The irony of the Entire "Stolen Content" argument
 

The one thing I notice is:

You guys have a lot to say in threads like this:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=888232 (notice everyone is against stolen content)

But in threads like this, it is nothing but ass kissing:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=835495 (not a single person mentions copyright)

oh the irony. :1orglaugh

Because it's not their content and they're not losing sales because of it. That's why the 5k mp3's on their computer is no problem either.

In all these daily tube threads the people posting in them simply don't care about theft. They act like they do but it's only because they don't want to lose sales because of those sites. They only care about theft when it affects them. It's pathetic.

They have no problems downloading movies that aren't even in the cinema yet or downloading the newest album of whatever artist...because it doesn't affect their sales.

And people who ass kiss hahaha are fucking morons anyway. Total fucking morons who have no clue about this industry.

Spot on. No one ever cared about stolen or free content until it satarted to take their sales.

As for Celebs, well they're open game and probably a lot of them know how to get "noticed" doing things they should not be doing!!

Now Paul, as a photographer, you should know, the celebs dont own those photos. The photographers and companies who shoot them do.
So celeb content still has copyright holders who own the rights to celeb images.

I am just pointing out this irony and dont really care to argue the fight over if it is wrong or not, however, we all know porn site owners do not have the right to publish celeb content legally... there is no public domain on celeb/paparazzi photos. The paps are copyright holders as the people who take the images.

You can buy the rights to these photos, just like you can buy animal sex content - from producers, owners, ect. I'm pretty sure someone sells this as some package, like a turnkey system, and the real owner retains the web rights.

Pretty common stuff.





And the free porn bitch, isn't new.. The day the first porn picture came online a Pornographer making money complained about it being the end of times.


Wake up from your lala land people...

link???

I need to license those Lindsay Lohan Marilyn Monroe pics for an AVS, quick! :1orglaugh

the pic is right on the front of banned celebs, if you need to look for reference. :winkwink:

oh yeah, and all the Britney Spears snizz shots, I need those too for some galleries. All legit ... LOLZ suuure

who gives a fuck?

another tedious thread filled with the same people making the same stupid arguments .... over and over again .................

TheDoc talking out of his ass again.

carry on...

lump yourself in buddy, and welcome to the party. :1orglaugh

he is too busy making hundreds of sales a day to respond.

...
/thread

i didnt even think Doc was serious.

no one is licensing out the million dollar spreads you see in magazines. Theres no way magazines pay 100s of thousands of dollars, and then some porn company licenses them?

lol

Even when I first started in this biz, the company i worked for was PAYING photographers to go out and shoot this content for them. But the company owned the rights. You cant just take paparazii photos that arent yours,... ive worked for companies who shot that type of stuff. Photographers were paid to go out and get celeb shots,... but the content then became the companies, big difference between taking pics from net and making a site.

Someone has to own the rights, up the chain some place - someone has the rights to them. And that person is lic them out to someone else, who brokers it down more. If you pay millions for photos, put them in a mag - wouldn't you monetize online too?

Companies / People like this make far more money lic the content out than they do hording it for the shitty magazine they own. Actually, this is huge f'in business.

No way in hell Mainstream news papers that purchase these, studios, pops, mags... And celeb sites not get sued - Come on, they would jump at that opportunity, and if I remember correct Mr. Skin has been sued by Celebs or someone for stuff on his site, and he is still here.

Something isn't right - just because 'we don't see the answer' doesn't mean a solution isn't provided. I'm not saying every bit of it is legal, I don't know personally, I find celeb crap to be boring. But if you think someone is scanning these magazines they get and dumping that online, and making a profit from it, and they aren't getting sued... that's crazy talk.

That's just how I see it.. and no, you wouldn't get a link to this. This would totally be who you know and how big you are.

Um, as I mentioned I am not here to argue about this. I stated clearly, someone does in fact own copyright to the images, and its not the celeb porn site owners lol

But the fact is, magazines pay for custom shoots, and theres no way they pay 1+ million for Angelina Jolie pics and then you come along and license the same images for less. When you pay 100,000s of dollars for custom Lindsay Lohan spread the pics are not licensed out after that. C'mon man... we are talking about Cover of Vogue images. lol

This is "crazy talk" as you say.

OK Magazine pays ungodly amount of money for celeb photos, the pics are not licensed to porn sites afterwards, Really man, I know people have opinions, but this is "crazy talk."

Anyone who believes otherwise is just reaching.

What I find more ironic is all the cries of "illegal tubes" and all the youtube videos posted here.

The Porn site, doesn't own the Content. They license it, through another broker that does own "web rights". Which is controlled based on volume they can produce.

The magazine makes its money either way, they just want more. The sell the photos to other magazines, just one photo - which we see all the time. They sell the secret nude shit they get in to others, they trade. They rights get sold to news stand papers, and the list goes on and on.

They don't pay a million, use it in one magazine or a few they own, and be done with it. That's just stupid business, and I know for a fact people Lic the content out.

Chances are, Vogue doesn't even own the org rights - It was Lic to them even, they do own the shoot in question - but someone else owns the rights to resell it.

That business - is larger than the magazines they own.

GFY is no different than any other forum online, and ive said this for years.

Everyday on GFY you can find:

a. unlicensed content being spread
b. the discussion and promotion of pirating Hollywood DVD movies
c. links to software such as scrapers, rippers, torrents, you name it

People who state otherwise need to come down off the horse.

Cool Doc, glad you straightened it out. Who needs lawyers???? Celeb sites are legal, celeb content has no copyright, and the world keeps turning. Cool thnx buddy.

