HQ

first of all, i know that you are not allowed to use pictures that you have no authorization to use. so all these celebrity sites are basically infringing on photographer and magazine copyrights. (i'm still not sure on the rights of pictures of celebs taken in public.) however, can i use celebrity names on my sites? can i use text that says 'britney spears' or 'anna kournikova' on my site without worries of copyright infringement? or would a celebrity also protect his/her name the same way they protect their pictures?



------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

Susan

HQ

When you look around the net it looks like a free house for celeb pics. Lots of the anna and brit pics are scanned from mags so they must be breaking the copyright. I think its all a case of turn a blind eye. These celebs make millions out of being popular and I think they see all this as part of the reason for being so.

If I owned OK magazine and saw my pics of anna in a free site with OK stamped all over them would I complain - no way !

I once had the opportunity to chat with the owner of a very big teen site and asked him what he thought about the entire content of his site being posted in the newsgroups. He said, its one of the reasons we are at the top, bit like microsoft not having any copy protection on software.

HQ

Susan,

very good points indeed. i never thought of it from the perspective that it helps you have your material copied over the internet. microsoft obviously thrives off of software piracy.

however, there must have been celebrity lawsuits over defamation and the sort... you know the britney spears blow job, etc. can't be viewed as publicity that helps.

i definitely think that you can 'get away' with using celebrity pics, i just do not want to risk my server and all my sites with anything like that right now. but there's no question that is is illegal to use this copyrighted materail.

but do you know if using celebrity names (just text, not images) is illegal?

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-02-2001).]

Cam

Interesting conversation.

I know that Alissa Milano's mother was going around sueing sites with Pics, and stuff like that, I think they were specificaly targeting just the online porn industry. although on just the name issue, I'm not sure.

rhizome

Lin Milano's problem is more with how her clients are represented than anything else. There is no copyright law against you using a celebrity's name but some celebs (mostly those represented by Lin Milano) don't want to have their name and/or image associated with adult content.

Gemini

Hmm do you have the falsified celeb pics on your site? That might (probably) spur a suit for use of any other pics or use of names. Wouldn't think using the names would be looked down on as long as its G, PG or R rated pics (all real pics tho)No touching up or erasing, adding

But using their names in the metas or the sites to promote a porn site could get some heat going.

rhizome

One more thing just to point out how fucked up the entire celeb thing is. While Lin Milano and her goons are going out protecting the "good" images of their clients, at the same time they are encouraging copyright infringement:

"Don't use my daughter's name on a porn site - show some respect and build a nice pretty fan site with lots of pretty photos of my innocent daughter. Oh yeah, and who cares if these photos violate any copyrights the photographers or publications might have as long as it is a nice pretty site showing respect to my daughter."

Lord Assmore

I'm not an expert in this field, but isn't the issue really about trade marking? Products, companies etc. have their names tm protected (Playboy has sued website owners for using their name in META tags), but I doubt you can trade mark a proper name... Not all celebrity names are unique, some mortals have them too!

[This message has been edited by Lord Assmore (edited 04-02-2001).]

rhizome

That's what you would think Cam but believe it or not, they will go after any site that even has PG-13 real nude photos since according to Lin Milano, no nude photos or video captures can be placed in the proper context. And they have won cases like this before. So I would not use the name or images of anyone that is represented by Cybertracker.

rhizome

Actually you can trademark a proper name - that's why I would never register a domain name that has a celebrity's name in it - but I have yet to hear a case of anyone suing someone solely because they used a trademarked proper name in meta tags or on the text of a page.

Susan

I bend the rules with lots of stuff but I always make sure I am not stealing without giving back. If I see someting I would like to use I ask and see if we can do a deal somehow. Anna and Brit sell sex and I use them both in a keyword page with hot pics obtained with permission from the photographer. I never make direct links into porn and always make sure there is a solid buffer in between. It reduces the hits but hey everyone is happy and my ass is safe.

HQ

Cam, i've heard of Alissa Milano's mother going after sites hardcore... this is why i want to stay within my legal rights and not infringe any copyrights.

rhizome & Lord Assmore, this whole "associated with adult content" thing is exactly what i'm getting at. if i use celeb names, i'm putting them on my adult site. this implies an association with adult content, even though that's not what i want to do. using celeb names will help me get SE traffic and it will help me send all the celeb-wanting traffic to a celeb sponsor of my choice. although, legally, i can't even use most banners these celeb sponsors give us. but anyway, i'm just trying to maximize my site's efficiency at dealing with different types of traffic.

also, rhizome, good point about Lin Milano. she cares about the defamation of her daughter, and not copyright infrigement issues.

