![]() |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
| Legacy Archived Main Board Business chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here. |

|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#24 | |
|
Members
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The pedestal just above YOU!
Posts: 183
|
Quote:
You have done background on this legally and you think that it is ok? Do you honestly think people are this stupid? I KNOW your lawyer, and I have had discussion with YOUR lawyer about this topic, and I can tell you right now that YOUR lawyer DOES NOT think this is ok, and DID NOT advise you that it was OK. If, by some odd freak event, your lawyer did tell you this was ok, then good for you, you have a huge malpractice case against your lawyer. How can a content company the size of Matrix be so utterly and completely clueless? There are two issues involving celebrity sites. The first issue is commercial misappropriation of likeness. In California, it is California Civil Code 3344. Under this statute, it MAY be possible to use images of celebrities without a signed release. After all, that is what a release is for. A release is signed by a model to release their likeness to the copyright holder for the purpose of those images and videos only. A case MAY be made that because of the celebrity status of celebs, a release is not needed. It is a weak argument and depending on the judge, you could either win or lose. BUT, and this is a big BUT: The above DOES NOT release you from copyright issues that can be made by the photographers or copyright holders of the images. Just because a photographer takes a picture of someone famous, that does not give you, or any other scumbag the right to use that image without the consent of the copyright holder. It is STILL the copyright holders property and only he can decide how, when, and where those images are used. Any use of those images without the consent of the copyright holder is a violation of their rights under federal law. Well JMM, king of kings, how then can the national enquirer for example post pictures of Brad Pitt's penis??? The answer is simple, because they bought the rights to the image from the guy who owned it, the photographer and copyright holder. Had they not, they would not have legal rights to publish it. Now, if I was a photographer and I saw that Matrix, a content company, was using my pictures of Jennifer Love Hewitt sucking my cock (they do not exist unfortunately except in my very vivid imagination, but this is a hypothetical case) I would certainly sue Matrix. I would sue them for copyright violations in federal court. I would also make issue that since they are in the content business their infringement is certainly willful since they should know the law and they should know better. Willful infringement carries stiffer penalties, AND, can be a criminal act. A federal felony. Matrix, there is no way that you can justify owning a celeb site. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. If you continue on this path, I hope you get sued out of business. Their is still time for you to leave your flirtation with the dark side and come over to the side of good and righteousness. Will you do the right thing? Lets hope so. Would hate it if word spread of your activities and that hurt your business. No pun intended, but I think I will make this my cause celeb until the right thing is done. |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|