Celeb Pics

[Bec]

Was wondering how some sites can show celebrity/movie star pictures? Or are they skirting legal issues by doing so? I was wondering about putting some shots onto a site, but don't want sued... esp if part of a paysite or avs. Anyone have some insight on this?

[Lee]

I recall having a discussion about this on GWW a few months ago you might like to search the archives

Also, Rainey would probably be the best person to give you advice on this area as she used to work for a company that had a couple of Celeb paysites :thumbsup:

Regards,

Lee

[Scorpio]

I would think it's illegal. That's why you see "Star Name" suing magazines... for illegal use of their pictures. But you never know.

[Gary-Alan]

Well my first question would always be, did you license the shots you want to use. If you do not have a license then don't use them.

I'm sure Rainey knows more on this. And hopefully she will see this and her two cents

I've seen a lot over the years on celeb sites. And it's one area I've avoided simply because of my no license rule - most images I came across were being distributed as 'public domain' which is BS.

My two cents,
GA

[RainGurl]

celeb sites are definitely tricky, and can be legally dangerous.
if you use celeb pictures they have to be laid out in a "news" type format, movie reviews, product sales, etc. the celeb sites that i know of, ( malestars.com, mrskin.com etc,) are set up to be basically review sites with an adult twist. i know that we had stacks of legal documentation protecting our right to do this.
i definitely would not enter the celeb arena without first consulting a lawyer.

[Bec]

Appreciate the replies -- and going with my gut feeling - don't do it! LOL

[Mitch]

as the former content manager of xxxcash, I concur with rainey who was part of the team over there with me. Celebs and stars must have a newsworthiness in order for their image to be put on a website, newspaper or magazine without their permission. However even if it is newsworthy, a celeb can make a public "ask" that they not publish photos that were taken in a private setting. here are a few well known examples and the results of them.

Tommy Lee and Pamela Video: Taken on a lake, with a private camera, not meant for distribution but for private "home movies". Tape was allegedly "stolen" and then distributed, sold and given away online. Tommy Lee and Pamela contend the tape is a violation of their privacy since it was meant as a private moment. The websites and magazines say that since the tape was stolen, and was viewed by a third party, then it is newsworthy. So this creates a blurry line, and since the story itself is newsworthy, what is the story without the tape to view.

Paris Hilton Secret Sex Video: Taken in a bedroom, totally private, never meant for distribution. This tape will shut down most sites as Paris Hilton not only can afford to sue your site but has done it. The courts have said that this tape is private and not meant for public dissemination in any form. Most reputable celeb sites ie femalestars.com , mr.skin etc wont show this even though we used to get literally a hundred emails asking for it.

Anything Britney Spears: When you enter a concert of hers there are signs that say (basically) "take as many pics as you want but if we catch you using them on pay sites we will sue you for violation of copywrite". so her fans can use them for private use but not to make money off them. Brittney has spearheaded the privacy challenges against most celeb sites that show her. She has made public statements describing what pictures and when were newsworthy and which were private. She goes after sites like microsoft goes after hackers, with a vengence.

Celebrity Fakes: Anyone can make a celeb fake, this isnt protected or a violation of any privacy. Most celeb fakes are crude cut outs and head shots planted on other bodies. A face is almost never considered "private" unless *and this happened* it was from a makeup model or plastic surgeon site. So celeb fakes are dumb but allowed on most sites.

Reviews on movies are always considered newsworthy. So if britney spears or paris hilton was in a movie, television show, or some other public feature those images or videos(if obtained legally under copywrite laws) would be allowed to be displayed on websites, mags and newspaper. HOWEVER the already mentioned private pics/vids could not be merged with the legal stories, that would taint the entire process.

Most celeb sites arent in it for the long haul so they put up pics they know are illegal just to get the big hits and memberships. Any reputable celeb site has all legal images, the paperwork on all celeb photos taken and where they procured them from, and knowledge that they are legal.

I hope this helped a little

[Bec]

Yes, thank you --

I am doing a site that will follow a "magazine" style for porn for women, and wasn't at all sure how I could use any celeb imagery within the site itself... mainly what I have is upsells to celeb sites from various sponsors, which is ok, but I don't want to be sending them off the site too much.