5 ms·

If you made this as a commercial venture you are probably infringing on these celebrities personality rights.

eric_h 12y ago
I was going to respond in a snarky tone about the absurdity of there being such a thing as personality rights. Fortunately, I googled it first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
- deveac 12y ago
  Fascinating.
7Figures2Commas 12y ago
Not to mention the copyrights of the photographers who took the photos, assuming these haven't been licensed. The companies and freelance photographers who focus on the celebrity market are some of the most aggressive you'll encounter in protecting their rights.
- alexc05 12y ago
  Yes. $2.1m suit against Perez Hilton who was linking to a store carrying the outfit. http://petapixel.com/2013/06/29/nytimes-photographer-sues-perez-hilton-for-2-1-million-for-copyright-infringement/ http://petapixel.com/2013/06/29/nytimes-photographer-sues-pe... Interesting to note that all the major online gossip rags appear to have links to outfits already. The personality rights probably have no bearing with respect to paparazzi photos. Still, I love the "do this but for Bollywood" suggestion.
  - jadlimcaco 12y ago
    Thanks for posting and checking out the site. From the article that was linked, it sounds like reason for the suit was a refusal to remove the photos after a cease and desist. We are actively looking for the best solution.
    - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
      > We are actively looking for the best solution. It's called licensing. Knowingly using photos that you don't have the right to use will eventually catch up with you. If you think that waiting for cease and desist letters is a long-term strategy, I would strongly suggest that you speak to an attorney who can explain why that won't work.
timfrietas 12y ago
He/she is also infringing on IP rights. For example they are photoshopping out the model from Amazon and Lord and Taylor product pages and reusing those images without permission. Even though it's not for profit as soon as it gets large enough for those companies to notice the creator can expect a cease and desist letter.
- grimtrigger 12y ago
  He's linking to the products... why would they send a cease and desist to a website sending them targeted leads?
  - timfrietas 12y ago
    Because companies are pretty defensive their brand and also in some cases the contracts with modeling agencies may be a factor. Source: I work at Amazon and am working closely with product imaging at the moment.
    - jadlimcaco 12y ago
      Thanks for your insight. We're doing our best to represent the brands we link to positively. In fact, we've already had two of the brands we link to reach out to us and ask if they could be of help in any way.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Because fighting infringement trumps short term profits for larger companies.
jadlimcaco 12y ago
That's a valid point, and it was already something that we have been looking into, and possibly even doing the Getty editorial images.

I was going to respond in a snarky tone about the absurdity of there being such a thing as personality rights. Fortunately, I googled it first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

deveac 12y ago
Fascinating.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago

Not to mention the copyrights of the photographers who took the photos, assuming these haven't been licensed. The companies and freelance photographers who focus on the celebrity market are some of the most aggressive you'll encounter in protecting their rights.

alexc05 12y ago
Yes. $2.1m suit against Perez Hilton who was linking to a store carrying the outfit. http://petapixel.com/2013/06/29/nytimes-photographer-sues-perez-hilton-for-2-1-million-for-copyright-infringement/ http://petapixel.com/2013/06/29/nytimes-photographer-sues-pe... Interesting to note that all the major online gossip rags appear to have links to outfits already. The personality rights probably have no bearing with respect to paparazzi photos. Still, I love the "do this but for Bollywood" suggestion.
- jadlimcaco 12y ago
  Thanks for posting and checking out the site. From the article that was linked, it sounds like reason for the suit was a refusal to remove the photos after a cease and desist. We are actively looking for the best solution.
  - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
    > We are actively looking for the best solution. It's called licensing. Knowingly using photos that you don't have the right to use will eventually catch up with you. If you think that waiting for cease and desist letters is a long-term strategy, I would strongly suggest that you speak to an attorney who can explain why that won't work.

timfrietas 12y ago

He/she is also infringing on IP rights. For example they are photoshopping out the model from Amazon and Lord and Taylor product pages and reusing those images without permission. Even though it's not for profit as soon as it gets large enough for those companies to notice the creator can expect a cease and desist letter.

grimtrigger 12y ago
He's linking to the products... why would they send a cease and desist to a website sending them targeted leads?
- timfrietas 12y ago
  Because companies are pretty defensive their brand and also in some cases the contracts with modeling agencies may be a factor. Source: I work at Amazon and am working closely with product imaging at the moment.
  - jadlimcaco 12y ago
    Thanks for your insight. We're doing our best to represent the brands we link to positively. In fact, we've already had two of the brands we link to reach out to us and ask if they could be of help in any way.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Because fighting infringement trumps short term profits for larger companies.

jadlimcaco 12y ago

That's a valid point, and it was already something that we have been looking into, and possibly even doing the Getty editorial images.