Gemini, i have no celeb content at all. i just feel that there's a certain percentage of my traffic that would be better directed to a celeb sponsor than to an amateur one. currently AP is my top/main sponsor.



------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

HQ

Susan, you have authorization to use pictures of anna and brit from one of their photographers? or do you just use anna and brit's name?



------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

Susan

There are several specialist photographers taking pics of anna and brit. I just found the real quality sites and mailed them. I found a guy call Mike West at this site but I dont think his stuff is there anymore, ckeck out some of the pics here they are top.
http://www.anna-fans.com

Beware of the CJ links LOL

I only have a few pics on one page, not a full blown celeb site.



[This message has been edited by Susan (edited 04-02-2001).]

Pete Dogg

Ok, I got some experience in this.

I've been contacted by Lin Milano, she's a bitch. She wrote a very nasty letter.

It doesn't matter if your site is hardcore, softcore or non nude. Cause mine was non nude and she wanted pictures of Kathy Ireland taken down.

I wasn't actually breaking the law, because I WAS NOT DIRECTLY making money off the pictures. I looked up the section of the law that she said I was violating, if I had money I could have fought it in court.

But here is what my attitude was. Kathy Ireland is a celebrity, if she doesn't want her pictures available on my site then I will respect that personal request and take down the pictures. If everyone takes down Kathy Ireland pictures and you don't see her face on the internet, how much is she going to be worth as a model? Who will even remember who she is, I only remember her name when someone talks about this subject.
She now disgusts me as a person.

I'm not paying for anything that she can profit from anymore, no posters, no calendars, no movies. And everyone that was involved won't support her either.

Lin Milano, is doing more damage to her clients then help.

As far as I'm concerned if you are a celebrity making money off your fame and how well you are known, then you have no right to tell people if they can post fan sites or not. Fuck what copyright says about images, it shouldn't apply to famous people.
And if I take the pictures myself, it's my business to do what I please with them.

I never stand up in front of a big group of people and expect what I say and do not to be heard and seen by others.

Anyway, stick away from the ones represented by Lin Milano, cause she has a stick up her ass.

Most other celebrities don't do shit, cause it's bad publicity for them. Look at the Enquirer, they rarely get sued by a celeb. It happens, but not that often.


Wow this subject really gets me wound up

Ok.
Peace,
Pete Dogg

P.S. Proper Names can be trademarked, but it's not easy. OJ tried and his name it not that usual. Britney Spears and Anna Kournikova are common names.

------------------
Daily Naked

Free Auto Updating Top Referrer Lists

[This message has been edited by Pete Dogg (edited 04-02-2001).]

HQ

Susan,
if i could potentially get authorization to use a professional photographer's work (on a celebrity), that would kick-ass. it would feel good to know that you have done the right thing (because there's no threat of lawsuits, not because of moral and ethical reasons... hehehe)

Pete Dogg,
Lin Milano sure sounds like a bitch... but it's a touchy subject because nobody has legal rights to use images they don't own. they could probably argue that because you are indirectly making money off of the pictures, then you are in it for the money and not as a fan. also, money really has nothing to do with it (does it?) if i have a fan site on britney spears and i make no money, do i have the right to do that? i don't think so. but should i be shut down? i don't know!!!

it did wind you up a bit Pete Dogg! but you bring up good points. if your sites are helping the celebrity, they shouldn't shut you down. you said you could fight what she was after you for, but i'm sure you were still breaking copyright laws anyway... so you have no choice but to comply in the end.

where do you draw the line?

it seems that if i steal britney pics out of rolling stone and put them on my 100k/day celeb site, then britney should be happy and rolling stone should be the only one that's mad.

but if i put her fake blow job mpeg up, then only britney should be mad.

legality and morality don't seem to meet face to face in this topic.

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn


[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-02-2001).]

Gemini

From what we have been able to glean from the attorney, if you have their pics up and have banners (or ads of ANY sort)then your intention is to profit. But he also added that personal gain that is non finacial could crop up too.

Last, if YOU take a pic of a celebrity or anyone else and expect to use it, you must have a release stating your intentions of use as well as the normal info. People have the right to privacy so you cannot just snap pics and think they are yours. Lots to think about on such a site. We're staying away from them! Tie them to porn and they are therefore vilified and that is defamation. Sheesh, Britney could retire now just on website suits ands never have to sing another note. Think she'd lose her fame?! Not a chance. She'd be even more famous. You need to think about that idea.

aprilkorova

Everyone has made very good points, I love this kind of debate...mature, no name calling, just a good ol' fashioned debate.

I, personally, don't use celeb stuff cuz I just don't want the hassle. I have a hard enough time keeping my shit together without complicating things (with Ashcroft that may all change LOL).

But, for those of you saying Lin Milano is a bitch, if you saw your daughter all over the net, butt ass naked (even though, in my opinion, she did make the movies.....) still you would be mad as hell, and don't deny it LOL. And besides 99% of the pics have been altered...like Kournikova has ever posed nude...please.

Actually, I agree with both sides of the argument. Celebs love press and I quote "There is no such thing as bad press" at the same time if I was a celeb I might draw the line with someone posting my face on a woman getting gangbanged by 15 men LOL. But, then again, most eveyone knows this is not really them, I mean if they think someone has a shot of Britney with cum running down her face then they deserve to have their membership money taken and if possible to reach throught the puter screen and slap 'em upside their head.

Even though I, personally, choose to say away form this genre, it is most likely because I live in LA and have dated (quite some time ago lol) certain lawyers and publicists in the "biz" that you really, truly, no joke... would not want to get on their bad side, these are very desperated people. Their vapid, inane jobs depend on their clients being happy. If that means making damn sure that their face, name or whatever is not on any porn site....they will make it happen, believe me. And they have a helluvalot more money at their disposal for court than all of us combined.

Having said all that, I don't want to come off like I think it's bad for porn business, or whatever...how the fuck would I know? Just not my thing.

markvh

I also run a Celeb site but I don't sell pics, I offer a free celeb movie clip "just a small sample" and in my achive there's a huge amount od clip's. Is this also illigal to use or not? I clearly state on my site that if you like the clip you should go and buy/rent the movie! In my opinion i'm giving that movie alittle credit, don't ya think

------------------

Pete Dogg

"People have the right to privacy " - Quote from Gemini

What I'm thinking is that if a celebrity does an interview or performs a concert, aren't they waving their right to privacy and their right to authorize the use of pictures taken of them.
(I'm not saying this is the law, but if it isn't shouldn't it be?)

Cause my cousin has pics of Jennifer Lopez, that he took at a Much Music interview (he was in the crowd).

I don't see why he as the owner of the photos wouldn't have a legal right to use them? I mean she was agreeing to be on TV, doesn't that mean that she is agreeing to have people using her image during that interview?

Peace,
Pete Dogg

------------------
Daily Naked

Free Auto Updating Top Referrer Lists

markvh

I agree with you Pete!

sweetjimmy

move to france. problem solved.

Warphead

Markvh,

You brought up a good point, it's called the "fair use policy" - if you're using a part of a copyrighted movie to sell the movie it's not a copyright violation. So short movie clips, scans of movie posters, caps from a movie are all fair game under that.

So you need to get an affiliate program at Amazon or somewhere and each time you update the clip - link to the page to buy it. (and hey, Amazon pays 5-10% on movies)

HQ

Gemini,
this is what i thought. if you have a pic on a site that makes you money, even though the pic isn't a part of what you are selling, then it's still considered profit because of association. and using a pic you do not own for profit is bad.

aprilkorova,
i said that Lin Milano sounds like a bitch, i didn't say she was one. (big difference huh?) although i believe everything Pete Dogg says, i also understand Lin Milano's point of view too. she's within legal rights to be the bitch that she might be. i find it odd that Lin Milano would do things that would hurt her clients. i could almost compare her to the music industry sueing mp3.com for selling more music. so what if they were putting their own copy of the already-sold song on my.mp3.com instead of the purchased version. it's the same thing in the end, and they're selling more music, so what's the problem? see my point? if a fan site is promoting a client in a manner that is beneficial for the client, then why shut them down? apparantly Lin believes if you are making $2/day off of it then it's no longer beneficial...? do you think? it's too bad common sense is overridden by law sometimes.

of coures, you can always take it to the other extreme. i do not agree with defamation in the least. britney has every right to sue sites and tabloids that do this. i agree with 'promoting' a celebrity, not disgracing them.

