Playboy Tells Jessica Alba to Fuck Off Re: Cover
 

http://www.********.com/read.aspx?ID=15010

[img]http://www.********.com/images/News/15010-1.jpg[/img]

LOS ANGELES - Playboy won't pull its March issue over actress Jessica Alba's claim that she was made an unwitting cover girl to fool readers into thinking she is nude inside, the magazine said on Friday.

"Playboy has done nothing wrong, so there is no reason to pull our issue off of newsstands," spokeswoman Lauren Melone said.

Alba accuses Playboy of violating her rights and misleading the public by getting a publicity photo from her 2005 movie "Into the Blue" from Sony Pictures and running it on the cover -- complete with a bunny logo superimposed on her bikini top.

Lawyers for Alba, 24, have threatened to sue Playboy unless the issue was pulled off the stands and demanded that the "Fantastic Four" star be compensated for damage to her image.

They also accuse Playboy of duping Sony Pictures into supplying a photo of the Golden Globe-nominated actress, wearing a multicoloured bikini and sporting a belly ring, for the cover.

Playboy said Alba was placed on the cover after being chosen "sexiest star of the year" by its readers. She was included inside the magazine in an article on the top 25 sexiest celebrities as chosen in an online poll.

The magazine added that celebrities routinely grace its cover without appearing naked inside.

This is all just publicists doing their job.

is that a direct quote? "off of"? If it is a direct quote then Playboy needs people educated in the English language!! :2 cents:

bored much? LOL

"Lawyers for Alba, 24, have threatened to sue Playboy unless the issue was pulled off the stands and demanded that the "Fantastic Four" star be compensated for damage to her image"

This is damaging her image? If anything it helps it. Bitching about it is hurting her image. WTF has she done since her show got cancelled after only 2 seasons? Um...oh yeah, star in a bunch of lame clunkers at the box office.

how exactly did playboy get the pictures from sony ? did they just give them with no restrictions ? did they get permission from sony to run the pictures ?

What stops me from using the same picture on my website and watermarking my logo on her ?

What makes you think thats not proper english?

well lets be realistic here.. she didnt do a nude shoot ,people buy the mag because they think they will see her nude inside.. i would say she should get paid something..

Would you like it if the magazine " hitlers friends " did a magazine shoot with YOU on the cover and a photochopped swastika on your body ?

Anyone stupid enough to think Alba would be nude inside deserves to lose their $8.

They got the pics from SONY obviously SONY gave them permission to use it. She has no say in it. I'm sure her contract from SONY says they can use her publicity phots any way they wish. Perhaps she should sue SONY. And perhaps learn to READ her contract before signing it.

Also are you camparing "Hitler's Friends" to Playboy? Hell Playboy is barley softcore in my book let alone hardcore. It's not like she was on HUSTLER.

actually you are very wrong if you go to the somking gun and read ,she has say when those photos are used and where. This isnt some web girl , this is someone with a team of people whose only job is to look out for best interests.

again not a clue lol
JESSICA ALBA
Date Title (click to view) Studio Lifetime Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters
Fall 2006 Awake Wein. n/a - n/a -
9/30/05 Into the Blue Sony $18,782,227 2,789 $7,057,854 2,789
7/8/05 Fantastic Four Fox $154,696,080 3,619 $56,061,504 3,602
4/1/05 Sin City Dim. $74,103,820 3,230 $29,120,273 3,230
12/5/03 Honey Uni. $30,308,417 1,972 $12,856,040 1,942
4/30/99 Idle Hands Sony $4,152,230 1,611 $1,807,181 1,611
4/9/99 Never Been Kissed Fox $55,474,756 2,500 $11,836,707 2,455
8/26/94 Camp Nowhere BV $10,475,705 1,367 $2,755,661 1,358
Note: Titles in grey are cameo or bit parts and not counted in totals and averages.

