wondering.. Who owns the rights of the CELEB content?
 

I have alot of HOT pics and videos of celebs collecting over the years.. I just wondering.. WHAT if I make my own paysite with celeb content?
IS there somebody who have more info about it?

It depends.... you really have to be descriptive when it comes to this type of content.

What type of content is it ?
Did you pay for it ?
Shoot it yourself ?
Have releases ?
Have 2257 for sale in the US ?
Shot it outside ?

Legally, it really depends....

i believe the photographer owns the rights. until you have bought the rights to use it.

does anyone in the world have 2257s for any celeb sextape? I doubt it...

I guess everyone can start one... legal or not, I am not sure of.

90% of all celeb paysites don't have any 2257 info or have paid in any way for the content, they have just gathered pics and videos from online like you mention you have. No one seem's to care that much about it so I'm pretty sure you will be safe as long as you stay away from "real" copyrighted stuff like One Night In Paris etc.

That said, I am not sure how legal it would be, does anybody really know?

What type of content is it ? - Celeb .. nude, sex, topless
Did you pay for it ? NO ..
Shoot it yourself ? Nope
Have releases ? naah
Have 2257 for sale in the US ? noop
Shot it outside ? naah

Well you got nothing you can use legally....

You might want to consider Civil Code 3344 et al.. Using pics w/o a MR can get a model a big judgement/award.. and you will have to give up any profits as well as puni's...

Civil Code sec. 3344

we have the pre-1995 (so no 2557 is nessecary) Marilynn Monroe sex scandal tape
not cheap :(
2000,- euro ex VAT
not in our shop yet
but available
is a 15 minute scene in black & white

Good luck toots.

Let's call I like it is. One can assume that EVERY celeb pay site is using STOLEN content and getting away with it. No one gives those programs with celeb sites a hard time. But think about it- someone, whether it is the original paparazzi photographer or the magazines or agencies they work for or some media company like the National Enquirer owns the copyrights to those particular images of Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie etc.

Ok then, what about of useing this content to free kind website which is just for traffic generating? Selling clothes.. and that kinda stuff? I am sure there are tons of that kind of sites..

Those would be pics taken in public - different rules apply.

Thats a not a "free" website. Its a commercial website and there's no difference. They could still claim any profits generated by it, through it or because of it.

There was a case on this not so long ago. Dealing with a number of issues in this regard. You can find it on wiki.

There was a test that come into play, much like Miller. Part of it dealt with the Google and thumbnail aspect of 'public or fair use'. But part of it addressed the 'value' of a picture after it's been sold.

Perez Hilton got sued because he was belligerent to people he was stealing the thunder from. Like X17. He would get pictures they were going to use on their site, or cover of mag, and release it before they could.

In that case, (think 1st baby pic of some new celeb, or scandal pic people pay millions for) he was stealing their thunder, and costing them money. So the he was in trouble for that kinda shit. Plus, they asked him to either stop doing it, or give them credit. He refused in both cases under 'fair use'.

For most of the images out there, what is the 'value' after a mag has used them? That is where you have to get into the specifics. Some of these paps do not think they are creating a Rembrandt image.

This doesn't even get into the whole 'copyrighting each work product'. Because, as you've seen from the other celeb pap on the board. Most can barely live, much less be copyrighting every image.

It's not to say they fore go ownership. What I am saying is that you have to look at the big picture. We can pass on endless shadow boxing debates listening the the internet esquires of GFY..... many who run tube and have no 2257 docs, download music, get free porn off of torrents, and many other 'questionable' bro types of things... telling us about legalities.



:2 cents:

So its Legal to use paprazzi pics? All in public?

No. :upsidedow

Ok.. does anybody think that this blog use all legal content? http://hollywoodtuna.com/

Huh? Did you read the thread above and understand it? Because I don't think that your answer makes sense if you were responding to my post above.

I was saying that some webmasters or programs coming along and making web sites full of other people's copyrighted photos that they neither shot themselves nor licensed are essentially stealing the images. After all *someone* owns those photos that the webmaster helped him or herself to, whether it is the paparazzi or the agency he works for or some magazine like the National Enquirer. , right?

Please if you are celeb site owner.. bump this with your opinion.. cheers