Pete Dogg,
you make a good point about your cousin's pic of Lopez. it's the internet that challenges these points. before the internet, your cousin wouldn't have the extremely easy ability to publish such pictures. we are all publishers now. we have the power to show off to the world whatever it is that we get our hands on. it's too easy really. i don't know if we should be allowed to publish any pic we take. we do own the photos, that's for sure. do we own the rights to sell them though? it would seem we do, only if we do not commit defamation i guess

sweetjimmy,
how is france a solution? less strict laws? if i just hosted there would i also be under france's laws?

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-02-2001).]

markvh

Warphead, thanks for the tip! I will give it a try


------------------

Pete Dogg

Here's what an email from Lin Milano looks like:
-------------------------
Dear Sir or Madam:

Kathy Ireland has hired Cyber-Trackers to monitor the use of
her name, likeness and image on the World Wide Web, In
that regard, we have determined that you are utilizing
Ms. Ireland's name, likeness and image and that such use
may be violating Ms. Ireland's publicity or privacy
rights or certain copyrights owned or licensed by Ms.
Ireland.

Our recent search utilizing the Words "Kathy
Ireland" disclosed your site. Therefore, your site
either is utilizing pictures of Ms. Ireland or utilizing
her name in your metafiles to lure people to your site.
Such use of her name in metafiles or similar manner
violates California Civil Code Section 3344.

We request on behalf of Ms. Ireland that you
immediately cease utilizing her name, likeness and image
Please respond by e-mail, your compliance with the
request. If you fail to comply, we will turn this
matter over to Ms. Ireland's attorney...

Sincerely,

Lin Milano
CyberTracker
http://www.cyber-tracker.com
-------------------------------------------

Here's what that law looks like:
(oh and i was hosted in California so that law did apply, if I wasn't hosted in Cali it may have been a different story for her, but she may have the applicable code for each state)

----------------------------------
CALIFORNIA CODES

CIVIL CODE

SECTION 3344-3346
3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice,

signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products,

merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or

soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services,

without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the

prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for

any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result

thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the

person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party

or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty

dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a

result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized

use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account

in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the

injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the

gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated

this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses.

Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties.

The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be

entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

(b) As used in this section, "photograph" means any photograph or

photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live

television transmission, of any person, such that the person is

readily identifiable.

(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a

photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can

reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is

the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.

(2) If the photograph includes more than one person so

identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall

be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a

definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group

includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at

any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the

audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a

baseball team.

(3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as

members of a definable group if they are represented in the

photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the

photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in

any manner.

(c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person

using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or

other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only

incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in

which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption

affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain

the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's

photograph or likeness.

(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice,

signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news,

public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political

campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required

under subdivision (a).

(e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness

in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent

is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material

containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid

advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not

the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or

likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or

with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent

is required under subdivision (a).

(f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees

of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to,

newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations,

cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any

advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is

published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners

or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's

name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this

section.

(g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and

shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.
3344.5. (a) Any person whose signature is used in violation of, and

any candidate for elective office whose election or defeat is

expressly advocated in any campaign advertisement that violates,

subdivision (b) of Section 115.1 of the Penal Code, shall have a

civil cause of action against any person committing the violation.

(b) If a mass mailing or other printed matter that violates

subdivision (b) of Section 115.1 of the Penal Code expressly

advocates the election or defeat of more than one candidate only a

person whose signature is used and the candidate or candidates to

whom the unauthorized signature directly relates shall have a civil

cause of action pursuant to this section.

(c) Any person bringing a cause of action pursuant to this section

may recover damages in an amount of two times the cost of the

communication, but not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000),

with regard to which the unauthorized signature was used.

(d) As used in this section, "signature" means either of the

following:

(1) A handwritten or mechanical signature, or a copy thereof.

(2) Any representation of a person's name, including, but not

limited to, a printed or typewritten representation, that serves the

same purpose as a handwritten or mechanical signature.
3344.6. (a) Any candidate for elective office whose election or

defeat is expressly advocated in any campaign advertisement which

violates subdivision (a) of Section 115.2 of the Penal Code shall

have a civil cause of action against any person committing the

violation.

(b) If a mass mailing or other printed matter which violates

subdivision (a) of Section 115.2 of the Penal Code expressly

advocates the election or defeat of more than one candidate, only the

candidate or candidates to whom the misstatement or

misrepresentation directly relates shall have a civil cause of action

pursuant to this section.