Lifetime Gross Total (5): $282,042,774
Average: $56,408,555
Opening Gross Average (5): $21,380,570 (Wide Releases Only)

?? im not catching you.. many celebs have been on the cover AND nude inside so i dont quite see the corelation ?

I dont know that , i was asking for clarification , we "KNOW" sony gave them the pictures, i DONT know that permission was granted to put them on the cover of a magazine.. If sony just hands out pictures for companies to use on magazine covers , then why do magazine pay huge bucks to get celebes on their covers.. and where is the royalty free collection of pictures located so i can use them.. ?
I'm not comparing anything to anything. and im not sure why it would be "ok" to put her pic on playboy and not on hustler ? that was sort of my point.. the content inside the magazine obviously has an effect on the image of the person on the cover..

Since you feel uncomfortable answering the original question, ill pose a tamer one.. If "homosexuals monthly" put your picture on the front and didnt pay you anything , would you be a bit pissed ? and want compensation ?

i would think so.. it jst seems awfully unrealistic that a famous person would grant the right to "sony" publicity to hand out your pictures for companies to use on their magazine covers with no compensation or decision to the person in the picture..

They would have to be the stupidest person with the stupidest lawyer in the world.

YOU not a clue. Only ONE movie over $100 mil which is the BARE MINIMUM to be considered a hit. Fantastic 4 is 130th in all time gross and falling. Made $154 mil but cost $100 mil. Not counting advertising. SO how much profit did this clunker make. Which brings me to point 2. It's a CLUNKER.

Good sense!

Smells like a Publicity stunt on both ends

Thats not exactly a glowing endorsement to someones box office clout. Her two biggest hits were not starring vehicles. Sin City which she was was a supporting actress was clearly a Tarantino/Rodriguez promoted project and Fantastic Four was an ensemble cast that was promoted as a comic book movie (that also cost well over $100 million to make and was widely reported to be a box office dud based upon expectations). The rest of her movies have been average performers to be generous. More often than not duds.

Dont get me wrong, wouldnt kick her out of bed or anything. :thumbsup

Simple.If I signed a release before my pic was taken that the person( or company ) that took my pictures had the right to do with them whatever they wanted then no I wouldn't expect any compensation. Would I be upset? Sure, but it was MY fault in the first place.

Ok YOU answer me. Now I don't know if you shoot content, but if you did and then a few years later some chick asked you to stop using it would you? If she asked for "compensation" would you give her compensation? Hell no. Why is this different?

The difference there is that the image would be altered to make people think that you were a Nazi. This image was supplied by Sony Pictures, and as far as I know, unaltered by Playboy.

but more importantly...where can I get a subsciption to Hitler's Friends?

heh could be , did you see the dude from the kid rock sex tape on t.v.

he was like " whahh whahh , people put this tape out just to hurt my reputation " haha i have never even heard of the guy just his band, seems fairly obvious he put it out himself so he could drum up some puiblicity.

how is that different than playboy altering alba's picture to show her with a playboy watermark ? i doubt sony supplied a picture of a playboy bunny on jessica. Wouldnt that "imply" jessica liked/supported playboy ? even though she might despise/hate/disagree with it ?

They put the bunny on her bikini. Im not sure on the law but this might be what gets them in trouble. Otherwise I dont understand what the difference is between this and UsWeekly using one of her pics.

Add in DVD sales, merchandise, etc and she has a respectable career. She could buy and sell your sorry ass. Go back to sniffing solvents. :)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :thumbsup

I think this is part of the problem. Alba and her Lawyers are claiming she has the right to approve the use and licence for each time her publicity photo is used.

I somehow doubt that Sony would give her the right to do so, for this simple reason: If Alba says, "I don't want my publicity photo used in magazine X", but the photo is a cast picture, then the image could not be used even if the other cast members were alright with the use. I just don't see it happening. If it is the case, then she needs to sue Sony...UNLESS, Playboy did lie to Sony about the use of the image. But I'm also pretty sure that there's something in writing between the parties as to the use of the image.

