So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as  'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.

Quote from: cybernesco on November 11, 2012, 18:23

Quote from: pjmorley on November 11, 2012, 17:15

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

Quote from: pjmorley on November 11, 2012, 10:43

Quote from: cybernesco on November 10, 2012, 23:46

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 21:34
....
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.

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.

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

Quote from: pjmorley on November 11, 2012, 10:43

Quote from: cybernesco on November 10, 2012, 23:46

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 21:34
....
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.

Quote from: cybernesco on November 10, 2012, 23:46

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 21:34
....
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?

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.

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?

Quote from: ShadySue on November 10, 2012, 18:36

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 18:26

Quote from: ShadySue on November 10, 2012, 18:24

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 18:22
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.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 10, 2012, 18:24

Quote from: pjmorley on November 10, 2012, 18:22
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.

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.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 10, 2012, 18:03
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?

Quote from: donding on October 30, 2010, 01:35

Quote from: pjmorley on October 29, 2010, 23:27
For example...

My image on Pixmac from the Dreamstime database.
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212
clealry states my name and the originating API website.


My image from Pixmac but under the name of colossus
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451
Apparently someone elses portfolio.

What is odd is the massive size of the colossus portfolio and all seem to have been uploaded in September 2010. I've emailed Pixmac but no reply yet.

hey I noticed the one picture under your name Paul has no watermark while the other one that is shown under colossus has "copyright protected" all over it. What's the deal with that??

Who knows? Fotolia seem not to care about protecting images. Even on their own site, the watermark is nothing more than a token gesture. And yet my images brought in from Dreamstime have the original DT watermark. If colossus as said above, is from Bigstock then I'll be opting out of these 3rd party sellers.

For example...

My image on Pixmac from the Dreamstime database.
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/time/000000146212
clealry states my name and the originating API website.


My image from Pixmac but under the name of colossus
http://www.pixmac.co.uk/picture/close+up+of+an+old+looking+clock+face/000050805451
Apparently someone elses portfolio.

What is odd is the massive size of the colossus portfolio and all seem to have been uploaded in September 2010. I've emailed Pixmac but no reply yet.

I happened to be checking Pixmac and noticed that they have API software giving them access to Dreamstime and Fotolia databases which is fine if that's their agreement. Sure enough, my images from Dreamstine and Fotolia are there with my name given as the photographer.

However, there is a contributor there called 'colossus' with a portfolio of around 292,000 images and I see that at least 2 of my images are in that portfolio. That is in addition to my DT and FT images correctly attached to my DT and FT name.

Does anyone know how Pixmac works or is this potentially a 'stolen' portfolio.

The link is here. Check to see if any of yours are there too.

http://www.pixmac.co.uk/author/colossus