(c) Any person bringing a cause of action pursuant to this section

may recover damages in an amount of two times the cost of the

communication, but not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
3345. (a) This section shall apply only in actions brought by, on

behalf of, or for the benefit of senior citizens or disabled persons,

as those terms are defined in subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section

1761, to redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition.

(b) Whenever a trier of fact is authorized by a statute to impose

either a fine, or a civil penalty or other penalty, or any other

remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter, and the

amount of the fine, penalty, or other remedy is subject to the trier

of fact's discretion, the trier of fact shall consider all of the

following factors, in addition to other appropriate factors, in

determining the amount of fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or

other remedy to impose. Whenever the trier of fact makes an

affirmative finding in regard to one or more of the following

factors, it may impose a fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or

other remedy in an amount up to three times greater than authorized

by the statute, or, where the statute does not authorize a specific

amount, up to three times greater than the amount the trier of fact

would impose in the absence of that affirmative finding:

(1) Whether the defendant knew or should have known that his or

her conduct was directed to one or more senior citizens or disabled

persons.

(2) Whether the defendant's conduct caused one or more senior

citizens or disabled persons to suffer: loss or encumbrance of a

primary residence, principal employment, or source of income;

substantial loss of property set aside for retirement, or for

personal or family care and maintenance; or substantial loss of

payments received under a pension or retirement plan or a government

benefits program, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the

senior citizen or disabled person.

(3) Whether one or more senior citizens or disabled persons are

substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public to the

defendant's conduct because of age, poor health or infirmity,

impaired understanding, restricted mobility, or disability, and

actually suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic damage

resulting from the defendant's conduct.
3346. (a) For wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon

the land of another, or removal thereof, the measure of damages is

three times such sum as would compensate for the actual detriment,

except that where the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the

defendant in any action brought under this section had probable

cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed

was his own or the land of the person in whose service or by whose

direction the act was done, the measure of damages shall be twice the

sum as would compensate for the actual detriment, and excepting

further that where the wood was taken by the authority of highway

officers for the purpose of repairing a public highway or bridge upon

the land or adjoining it, in which case judgment shall only be given

in a sum equal to the actual detriment.

(b) The measure of damages to be assessed against a defendant for

any trespass committed while acting in reliance upon a survey of

boundary lines which improperly fixes the location of a boundary

line, shall be the actual detriment incurred if both of the following

conditions exist:

(1) The trespass was committed by a defendant who either himself

procured, or whose principal, lessor, or immediate predecessor in

title procured the survey to be made; and

(2) The survey was made by a person licensed under the laws of

this State to practice land surveying.

(c) Any action for the damages specified by subdivisions (a) and

(b) of this section must be commenced within five years from the date

of the trespass.

------------------------------------------

HQ

Pete Dogg,

this part indicates that we can't even use their names! damn. this is what the original intent of my post was trying to figure out.

so i wonder if Ms. Ireland has her name under copyright or if she doesn't. if she doesn't, then any celebrity could come after your site for using her names.

is it possible to have a search engine result from 'kathy ireland' if you are not using those exact words?

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-03-2001).]

HQ

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

ED

testing

ED

Can't even use their NAMES!!!

Damn!

Lord Assmore

So, HQ, your main purpose of using celeb names would be to attract SE traffic? Perhaps it's less likely to stir any emotions, if the name in question occurs in a long list of dozens of other celeb names on a doorway page. On the other hand, I think this would be on the verge of spamming, according to what the SE's say on their info pages.

aprilkorova

Pete, Thanks for the great info! Printed it out and threw it in my "legal" file.

HQ, I didn't mean to single anyone out about the Lin Milano thing. I think everyone had a pretty similar opinion of her. Besides, why would I give a shit if you think she is or just sounds like a bitch? She's not a friend of mine LOL. My only point was I understand where she is coming from only from a mom's point of view. She's acting on emotion, not necessarily from a good business stand point.

Pete Dogg

HQ,
Read what the law says, not how Milano interpretes it.

There is no direct payment for someone visiting your site from a search engine.

Ex: Amazon doesn't get any money from the surfers they are sent, they only get money from sales and then pay their affiliates.

