Need pics for website intro page

[ileono918]

Originally Posted by ParAvion

Recently Perez Hilton lost a $7.1 million lawsuit because he was stealing pictures and drawing pictures of penises on them and not paying the people who took the picture.

Is she the messican version of Paris Hilton?

[Pyrofallout]

Originally Posted by ileono918

Is she the messican version of Paris Hilton?

Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.

[ParAvion]

Originally Posted by ileono918

Is she the messican version of Paris Hilton?

You never heard of Perezhilton.com (its a HE/)

Originally Posted by ParAvion

Of course if you doing something in a public place then you lose those rights. (paparazzi business model).

Not quite. Just because you do something in public does not mean you loose your rights. I have the right to photograph everything I can see from public ground. I don't have the right to use those photos commercially without a signed release of every person in the photo EXCEPT for editorial purposes.

Also I don't need a release if the use of the photograph can be clearly declared as art as the freedom of speech, expression and art stands above the individual right of privacy (sort of, note I'm not a lawyer just a photographer).

Paparazzi btw. are NOT photographers but rather scum of the earth that happens to use a camera for their shady business and I would be ashamed to be associated with any of them.

Mike

[ParAvion]

Originally Posted by mike

Paparazzi btw. are NOT photographers but rather scum of the earth that happens to use a camera for their shady business and I would be ashamed to be associated with any of them.

Mike

I also think tow truck drivers are scum of the earth but a lot of people deem them necessary and a important part of the human social ecosystem. If paparazzi were so bad then they would probably be illegal and eventually go out of existence but they usually make a lot more money than the successful photographer if they are successful.

If no one read those magazines or watched TMZ i think they would eventually go away. But to call them scum of the earth tells me that you have never looked at a people magazine or watched a celebrity news story on one of those shows. I bet you turn away in disgust whenever you hear a report of Britney Spears running around crazy shaving her head or Suge Knight getting KTFO one more time.

The fact is more american's can tell you the names of Tom Cruise's Kid Suri then name the current secretary of state Hilary Clinton. So those jobs will continue to exist and flourish and be more lucrative than most.

[lonnief2]

Originally Posted by ParAvion

But to call them scum of the earth tells me that you have never looked at a people magazine or watched a celebrity news story on one of those shows. I bet you turn away in disgust whenever you hear a report of Britney Spears running around crazy shaving her head or Suge Knight getting KTFO one more time.

The fact is more american's can tell you the names of Tom Cruise's Kid Suri then name the current secretary of state Hilary Clinton. So those jobs will continue to exist and flourish and be more lucrative than most.

In fact I never did, nor do I care and your last comment is not necessarily a good thing and would lead to a whole different discussion which is absolutely not motorcycle related.

And yes, paparazzi are not photographers. I take pride in my work and treat people with respect. Paparazzi don't. And what's the necessity again for them? A tow truck driver gets people more or less out of trouble, a paparazzi usually gets people into trouble and does NOTHING good for society.

[Azylum]

i do believe tiatool said he would get permission. call me crazy but...

[ParAvion]

Originally Posted by GFR101

There is a lot of legal advice being thrown around in this thread and anyone concerned about there rights should seek out an attorney. But to quash one thing that was said above, you do not have an unrestricted right to use a photo of somebody you took in public for commercial purposes. There are many legal principals that apply in this area, including if the person is a public or private figure and what purposes the photo is being used. This area also bleeds into the area of libel, etc.

I think most of this is being taking way too far in this thread, but if anybody is concerned, seek an attorney's advice and don't rely on the people in this thread.


--Disclaimer - Nothing in this post should be relied upon and you should seek legal advice from your attorney concerning the issues discussed herein.

To add to that statement please also take into account this is a fairly new field when it comes to legality as there is not much case law to support any of these claims and photography rights are constantly changing on the internet. For example thedirty.com uses people in public places all the time with absolutely no release and libels and possibly slanders on a daily basis.
The owner also makes thousands of dollars a day off the site with no compensation to the person in the photograph or the person who took it. Only time will tell the results and always hire a lawyer with the utmost caution. All of them will aruge their case as the right way and eventually one will get it right and win in court.

[Azylum]

Originally Posted by ParAvion

To add to that statement please also take into account this is a fairly new field when it comes to legality as there is not much case law to support any of these claims and photography rights are constantly changing on the internet. For example thedirty.com uses people in public places all the time with absolutely no release and libels and possibly slanders on a daily basis.
The owner also makes thousands of dollars a day off the site with no compensation to the person in the photograph or the person who took it. Only time will tell the results and always hire a lawyer with the utmost caution. All of them will aruge their case as the right way and eventually one will get it right and win in court.

so why is it again you feel that the owners of the photos should be charging this guy for the pics?