... 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.

"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. 

Quote from: Anyka on November 10, 2012, 13:22

Quote from: cybernesco on November 10, 2012, 12:32

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.

EU legislation is supposed to be harmonised across the whole Union:
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
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

This may, or may not be of interest (UK, Canadian and US law)
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.

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?

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

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.

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.

....
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?

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://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1118

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.

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

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.

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.