That's just my spin, I'm not a lawyer

I think you're thinking about stirring clear and it's always better safe then sorry.


aprilkorova,
No Prob. I knew I hung on to it for some reason.
I see what you say about the mom thing, but
her daughter worked as a kid, then grew up to star in adult movies. Now she wants people not to distribute photos of her daugther? It's laughable to me

------------------
Daily Naked

Free Auto Updating Top Referrer Lists

aprilkorova

Couldn't agree more Pete. If you pose nude in a movie (or anywhere else for that matter) nowadays..you should expect to be on the net...legally or not.

aprilkorova

Not that it's right (or wrong, I choose to stay neutral LOL)...just the way it is.

HQ

Lord Assmore,
yes, the main purpose of using celeb names was to get 'celeb traffic' to my site. i want to cash in on all this celeb hype that is out there. currently i do not have a celeb site or use celeb sponsors. what's crazy is that i won't really be allowed to use a celeb sponsor's banner on my site, because those pics are illegal. and do you really think it would be spamming to put all kinds of celeb names on my site? i saw one site do that and they were all just blind links. but i was thinking about sending them to a sponsor.

aprilkorova,
i know you didn't single me out. i was just joking really. it's obvious that most webmasters do not like her. but i also have to admit that i see her point. i doubt she likes any fan sites unless it brings in exactly zero dollars.

Pete Dogg,
what Lin Milano says and what the law says are totally different. she's saying that we found you in an SE looking for celebs, so you must be using those celeb names for money so stop. the law says if you are using a celebs name you are liable for damages resulting from your unauthorized usage. this is what you are getting at, right Pete Dogg? (those damn legal docs are always a bitch to read.) not only that, but the law also includes public pictures too, even if the celeb is in a crowd. if i got all that right and didn't miss anything, i have to ask you Pete Dogg, what damage did you cause? was it your association of her daughter with porn? if so, then i still can't use a celebs name on my 'porn' site according to that law.

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn


[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-03-2001).]

Pete Dogg

"for purposes of advertising"

It's not advertising if you don't pay.
At least I think, I mean is SE submissions
advertising you site?
I think the people that pay for banners at yahoo are advertising.


My site just had a gallery of Kathy Ireland, no porn. No porn associated. No porn links.
Just a gallery of about 30 pictures. And her name was probably in the meta tags, and might have been in a search engine. Not sure on that.


I think you can use celebrity names in your meta tags if you want. I mean if you read that the max fine was $750, I don't know how they would prove damages.
And if you use the name "Kathy Ireland" or "Alyssa Milano" and you have no pictures on your site of them, can't you just argue it's someone else you're talking about?

I think the people that really get fried are the pay sites that have the names and pics on their splash sites and on their banners, cause they are using the celeb image to soliciate sales of a service.


My suggestion is to find out the names of the celebs that Lin Milano represents and don't use those ones.
Otherwise you should be fine.

I got a warning. Usually people warn before they sue.


The law can probably be used to sue you if you run a celebrity site.


But in reality there are tons of celebrity sites and people don't get sued.
They will go after famousbabes.com before they go after you, if you notice Kathy Ireland and Alyssa Milano aren't on his site. I think you would be fine using any of the names on his site.

Peace,
Pete Dogg


------------------
Daily Naked

Free Auto Updating Top Referrer Lists

Pete Dogg

Oh. That law doesn't just say celebrity names it applies to everyones name.

HQ

Pete Dogg,

i was trying to look for an example of a site that uses lots of celeb names. famousebabes.com is a perfect example!

"for the purposes of advertising"... ok, now i get it. your result from a kathy ireland SE search was proof enough for her that you were using kathy's name for advertising your site. i still do not get the damage you caused. especially now that i know you didn't have a porn site. however i think you were guilty of using kathy's name for advertising. if you are using a name in your meta-tag then you are using it to promote your site. the point of submitting to SEs is to promote your site with certain and specific key words. don't you think so?

the whole thing about arguing they are someone else... perhaps! maybe i'll go find Alyssa Milano '2' and ask her if it's alright if i use her name. i'll give her $10 or something to do it and have her sign a contract. haha.

i agree that the people who get fried are the big guys using the celebs in their banners and in their content. i just like to know and understand the law even if i'm small time.

i think that they normally warn before they sue. APIC warned me before they sued. but on second thought... APIC might be different. i was using playboy content and i bet it would have been playboy coming after me instead of APIC. and that would be a reason why APIC only gave me a warning.

i'm going to take a look at http://cyber-tracker.com and see what they say.... i got it. they do warn first. check this out: http://cyber-tracker.com/how.html here's the quote:

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn


[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-04-2001).]

