I do enforce our claims where needed what is actually not the subject. and you are not to compare to the those people you sell a HD with content no DMCA here moron.

Why do you highlight fletch's name in red as if he's some authority to justify something?

Just curious.

I think just because he has a Red nick. Nothing more.

It seems that your English is just as horrible as my.

I am copyright holder of Celeb content. I do enforce when needed a DMCA.

So do you know what Little Child :321GFY

Umm his paragraph was correct, your's was not. How is his English as horrible as yours?

Talking out of your ass as usual. :1orglaugh

Another glass house

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sec...rn_spam_1.html

I provided you a link for a number of BRO programs and their celebrity sites. Get to work and stop posting on GFY.

There you have it.

it's natural. and it's good for ya :)

LOL. Those comments are hysterical.

GFY had a fun day.

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.