Is Stealing Paparazzi Photos for a paysite illegal?

[Fletch XXX]

Lets say I gather all the paris Hiton paparazzi photos I can, Angelina Jolie, etc, and make a pay site? Is that considered "stolen content?"

Considering paparazzi are copyright holders of their images and videos, I dont see how some can say it is not stolen content.

discuss

[Damian_Maxcash]

God knows how it works - MrSkin and others seem to get away with it so there must be a way to do it legally.

[Fletch XXX]

Are they even based in the US? I doubt it.

But also, I am talking about paparazzi photos and videos, not movie clips from sex scenes. With half-ass commentary to make it seem not like content theft.

Paparazzi own copyright to their photos, there is no public domain as it is defined by no one holding copyrights to that particular image or video. We all know celeb photos like paris hilton pussy shots are OWNED by the perso who took them, so including them in your pay site would be wrong, no?

I just have to ask, folks are running around here bashing "stolen content" but then partnering up ad making money with paysites that steal copyright protected paparazzi images.

No matter what, you simply cannot collect 1000s of images you have no license for, and start a paysite.

however, some around here have their hands in them, but wat you to think they are against stolen content.

They should be made to defend that stance.

Im not really arguing "celeb" ste legalities, thats been done a million times... but sites that rip papazrazzi databases and add their photos are a little different.

[NinjaSteve]

I've always thought there's some system because it seems that the paparazzi will sell the image and it'll appear in just one magazine.

[Fletch XXX]

My stance is simple and EASY to defend.

if you do not have the license for the content, you shouldnt be displaying it FOR PROFIT.

[Shaze]

id think it's illegal...

[Fletch XXX]

I've always thought there's some system because it seems that the paparazzi will sell the image and it'll appear in just one magazine.

right, because they LICENSE the image, thats why Ive stated, we should use "licensed or unlicensed content" as the terms instead of just "stolen"

But yes, paps own their photos, and license them for A LOT OF MONEY. Which by default claims copyright and EXCLUSIVE USE to display the work.

[Kelli58]

I don't know all the details but i know many of them work for established organizations like TMZ who in fact is owned my AOL Time Warner so be careful who you steal from because you could have a very big dog on your ass for it.

[spacedog]

God knows how it works - MrSkin and others seem to get away with it so there must be a way to do it legally.

Paparazzi sell to anyone they can & rarely on an exclusive basis.. Theoretically I'd assume Mr Skin & others with a vested interest in their business ventures would safeguard against legal ramifications by having their bases covered

[Dave PSC]

My stance is simple and EASY to defend.

if you do not have the license for the content, you shouldnt be displaying it FOR PROFIT.

It is simply black and white. It your's to use legally or it is not, there is no gray.