Why would Playboy Do This???

**Hornydog4cooter** · 03-01-2006, 07:25 PM

Wow!....

**Alex** · 03-01-2006, 07:27 PM

Waiting for someone to make a Guba joke.

**stickyfingerz** · 03-01-2006, 07:29 PM

Ehh probably both in on it imo. Both parties have a win in this.

**KRL** · 03-01-2006, 07:29 PM

LOL, kind of funny they did that cause at the same time Playboy just recently sued Opium Productions for when Mansion / Prive used a bunny's pic on one of their club's flyers.

**Spunky** · 03-01-2006, 07:29 PM

That is very surprising to say the least

**mikeyddddd** · 03-01-2006, 07:29 PM

Dayum! Everything just goes to shit when Lensman isn't around. First GFY and now the mag.

**DeanCapture** · 03-01-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Spunky

That is very surprising to say the least

Yea - I was thinking the same thing....

**jonesy** · 03-01-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Ehh probably both in on it imo. Both parties have a win in this.

yup.....

**Peter_ANYwebcam** · 03-01-2006, 07:35 PM

Things that make you go Hmmm!

**SmokeyTheBear** · 03-01-2006, 07:36 PM

"Besides the use of the photo on Playboys cover and its Web site, Wolf also blasted the images retouching which added a seeming bunny-logo tattoo on the actress;s body, which he claimed was an illegal use of property belonging to the studio"

Thats pretty classy , i can see where playboy is headed with this whole "copyrights mean nothing" thing..

I suppose this means playboy wont mind if i use their models on my website with my logo tattooed on the girls arms..

**xenigo** · 03-01-2006, 07:48 PM

I have a feeling they were thinking more along the lines of "we've got so much money that we can afford a copyright lawsuit" and went ahead with using the photo illegally.

Similar to how Ford justified continuing to sell the Ford Pinto by concluding that it would cost more to recall the flawed vehicle, than to face the lawsuits that would occur after people died.

**sickbeatz** · 03-01-2006, 07:52 PM

it's probably just a marketing scheme which both parties plan to benefit from via exposure

**SilentKnight** · 03-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by xenigo

I have a feeling they were thinking more along the lines of "we've got so much money that we can afford a copyright lawsuit" and went ahead with using the photo illegally.

Similar to how Ford justified continuing to sell the Ford Pinto by concluding that it would cost more to recall the flawed vehicle, than to face the lawsuits that would occur after people died.

Nothing surprises me anymore these days when big corporations and ethics collide.

**AaronM** · 03-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Horse shit.

I would think that the photographer got a signed release and they own the rights to use the images as he/she sees fit. That can easily include licensing them to Playboy.

**sickbeatz** · 03-01-2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by AaronM

Horse shit.

I would think that the photographer got a signed release and they own the rights to use the images as he/she sees fit. That can easily include licensing them to Playboy.

If that's the case, Playboy can counter sue can't they?

**AaronM** · 03-01-2006, 07:58 PM

I had a model try to sue me because her friends found galleries of her on sublimedirectlry.com, thehun.com, and bunnyteens.com

READ THE FUCKING RELEASE, SWEETHEART.

JD · 03-01-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Ehh probably both in on it imo. Both parties have a win in this.

ding ding ding we have a winner

**AaronM** · 03-01-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by sickbeatz

If that's the case, Playboy can counter sue can't they?

Fuck if I know. It's publicity for both parties either way.

Why would Playboy Do This???

Why would Playboy Do This???

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment