MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lawsuit Against Us. Fair? Unfair? Need your advice  (Read 62312 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: November 13, 2012, 07:37 »
0
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. 


« Reply #176 on: November 13, 2012, 08:05 »
0
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.

Microbius

« Reply #177 on: November 13, 2012, 08:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #178 on: November 13, 2012, 08:33 »
0
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.

« Reply #179 on: November 13, 2012, 08:39 »
0

...What I meant by you don't see people with perfect vision wearing clear glasses, I meant you don't see people with perfect vision wearing non-colored, non-prescription glasses just for the fun of it.

Yes you do.  I've known people who wear non-colored, non-prescription glasses just for the fun of it.  For example, there's lots of John Lennon fans wearing the glasses he used to wear.


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


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.


 

« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 08:54 by cybernesco »

« Reply #180 on: November 13, 2012, 08:44 »
0
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

« Reply #181 on: November 13, 2012, 08:47 »
0
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?

« Reply #182 on: November 13, 2012, 09:08 »
+1
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!!!

« Reply #183 on: November 13, 2012, 09:36 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #184 on: November 13, 2012, 12:20 »
+1
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

« Reply #185 on: November 13, 2012, 17:28 »
+2
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 !


« Reply #186 on: November 13, 2012, 17:41 »
0
^^^ 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

« Reply #187 on: November 13, 2012, 19:36 »
0
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.

« Reply #188 on: November 13, 2012, 20:26 »
0
What's to admit?  The evidence is on dozens of websites.  No secret.

« Reply #189 on: November 13, 2012, 20:35 »
+1
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.



« Reply #190 on: November 13, 2012, 20:39 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #191 on: November 13, 2012, 20:43 »
0
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.)


« Reply #192 on: November 13, 2012, 20:48 »
0
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.

« Reply #193 on: November 13, 2012, 23:28 »
+1
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".

« Reply #194 on: November 14, 2012, 02:48 »
0
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.

aspp

« Reply #195 on: November 14, 2012, 03:40 »
0
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.

« Reply #196 on: November 14, 2012, 03:57 »
+2
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.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 04:01 by ffNixx »

aspp

« Reply #197 on: November 14, 2012, 04:36 »
0
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).
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 04:41 by aspp »

aspp

« Reply #198 on: November 14, 2012, 04:40 »
0
double posted sorry

« Reply #199 on: November 14, 2012, 04:56 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5024 Views
Last post April 05, 2011, 14:49
by elvinstar
15 Replies
6137 Views
Last post February 07, 2013, 15:22
by blamb
Unfair rejection on 123RF

Started by Beppe Grillo 123RF

14 Replies
7616 Views
Last post April 17, 2013, 12:18
by mr
3 Replies
4345 Views
Last post March 15, 2014, 13:40
by Pauws99
30 Replies
15210 Views
Last post January 07, 2017, 07:55
by worriedistocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors