Quote:
Originally Posted by webmasterchecks
whomever owns the rights aside, you can republish those images under "fair use", which is the concept that newspapers/magazines use, where you are printing newsworthy content about them and can use other peoples licensed images along with that content. ie wikipedia pics. mr. skin had to restructure their site to legally be able to keep their content intact.
not that i think bannedcelebs would fall under fair use  |
what I havent touched upon in this thread and one of the main reasons this debate is stifled, is because there is a HUGE difference between "movie clips with reviews" and "taking Vogue cover scans" and making paysite.
However, I am not trying to play lawyer and get too involved with the debate. The topic is valid.
People on this forum will constantly carry the anti-stolen content flag, but then when it comes to taking images you have no right to use of a celeb on red carpet, people look the other way.
Ive noticed it, countless others has, and having worked for companies who spent THOUSANDS on getting their own LEGAL celeb content, I find it ironic to witness but worth commenting on.
But alas, there is a big difference between fair use type of stuff and creating recurring paysites based on images of celebs of which you have no legal rights to use.