| cj_purve |
06-23-2004 12:34 AM |
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
CJ_Purve thanks for the raves...but you have got one thing wrong here...We have always been legal in what we do because what we do falls under fairuse of the copyright law. We are like Roger Ebert and anybody else who writes about movies who uses pics and clips to support their ratings and reviews:thumbsup
|
Ya got me there Hank :-) I don't remember you having ratings and reviews in the early days but after so many years my memory is obviously failing me!! I'm sure it helps that you probably sell a shitload of DVD's too ;-) I've a lot to learn about the technicalities of publishing movie stills etc!
I sent you an email last week re some biz but noticed you had been out of town ... looking forward to catching up with you when you are back.
Quote:
Papazzi sites brings in a different set of issues in that they are unlicensed pics of stars taken usually without their permission. We stay away from any unlicensed pics so I don't know much about how laws pertaining to them:thumbsup
|
not exactly ... celebrities are public figures ... 'unlicensed' refers to the photographers ownership of the photograph - our partnership ensures our photos are licensed. while yes, we do have a further risk associated with our sites due to the liability of pissed off celebrities, we aren't planning on making false claims like the tabloids do. Actual incidents of celebrities sueing are very small ... but we have excellent legal support in this area just in case LOL
Besides, many celebrities, especially non-a listers, actually call up agencies telling them where they will be at a certain time. For example, over half of our upskirts are staged ... :Graucho
Hank, have you heard about the Colin Farrell movie that's just had a full frontal nude scene cut out of it because his large penis distracted viewers from the storyline?! If you happen to have a contact who can get it, I can provide the chick traffic :Graucho |
