How is that Slicky?

Indeed.

Until the trolling, no idea who the guy was. Type name in Google, and tada.

Madness.

an article that was posted on gfy years ago that someone posted an anonymous comment about me being a "spammer" isn't anything close to proof.

you on the other hand are trying to sell content packages of stuff that you do not own the rights to and didn't even purchase. selling content that you stole from other sites over the years is theft and it is illegal.

yes there are grey area loopholes that allows you to post celeb content on websites, im sure that mrskin has a legal team that lets them do it. you on the other hand are selling packages of content to webmasters. so that makes you a thief.

He specifically had to highlight it. To me that means he thinks we should put some sort of extra points on the fact that someone with a red name had a conversation discussing this topic.

I'm just curious why he felt the need to highlight someone's name and bring them into this. Regardless of my history with said person. :winkwink:

Who has any rights over celeb content other than the actual person who is photographed and/or recorded?

How do you claim to "produce" celeb content MoreMagic?

DO You go round and film sex-tapes?
DO You go round and photograph celebs?
DO You create hollywood stars?

:1orglaugh

WTF! Thats the most fucked up claim I have ever heard In my life.

Thank you for trying again. :thumbsup

This thread is about to take a total 180... LOL. Here it comes!

He does that all the time, its nothing special to Fletch.

he once took a picture of Screech from Saved by the bell in a speedo, and posted it on his blog...

:1orglaugh

Wrong.

You must not pay attention. I do it all the time, including non-drama filled threads.

I do certain things for different names, just as I use certain slang, play on words, and how I post. It has nothing to do with what you are inferring.

Zing cleared it up to the point for you. You can either accept that, or not.

Also you seem not to know how it works, thx for playing. And just to answer anyway , 80% of our photo's are taken in studio on appointment with the celed.

Exactly.

:2 cents:

There are a couple of dozen BRO programs waiting for all your DMCA's then.

Get to work.

and even then I would have the copyright and not Screech.

Why dont you respond on the fact you sell a HD, keep on the subject you are not to compare with them. lol you WISH

I am well aware how photo copyright works. Thx.. :1orglaugh

No. Actually those types of things are spelled out in model releases and contracts.

It does not always default to the photographer. Sorry toots.

Slicky you almost never understand anything, why would you do now?

Yes sweety moment it is made in public I have the rights period. In studio its on agreement. But still I would have the copyright (or it most be explicit mentioned else) , publication right would be a other issue.

What country are you from anyways? lol I actually am very well versed in 2257 and how that works, plus copyright. If Screech were in public and you took a pic, yes you as the photographer would hold the copyright, however you would be in risk of a civil suit which they may or may not win, however it would tie up your time and money in a court case. In the studio as BF said above the model release may relinquish your copyright hold to the model if the contract so deems it that way.

your post fails at so many levels it's not even funny :(

I have no idea if MoreMagic really shoots celebs, but if so, your post is an absolute and massive display of ignorance :(

Ah ha!. Thanks for clearing it up. Just as I thought.,

So you are not actually against copyright theft on the whole, or in the industry, online, or any of the other shit you are ranting about on the collective in numerous threads. It is actually personal.

Pretty much what I though.

You are way wrong here.
In most celeb pics the person being photographed does not own the picture, the photographer does. ie: The paparazzi photographer.

So technically whoever is using this content are steeling the Paparazzis' pics and are giving them an open invitation to sue you if they think you have any money.

Furthermore you could also be sued by the celebs themselves in some cases depending on how you use or misuse the pics, where they were taken, etc etc etc....

Oh ok! so you produce Celed content.

I though we was discussing Celeb content????

I must say I don't shoot, my company does.

Which is correct.

Celebrities can own the pictures outright, just as a studio, media company, or publication can, and strip photographer's rights depending on the signed, agreed to, release, and contract. I have seen them myself, so I know they exist where photographer does the work, and holds no copyright.

Again no answer on the HD issue. Keep avoiding it.

But that assumes ALL pictures are paps. There are many other types of celebrity pictures out there. From magazine or publications, box covered, publicity shots and on.. and on.

Each can be more or less complicated. But you are correct in regards to paps.

The only person avoiding the issue is you.

You can twist it however you like, the fact remains. You do not hold the copyright. You make this thread. You are not against copyright on the whole. Dismissing repeated examples of people you claim you 'could' DMCA if you wanted to (i.e. BRO celeb pay sites), but don't. So you are personal trolling.

Which is exactly what I thought from the get go.

Excactly my Point.

If I took a photo of anyone (not just a celeb) and wanted to sell it on a place like iStockphoto.com

I would need a model release for it to be allowed.

MoreMagic can keep bumping this all he likes. Thanks for the exposure.

The facts remain.

As previously pointed out a half dozen times now, there are plenty of easy targets in the industry alone, or online as a whole. Including all major programs.

So.. either their lawyers, and mine know a thing or two in regards running celebrity sites, DMCA, and laws surrounding it. Or we are all just completely reckless putting business at risk.

With the exception of XPAYS. They own/license/bought some of the highest profile celebrity tapes and content, and it is well publicized.

Even in publication the right are still in most cases with the photographer. Even when photo is ordered by the magazine. But in all exceptions are possible.

But all what we say here i still don't see that you have the rights to sell our content on a HD.

So your complaint then is he is selling content that you own? You have proof of this?

No way. Forget it.

If I am following you correctly, you are referring to the BV paps example where they are shooting candid pictures and selling off the publications without model releases (to be 100% legal)??

Because he is claiming I do, and if he doesn't have PROOF when we know what comes next,

..... :winkwink::winkwink:

Look there is the problem, and why DMCA is not vallid in his case. DMCA is good for online content because we as producer can verify if people us our content. But now he sales it in a closed system as being a HD or closed ftp account. I have no way a possibility to verify what he sales and that si exact also why this is by law just stealing, and is DMCA not at order here.

Pap pics "in a public area" are technically legal, but subject to suit by the person being photographed under invasion of privacy. If anyone does some research they will find that there ARE cases that have been won over this by the celeb, however very few pursue it. Normally the ones that win these cases are ones that are photographed unknowingly while nude, or are in a technically private area. I suppose trespassing laws would fall under a lot of those wins. :2 cents:

That's why I said "in most celeb pics"

The other formats you mention someone owns the rights to those also. Whether it be on a box or in a magazine publication.

What gives you the right to sell it?

Candid in public location as outside photography can be publicized without any papers, candid in a private environment is illegal and can't.

Nice try chief.

You said you could DMCA all this industry's celebrity sites, but you do not do that either. Nor are you in all their monthly promo threads going after them, claiming your content is being stolen, or used without permisson, etc.. Same for blogs and sites sold over in the B&S section.

So once again, it is not the actual copyright or DMCA that is the issue. That makes it personal.

Wow you do know something, good for you.

I was trying to clarify what he was asking in regards to the rules/rights/contract/releases for different types of pictures.

Wrong, not for everyone! Only the person who took the picture, (unless he or she sells or licenses their rights)

Your pics are stolen, you don't own the copyright. Nothing to be afraid about for a ban.

Not to sound cocky, but I know a lot more than you suspect I guarantee you that.

Good for you slicky

sure no discussion about that, thought we already where passed that one.

100 thread backfires

You're right. In regards to your upcoming ban.

1. You claim I am selling your content.
2. You have no proof of claim.
3. That means ban per rules.

Thanks for playing sweety.