I've dealt too many times with image release issues with regard to mainstream movies and television to think that there is no document that explains the use of this picture.

once again movie stars don't sign blanket model releases, the release is negotiated like a contract. This isn't some chick you paid 500 bucks to.I do shoot content , adult and mainstream so I know how releases work.

just reading a bit more on this.. turns out playboy told sony they were only using the pictures for an inside story , this was AFTER she had DECLINED a multimillion dollar offer to appear on the cover

What are you her bitch? I made a post about her lack of box office success. Some moron post figure to prove that I was tright and he acts like he disprove me. Sorry they don't add in all that other crap when they count BOX OFFICE, moron. DVDS sales suck, probaly lost money. Merchadise? Are you joking. Go to wallly world and see how much Craptastic 4 stuff is still sitting on shelves gathering dust and heavily discounted.

Absolutely!! If they did that, then they must have had permission from the copyright holder of the image. If they didn't they are in deep shit. But, not from Alba. Even the most pedestrian photo release allows for the alteration of the image by the copyright holder, and that right can be licensed to someone else.

Ok using the tem "Jessica Alba" and "movie star" is dubious" at best. Also when did she sign this contract with Sony? Before she became famous or after?

if your this hollywood in the know , what are you doing here lol she is hot now when your hot you get whatever you want, if your in the know, you know already

she isnt owned by sony this isnt a vivid girl. it says in the legal document she had control on her image and license why do you have such a hard dealing with that. she has a team of people working for her , their job is her best interests

Exactly. She what 24 and probally just some bumb bitch so WTF does she know about contracts and releases?

Well as soon as you get a scan of that doc posted here I'll shut up. Ok?

You are somewhat correct. They do sign blanket releases, all the time. They might be able to negotiate their image releases, but only when they are in the power position. She is EXACTLY the same as the $500 web model, just add zeros to the end.

What do you think, I can't possibly have worked in mainstream television and now do work in adult?

Look, if your an Alba fan, I don't mind. But don't let those perky boobs fool you into thinking that she's not owned by Sony picture (at least in this case). She's a minor player, at best. She has nothing to do with box office success. She is eye candy, nothing more. I'd bet you could add up all of her lines of dialog and they wouldn't account for more than a couple of pages.

I wouldn't be that hard on her. It's not her job to know contracts. It's her lawyers job. and it's her managers job to make sure that the lawyer knows.

But I'd agree that when I see the contract that gives her specific use agreement that I'd believe it.

Im not a fan of hers at all but I read the trades you calling her a minor player shows you dont know what you are talking about. Movie stars sign nothing that isnt reviewed first and they do not sign blanket release.

i really highly doubt she signed a blanket release for these photo's, furthermore they offered her $$$ to be on the cover FIRST then she declined . Her lawyer would have to a be the stupidest motherfucker on earth not to inform her that they could use her pics anyways and not pay her a dime.. maybe he was banking on the fact they wouldnt use a publicity photo from amovie for a magazine cover..

Usually the pictures "blanket release" would apply only for promotion of the movie.. I really highly doubt actors get paid to do a movie and then the movie can resell any part of the movie or pictures for whatever reason /purpose they can find.. with no compensation.. for ther actors

Dude, no offense, but they sign blanket releases. I would show you one, but I signed so many fucking releases that I can't show you one. I spent a lot of time sitting at tables waiting on people to sign releases...releases that gave them no rights to anything except the ability to appear on those particular shows. I'm not talking about webcams and vivid video, I'm talking about CBS, MTV, E!, Comedy Central, NBC, ESPN and every other place I've been for the last 15 years.

Alba is a minor player. period. You can read the trades all day, because trades are about 3 months behind what's really going on in entertainment. Don't assume that because I don't have 18 thousand posts on gfy that I don't know what I'm talking about.

