3 ms·
Not to mention the copyrights of the photographers who took the photos, assuming these haven't been licensed. The companies and freelance photographers who foc
by 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 agoYes. $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 agoThanks 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.