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 :)

See, always something in the big picture we don't know about..

Why don't they sue? They are richer than the largest porn companies, just the celeb alone is. Let alone vogue, and all the others.

Again, I did say I don't think they own it all, I did say something else is clearly going on. And I know for a fact they Lic the content out. I'm not saying to porn sites, but I can guarantee you someone owns Web rights - to at least some of it.

The most basic child logic would tell you something else is up, because they would sue otherwise.

I read somewhere once that Mr Skin is actually the only legit celeb site...

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.

the biggest issue you will find with celeb sites are the celebs pissed they are on a porn site and try to take the content down or threaten to sue for damages under rights of publicity or rights of unfair competition, where they are saying the site is unfairly profiting on their likeness

this happens more with younger celebs than older ones.

but back to the point, ive never heard of an owner of many of the pics displayed on a celeb site to ask for the removal of the content and i think it may be hard to do that.

the pics displayed on those sites are generally found *everywhere*, a million other places, and its a difficult argument to the court when you "selectively enforce" the unlicensed use of your content.

i think generally with trademark/copywrite law, you have to do all or nothing. you have to show that you went after infringers from the start otherwise you tend to lose the right to restrict people from using it license-free, legal concept called latches

ps: i also like to state, i am not carrying the crusader torch here. I dont care what people steal and what they dont. But when I constantly see these guys rearing up like they are the Content Defenders of the Universe and then rush to put up links to celeb sites, I MUST comment lol

steal all the britney snizz pics you want, but dont come on gfy and boast about how good of a person you are in content threads and then act like you are above others.

Everybody just live by the golden rule and we'll all be ok. Tough to compete with those that live by the "I'll take everything I can get and fuck the rest of you" rule but it is what it is. It's OK to get upset about it. Just make sure it doesn't effect your work.

If a business model is based on fraud, meaning stolen content, questionable cross-sales, card banging, shaving, whatever else is out there, that business is destined to fail. When it will fail is unknown. But it will fail eventually. This is a historical fact.

See Enron, Bernie Madoff, Stanford Financial, Phar-Mor, HealthSouth, Enzyte...just off the top of my head.

If a company offers a quality product at a good price then they will thrive...see Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Microsoft....you get the picture.

The internet is still relatively new. It will take time for the fuck-stains to get flushed out and they may end up wealthy beyond their wildest dreams (or in jail) before it ends but it will indeed end.

:2 cents:

I am pretty sure the fair use argument of copyrighted material does not cover those making a profit off of said copyrighted material.

dunno about that , newspapers do it all the time and they charge money to get the paper

celebrity sites and content is such a gray area

fair use is INTENDED for newspapers, education, and spreading of info regarding events, people, etc...
and again, newspapers arent taking vogue covers or lindsay lohan spreads are they? Nope. Most newspapers feature images they shoot themselves or associated content pics.

Porn paysites that charge recurring $30 based on celeb content is another story.

Fair use has 4 factors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

First being is it intended for education, or commercial. newspapers educate the public, porn celeb sites do not.

Are you sure they didn`t buy this content form WireImage.com ?

I wont mention any sites, but i have looked at some of the members areas, and i have seen sites with videos with mrskin watermark on them

extended irony would dictate that without stolen software half or more of these mouthbreathing fuckwads wouldnt even have the 10 clicks a week they have to those busted ass tgps.

photoshop
dreamweaver
flash

all expensive. guaranteed not paid for. this adult internet was built on stolen software

Thank you... I knew you could buy Celeb pictures, and if one site or service is around, then 100's are and probably every magazine, newspaper, or smart photographer is licensing the rights too. It's HUGE business...

Some Celeb photos are a fake too... Not sure the legal rules on that, but if someone is making and selling them. Sounds legal enough to me.



Probably a good idea since you don't know what has been licensed out.

This is a thread most people are ignoring. They don't want to be reminded of the fact that when they download a new Hollywood movie through Rapidshare it's just as bad as the illegal tube they were just attacking.

the betamax case established that the only critical one is "economic harm" one
because
sony make money on the vcr ( 1k per unit)
copied the entire file (taped the show)
and had commentary, educational etc in place

the only consideration was that the user had already bought/granted the viewing rights, so the act of moving those viewing rights to another day/time cost the copyright holder nothing.

While we now know that is not true (my own worst enemy got tivoed to death) it doesn't matter now because the fair use right has been established, and as a result the exclusive right of the copyright holder are null and void even though the economy has changed to make the original fair use condition to no longer be true.

i believe these celeb sites are covered by a similar "unfair" extention of fair use.

first i always wondered how they did those celebrity sites and secondly gfy isnt a indicator because 90% dont actually produce content.

fair use a bullshit defense when you sell access to the content for $29/month. also the comment about news agencies using photos is erroneous considering that the news and even fluffy talk shows acquire a license prior to running images/video.

Yup so true.

Very true... and companies like SCORE paid through the nose for the few pics we published in our magazines.

You heard wrong then!!!! They got just as much "Fair Use" content as most other sites... even more actually! Thats why they ended up in court with Alyssa Milano's mother... but they won against her!

So could someone make a "newsworthy" site about free/stolen content being available online and include galleries of stolen content?

Or a site about the possible exploitation of impoverished females in eastern europe and load it up with stolen content?

Or a site with tutorials explaining how to convert video file formats with copyrighted full length clips as examples in the tutorials?

I understand the laws as they pertain to celebrity sites and fair use. Just wondering how far it could go :)