-
-
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.Talking out of your ass as usual.
Another glass house
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sec...rn_spam_1.html
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.I host with VacaresComment
-
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.
Comment
-
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?
WTF! Thats the most fucked up claim I have ever heard In my life.Comment
-
This thread is about to take a total 180... LOL. Here it comes!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.Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted
Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.Comment
-
He does that all the time, its nothing special to Fletch.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.Comment
-
he once took a picture of Screech from Saved by the bell in a speedo, and posted it on his blog...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?
WTF! Thats the most fucked up claim I have ever heard In my life.Comment
-
Wrong.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.
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.Comment
-
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.
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?
WTF! Thats the most fucked up claim I have ever heard In my life.Comment
-
Comment
-
-
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.Comment
-
your post fails at so many levels it's not even funnyWho 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?
WTF! Thats the most fucked up claim I have ever heard In my life.
I have no idea if MoreMagic really shoots celebs, but if so, your post is an absolute and massive display of ignorance
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
You are way wrong here.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?
WTF! Thats the most fucked up claim I have ever heard In my life.
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....Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Comment
-
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Wow you do know something, good for you.
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.Comment
-
Comment
Comment