HQ

speaking about copyright issues on non-celebrity people... i just watching some tv and i saw this ad come up: www.girlsgonewild.com i know you've all seen it before. how can they sell all that video footage? is it only because all those chicks aren't famous and won't sue them?



------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

dan-sexhound

All I have to say is that please webmasters, do not let these folks use scare tactics to make you remove images. http://mf.sexhound.com/

check out "popped out of a pussy without a birth cirtificate" edition.

Pete Dogg

HQ, good info from their site.

I think you are right about the girlsgonewild.com they use it because no one is going to sue them, regular people don't have the time and money. If they don't want people to see their tits they keep their shirts on.

dan-sexhound. Nice article, they are bullies.

------------------
Daily Naked

Free Auto Updating Top Referrer Lists

HQ

dan-sexhound,

very good article. but when APIC came after me, then emailed 2 companies. playboy and my server company. my server company assumed APIC was right and told me to remove the pics or have my server shut down the next day. i had to comply.

so they do have some power. if i owned the server myself i could have fought more. but, i WAS using playboy... it was quite obvious that i was using illegal content.


------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

Juge

Yeah, I heard about this before. I think it was people showing her head on a naked body, and things like that that got her pissed.



------------------
Juge - webmaster of:

• Juge's Bikini and Thong Page - http://www.jugesbikini.com/
• Juge's Weekly Wallpaper - http://www.weeklywallpaper.com/
• Daily Bikini Babe - http://www.dailybikinibabe.com/

[email protected] - Email me for link exchanges

Juge

I am positive that some celeb, I think it was Pamela, that sued and won over a domain name with her name - because it's known that she is known by that name - therefore in getting the domain name with her name, the person was making money off of HER name, and not making money off of the Pamela who lives down the street.

Can anyone verify this?


------------------
Juge - webmaster of:

• Juge's Bikini and Thong Page - http://www.jugesbikini.com/
• Juge's Weekly Wallpaper - http://www.weeklywallpaper.com/
• Daily Bikini Babe - http://www.dailybikinibabe.com/

[email protected] - Email me for link exchanges

Juge

It was Madonna - I just remembered.



------------------
Juge - webmaster of:

• Juge's Bikini and Thong Page - http://www.jugesbikini.com/
• Juge's Weekly Wallpaper - http://www.weeklywallpaper.com/
• Daily Bikini Babe - http://www.dailybikinibabe.com/

[email protected] - Email me for link exchanges

Pete Dogg

I think Madonna is different than Pamela Anderson.
Madonna isn't like a common name, I think she made it up.

HQ

Pete Dogg,

i agree. what is Madonna's real name anyway?



------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

dan-sexhound

HQ,

In our episode with APIC, they had failed to supply us with the proper legal documentation. If they had, if they will, we will gladly remove the content in question.

My gripe against APIC is simple,

Steve Easton is NOT an lawyer, if he did not write such nasty, rude emails, then I am sure more folks will cooperate with him.

He needs to follow the legal process, just as he expects others to follow the legal process.

HQ

dan-sexhound,

i agree that they do not approach you in the right manner at all. i've heard a million bad things about them before they came after me. it seems they email everyone except the webmaster whenever the webmaster doesn't own the server his site is on. one webmaster had his university emailed about it (i'm still wondering if he was using his university account for anything) but it's only proper that you email the webmaster too.

when they came after me, they emailed playboy and my server company. why not drop me a line too? they make the server company pissed off at me because they have to tell me about it.

not only that but they refused to tell anyone which pics were unauthorized. this is too much work for them i guess. i was using playboy, i will admit, and certian pics were fairly obvious...

his emails ARE rude. it makes you want to fight rather than comply. i'm glad oliver klozov saved my ass. my site had no content what-so-ever for almost 2 months. i run a daily nude site with no content. that didn't help me at all.

now that i'm with oliver and using his content, i can understand why he is using APIC to help stop the theives. and i guess now when APIC catches theives they at least tell them where they can go to get content. that was more than what they did for me. it would have been nice to receive a warning email (after all i was just a newbie and didn't know shit) with instructions on how it 'should' be done and with places to go to get free content, and sometimes even get paid for it like oliver klozov.

he doesn't have to piss people off to get results. whether he is right or wrong, he has pissed people off. i find it strange that he has no power. as long as he contacts the proper lawyers, i suppose that's all that need to be done. isn't it?

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn


[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-05-2001).]