photographer faces lawsuit over glasses worn in photos

Here is a link to the story:
http://www.microstockp​osts.com …to-take-off-your-glasses/

Property releases are required by just about every major stock agency - micro and macro alike - for any trademarked material visible in photos. Yuri Arcurs, the most successful microstock photographer in history, is facing a lawsuit because many of his models are wearing glasses, and he does not have permission to use the glasses' likeness. There are no logos or anything like that visible on the glasses - its just the design of the glasses that is trademarked.

Just be careful, folks, when marketing your images for publication and advertising. Despite what some folks say, the threat of a lawsuit is very real if you fail to have releases for models and for trademarked property.

What a world we live in...

What a joke. I could see if they had a giant Prada or Gucci logo well in view but to say they are design trademarked is silly. What about someone wearing a collared polo shirt? Can any company who makes collared polo shirts now file a lawsuit?

Judge should just throw this out and fine the idiots who filed the suit.

the flying moose wrote in post #16290096
What a joke. I could see if they had a giant Prada or Gucci logo well in view but to say they are design trademarked is silly. What about someone wearing a collared polo shirt? Can any company who makes collared polo shirts now file a lawsuit?

I have had images rejected by stock agencies because they had jeans in them. Couldn't tell which kind of jeans, but the agencies said that whoever made the jeans may sue. Same with sneakers, and also with cowboy boots.
I guess we can only photograph naked people now.

We live in a very litigious era. America moreso than others. I could relay stories that would shock, but do not have time to type them in.

Let's just hope the court rules with logic and common sense in that a person who purchases a pair of glasses has the right, in making that purchase, to wear them in photographs.

If it is not ruled in that manner, the ramifications could be enormous. It could theoretically mean John Doe could be sued for wearing his Lenscrafter's glasses in the family portrait.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #16290751
Let's just hope the court rules with logic and common sense in that a person who purchases a pair of glasses has the right, in making that purchase, to wear them in photographs.

If it is not ruled in that manner, the ramifications could be enormous. It could theoretically mean John Doe could be sued for wearing his Lenscrafter's glasses in the family portrait.

No, no, no! It could not theoretically mean that.

I think you may have missed the point. Wearing glasses is not the issue. The issue is the use of photos with the glasses for advertising and commercial purposes.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #16290751
..., the ramifications could be enormous. It could theoretically mean John Doe could be sued for wearing his Lenscrafter's glasses in the family portrait.

An enterprising person with a 3D printer could make lensless frames & sell them to photographers to use? It could be a better market than shooting images? ; )

Tom so as you rightly pointed out it is the USE of an image for commercal purpouses that gives rise to the possible damage. Which is the responciblity of the USER of the image and the party who would be liable for damages. So how come this is a story about a photographer being sued for damages? The distribution and display of the images in order to sell licences to use said images is not itself commercial in nature so cannot be restricted by the subject. As the recent New York "Peeping" art case showed, there are lots of non commercial ways to monetise images without it being commercial.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #16290875
The distribution and display of the images in order to sell licences to use said images is not itself commercial in nature so cannot be restricted by the subject. As the recent New York "Peeping" art case showed, there are lots of non commercial ways to monetise images without it being commercial.

Doesn't getting paid for an activity make it part of commerce, by definition, and thus commercial?

No....you can sell art all day of pretty much whatever you want (for instance go to POD sites and look at all the trademarks that are photographed, or car photos, etc). That is not commercial use.

Now use those same images to endorse, advertise, or pretty much help sell a product in any way, now you have commercial use.

Now.....to the subject of the OP, I don't see how this should be illegal without the logos, but then again the courts have surprised me before. I think the photographer should win this suit handily.

OhLook wrote in post #16291043
Doesn't getting paid for an activity make it part of commerce, by definition, and thus commercial?

No there are plenty of ways to get paid for photography without the use being commercial. Selling prints, or for Editorial use in newspapers and magazines, or even Blogs these days. Just because the photographer gets paid does not make the USE commercial. For the use of an image to be considered commercial it would have to be being used to promote something. So all images used in advertising are commercial, as they are promoting the product/service/politi​cal party etc. The user paying (or not) the photographer does not define the use of the image. A photographer is also generally allowed to show the image in a portfolio or in a shop window to promote the photographers photographic business, and the photographers website seem to generally be accepted as if it were a shop window or portfolio now. The web is also a good way of selling the image itself, and publishing it on a website in order to sell licences to use the image is also normally not considered commercial use. So a photographer is OK using his images in the ways I have said to either sell the image or promote the service. What the photographer cannot then do is use the same photograph in a flyer that he has had printed and sends out as a mailshot, that has now become commercial use of the image, and as such needs the consent of any party in the image for the commercial use. If you do not have that permission, and a party objects then he can sue you for damages in court.

The way the image is used is what defines that use as commercial. So if an image is used on an advert promoting a product then you need releases to use it as it is commercial. If you then use the same image in the product's user manual, even as the front cover, that use is then editorial and no longer needs the releases.

Releases are not really needed at all, but if anyone (or anything that is protected by IP law) who is readily identifiable is in the the image sues for damages, then the release is a reasonable defence that the person consented to that use being made of the image.

Alan

Shape of an object is the subject of intelectual property.
Why that guy is sued and not the agency that sells his pictures?
Because he didn`t check the question where he was asked wheather the picture contains somebody elses property or not. Or he just said no property on the picture. Who gives a damn these days on shapes?
It is entirely his responsability.

I have noticed a trend... people who don't need corrective lens glasses are now wearing glasses for the "cool" effect. I would think photographs with nice looking people wearing glasses would help the manufacturers of such products. They should be happy for the free advertising instead of filing a law suit.

In another life, I was part of a start up company that incorporated in New Jersey for the sole reason that New Jersey has a severe penalty for those who file frivolous law suits. This suit sure fits in that category in my view, however, I'm not an attorney.

I think that intellectual property should be protected, whether it is a photographer's works or a copyrighted eyeglass design. I am a bit surprised by those in this forum who think that think that one type of copyright is better or more important than another. Now I admit this could get messy - do the designers of the sheets have a claim? or the makers of the model's makeup? But I also do not want to dismiss the copyright owners claims out of hand.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #16291253
I have noticed a trend... people who don't need corrective lens glasses are now wearing glasses for the "cool" effect. I would think photographs with nice looking people wearing glasses would help the manufacturers of such products. They should be happy for the free advertising instead of filing a law suit.

And likewise, photographers who have their images taken and used for commercial purposes without compensation should quit complaining, after all they are getting "free advertising".