The companies have too much invested to let someone have control over their marketing like that. I'm not saying she signed a blanket release for this image. She may well have signed something that limited what it can be used for, but if she did then Sony is the one that she should be suing for damages, not Playboy. But don't let that go to mean that celebs do not sign blanket releases, because they do it all the time.

I can tell you that I have had countless celebs sign releases that would give them absolutely no control over the use of the material. Only ONCE did I ever have trouble with a celeb not signing the release. We didn't let her on the air until she signed it. for the record, it was Roseanne Barr.

I'm not a lawyer but i would think they both could be sued. Sony for giving them the picture without her permission ( if it has that in the contract that she must sign off on where the pictures are to be used ) and playboy for sticking the playboy watermark on her body because that wasnt within the contract they got from sony ( if thats the case )

Lets just cut to the chase and try to guess what really happened..

Heres what i think..

they aproached alba to be in playboy , she declined, they told her nothing and went straght to sony.. asked to use some pictures for an article int he magazine about the 25 sexiest women in america. They watermarked it used it as a cover.

Sony prob only has right to use "those particular pictures" in conjunction with the marketting of the movie. Sony assumed playboy was going to have a small article with a pic fromt he movie and maybe a little subtitle that said " jessica from her new movie " not a front page magazine..

Heres what will happen , jessica will sue sony for not fact checking and playboy for watermarking he rpicture , sony will sue playboy for not following the contract , and playboy will sue sony saying they gave them permission...

I just found a little larger image of the cover. I think Playboy should be in the clear for any compensation.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/s...060303alba.jpg

25 sexiest celebrities. Jessica Alba, Scarlette Johannsen, Denis Richards... Etc. She'll need a really good lawyer to prove Playboy was trying to confuse readers.

Not an inconceivable situation. I keep forgetting about the bunny watermark. But that also leads me to think that Playboy must have gotten permission to use the image for the cover. This wouldn't fall into the same category as someone pointed to earlier about being on the cover of UsWeekly, because of fair use laws and copyright issues. But here, with the addition of the bunny and it being a publicty shot, I think they would have been very irresponsible in not having a solid license to use the image for the cover.

And some may be right that Playboy estimated the numbers that it would take to settle, and figured they would sell more copies. I never said big business couldn't be crooked!

I don't think Alba could sue for the watermark unless it's her picture, or she had an agreement with Sony that she wouls have to approve any alteration to the image. Of course she's going to go after Playboy, because they have deep pockets, and they figure they might get an easy settlement. But if she doesn't own it, she out of luck.

This whole thing boils down to:
1. who owns the image
2. does Alba have any control over use

Also despite all this FREE publicity she is creating with this drama her movie will still do nothing at the box office and be derided by critics everywhere.

The movie has been out for awhile, and is already to dvd I believe. It was a good movie actually.

Yes, and the sheep do their part by talking about it, thereby creating awareness of her new movie.

ya, probably just a stunt to pull more sales

1) She's more famous than you'll ever be even with her "clunker" movies.
2) I repeat myself, but She could buy and sell your sorry ass.
3) You're definately sniffing solvents if you think the merchandise didn't make big $$$. (sitting on a shelf collecting dust LOL)

I think what we have here is a case of blueballs brought on by realizing the fact that she wouldn't fuck you, ever.

Shocking as this may sound, being in Playboy isn't considered a career boost by many. I could give examples of washed up actresses hard up for cash showing the goods, but I would be wasting my time.

If you can't see that she doesn't want to risk her image by giving that impression, then you're definately about as sharp as balloon.

I agree I think she could get black balled if they press this issue, they might let it ride for a min. for more publicity.. Also I think it would hurt her career as a hot actress. lets get real she's not an oscar winning actress she is just super hot.. If she sues one publication the rest might stop promoting her and label her as a problem child in the industry.

If she's that stuck up then dont pose for such sexy photos and focus your acting career on talent not sexy roles etc.