold part is key. I would immediately request Leaf to remove the thread, and keep my mouth closed on this matter. Put it in the hands of the lawyers. Admitting in a public forum that you used the product in question in your shots is a strategic error to say the least. I understand your need to vent, and I think anyone with half a brain knows that the company in question is way out of line. But you need to protect yourself here.
-
What's to admit? The evidence is on dozens of websites. No secret.
-
So if this company won, and you suddenly had thousands of images that you could no longer sell due to their content, what would happen if you released all rights and transferred them to the public domain? Anyone in the world could then use the photos at their own risk, and I'm betting that the glass company would be extremely unhappy about it, but there would be absolutely nothing they could do aside from track down each person who later decided to use it.
Its basically the nuclear option. If they deny you the ability to license the images, you can make their perceived problems so much worse. I wonder if they have taken that into consideration.
-
I said this kind of BS was going to hit this industry hard a while back... get ready for more of this crap. You can thank IP laws for this huge mess.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Company was a French company. Perhaps the solution to the problem with trade dress is....
All agencies block access from French IP addresses and simply refuse to sell to anyone who is French.
Sounds a bit crazy, but it might be a start.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Company was a French company.
I would, given the near-monopoly of two Italian companies in manufacturing spec frames, with one producing a much higher proportion than the other (name suggested above.)
-
Are there any pictures of the glasses? Would that not be allowed Yuri?
The only way I can see this really having any weight is if the glasses are super distinct looking (think Oakley) - but even if they are, I don't think they should have any right to sue you if you pulled off their logo from the glasses.
Trade dress law suits like this will not only destroy the stock media business - they will also threaten all over media production businesses. Movies, TV shows, the list goes on.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Company was a French company. Perhaps the solution to the problem with trade dress is....
All agencies block access from French IP addresses and simply refuse to sell to anyone who is French.
Sounds a bit crazy, but it might be a start.
Now that is truly hilarious! I wouldn't be surprised if the author of such comments turned out to be an uneducated American bumpkin with irrational prejudices against all "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys".
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Company was a French company. Perhaps the solution to the problem with trade dress is....
All agencies block access from French IP addresses and simply refuse to sell to anyone who is French.
Sounds a bit crazy, but it might be a start.
Now that is truly hilarious! I wouldn't be surprised if the author of such comments turned out to be an uneducated American bumpkin with irrational prejudices against all "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys".
It's not really hilarious, more like a sad potential reality for many agencies. If Getty Images simply did no business in France or with French customers, it would have been more difficult for Le Corbusier to have sued them. The original FAQ from Getty mentioned that where you sell the images matters more legally than where you take them or what is pictured. Problem is, many of the major agencies are multi-national companies with a presence in places like France where they have these un-reasonable IP laws in place.
-
Problem is, many of the major agencies are multi-national companies with a presence in places like France where they have these un-reasonable IP laws in place.
Always surprising to hear photographers complaining about the protection afforded to other artists, designers and the owners of intellectual property in general.
It is potentially no different from me using one of your images as the main subject of one of my own, or in a design, and then selling that under an RF licence - including from sites which guarantee and underwrite any use which falls within their terms. Of course intellectual property needs to be licensed if it is re sold for commercial use. The same as for photographs.
It is little different from people who use photographs they find because they do not know any better (Facebook, Pinterest etc). People who do not know about clothes, fonts, spectacles etc forget that people who do are instantly going to recognise them whether or not a logo is removed.
-
This kind of BS interpretation of the "intellectual property" laws can only lead to greater support for the Pirates. There should be a clear distinction-
-- A photo of a picture, yes there may be a case to answer, depending
-- A photo of a product, no case, unless usage amounts to false advertising
End of.
-
All agencies block access from French IP addresses and simply refuse to sell to anyone who is French
That would effectively define different usage for different countries / users. Which would mean that the agreed usage is more tightly defined in terms of the contract than a typical RF sale. Which is much closer to an RM model than an RF model.
And that's the thing: some stuff potentially needs to be sold under tighter usage agreements. (Accepting obviously that RF and RM are not always strictly delineated - eg RF editorial effectively often imposes some of the same usage conditions as will sometimes be applied to an RM sale - just as sometime an RM buyer might negotiate repeat use).
-
double posted sorry
-
Problem is, many of the major agencies are multi-national companies with a presence in places like France where they have these un-reasonable IP laws in place.
Always surprising to hear photographers complaining about the protection afforded to other artists, designers and the owners of intellectual property in general.
It is potentially no different from me using one of your images as the main subject of one of my own, or in a design, and then selling that under an RF licence - including from sites which guarantee and underwrite any use which falls within their terms. Of course intellectual property needs to be licensed if it is re sold for commercial use. The same as for photographs.
It is little different from people who use photographs they find because they do not know any better (Facebook, Pinterest etc). People who do not know about clothes, fonts, spectacles etc forget that people who do are instantly going to recognise them whether or not a logo is removed.
LOL. Read around the forum here... you'll find I'm actually the strongest supporter of ending IP laws.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
I would settle.
-
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. (http://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. (http://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 (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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm talking about Yuri's existing library of images not future shoots. All the cost of producing/editing/keywording/uploading these images has already been incurred. No further work is needed in order for these images to continue to produce revenue for Yuri's operation for some time to come. (of course these images have a lifespan as well). If Yuri loses in court, he might have to take down these images and/or pay damages for the images he has already licensed. Who knows how much this might cost him. Instead if he can pay a one-time licensing/extortion fee, he can continue to use the images and not face the uncertainty of a court decision.
-
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.
-
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.
Depends on the country. Even with the 'optician's window'-type photos, the company would probably not have a case in the UK. Denmark, however, seems to be a different matter.
-
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.
-
They will claim they lost out on a piece of licensing revenue.
-
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 (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 ;D
-
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. [url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court[/url] ([url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court[/url])
Cheers,
Jonathan
P.S. All props should be purchased at Walmart ;D
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! ;D
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.
-
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.
Of course spectacle frames can be described as 'works of art' __ 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.
What if Picasso had designed a single pair of spectacle frames? Work of art or not? If said frames had been reproduced in the millions would it have reduced the 'art' of the design?
The world's best-selling artist is a guy called Jack Vettriano. His stuff sells in the millions too (for a lot less than $800) and they may not be to everyone's taste __ but they are undoubtedly 'works of 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.
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.
-
double posts
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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 ;D
I mean in this specific thread. Just took a look back and the last post by Yuri here was on November 10.
-
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.
However, the cost of defending one's self in a lawsuit like this could be significant - whether you win or lose. So regardless of who's in the right here, the whole thing could be a big expensive mess. Or it would be in the USA, anyway.
-
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. ;D
-
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.
It's not unusual for Yuri to start a thread and not post much afterwards. He can't go in to specifics about this case, for obvious reasons. So I think it would be hard for him to reply to lots of the posts here.
-
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. [url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court[/url] ([url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court[/url])
Cheers,
Jonathan
P.S. All props should be purchased at Walmart ;D
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I've never understood why the agencies don't research and publish a list of companies/shops whose products are fine for RF.
-
Nobodies stuff in fine for Rf, really. It just depends on the uniqueness of an item and a company's interest in protecting it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
Does it blend?
Thats the question...
-
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. [url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court[/url] ([url]http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140613/getty-images-fights-copyright-infringement-ruling-french-court[/url])
Cheers,
Jonathan
P.S. All props should be purchased at Walmart ;D
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Great stuff Card Maverick.
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
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.
-
Nobody has any idea (including Yuri) who is all being targeted. Perhaps the top 10 sites also sit with a lawsuit regarding these glasses.
-
Whats the story Yuri? Any updates? How is this panning out?
-
How did this end?
-
Looks like it ended in silence.
-
As there are still 794 hits on 'spectacles' on peopleimages, I guess it was just a bit of sabre rattling from the company.
-
What's up are you bringing back old threads in honor of President's Day? ???
Whats the story Yuri? Any updates? How is this panning out?
-
What's up are you bringing back old threads in honor of President's Day? ???
Whats the story Yuri? Any updates? How is this panning out?
?????
I think I can bring back any thread I want, no? If its relevant, I dont see the issue.
-
Yes, it would be very interesting to know what's happening on this issue.
-
Yuri is having brunch at the moment, please wait a little longer ;D
-
Getty probably said, "don't make anything we agree to public, and we will make an exception for you and exclude you from any of these deals in the future." Essentially selectively changing their policy.
-
Getty probably said, "don't make anything we agree to public, and we will make an exception for you and exclude you from any of these deals in the future." Essentially selectively changing their policy.
Different issue.
This one is the specs issue.