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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: cybernesco on November 13, 2012, 06:34

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?

Quote from: cybernesco on November 12, 2012, 21:24

...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.


 

Quote from: cybernesco on November 12, 2012, 21:24

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.

This is great. I know exacly what to do because my own website front page is created exacly the same way. I have a gallery just for girls holding signs, one just  holding shopping bags, one just for business people ect..

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.

Quote from: cybernesco on November 11, 2012, 13:23

Quote from: pjmorley on November 11, 2012, 12:15

Quote from: cybernesco on November 11, 2012, 06:40

Quote from: pjmorley on November 11, 2012, 05:43

Quote from: cybernesco on November 10, 2012, 18:46

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 16:34

....
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.

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.

Quote from: cybernesco on November 10, 2012, 18:46

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 16:34

....
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?

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.

"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.  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?