[dustin999]

So another question I have is, sites like fabsugar, which is pretty popular from what I hear, have pictures of famous women and ideas on how to match their wardrobes with product offerings. I think it's a pretty clever idea actually, and I can see why they're successful.

Which brings about my question, in light of my other recent question in this forum about copyright laws. What are the copyright implications of featuring famous actors on your site? If I feature a picture of Cameron Diaz and display dresses, accessories, etc. that match her wardrobe, am I under any obligation to pay royalties for using her picture on my site? Does a site like fabsugar actually pay royalties everytime they feature a famous actress as part of their content? What about other sites like TMZ or perez?

Thanks,
Dustin

[Afilyit]

Just like music, photos are subject to copyright, so you would need permission from the owner. Otherwise, you post them at your own risk.

[Rhia7]

These links explain the "Right of Publicity:"

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Publicity

http://www.publaw.com/rightpriv.html

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

[teezone]

Those sites have deep pockets - they pay for the rights to use those photos & there would be an agreement in place for "acceptable use". This defines how the photo can be used on their website...

No question you need to pay..

[internetattorney]

One great tool a number of jounalist friends of mine who frequently have a need to stock photos is Creative Commons. For the most part if you take a picture through this site you've taken at least some steps to protect yourself. It's a great tool and very easy to use.

http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

-IA

[dustin999]

Thanks everyone for all the responses. I am still confused, however. If you have a picture of Tom Cruise that you want to use, are you licensing the photo from the photographer? Can he demand that you remove the photo of him? I'm guessing his rights are limited since we see plenty of crap in tabloids from the paparazzi, so in terms of the famous person I'm featuring on my site, am I really just worried about (1) getting permission from the photographer, and (2) not doing anything slanderous regarding the subject in the photo?

[Afilyit]

Yes, the photographer OWNS the rights to that photo. He can demand you remove his photo, and he can take legal action against you for infringement.

[leeann]

You can find celebrity photos in press releases.

[Afilyit]

You can find celebrity photos in press releases.

...and your point?

[leeann]

...and your point?You can use anything you find in a press release...including images.

[teezone]

The photographer owns the photo - you need to pay for permission & rights to use it. The celeb also has has some rights to determine how their image is used commercially.

Even if you buy a photo, it doesn't mean you can use it any way you like. You need permission for the use...

As I said before, the sites you mention have deep pockets (Fabsugar), so they can afford it, or get sued by photo agencies, like Perez Hilton.

This is what I have seen: Single photo rate - $85/image, 20 images/month - $1000/month.

[Afilyit]

You can use anything you find in a press release...including images.

Press releases are not in the public domain. The copyright to the press releases is likely owned by the company that issued the press release, and you should obtain permission from the owner of the copyright before reproducing the article elsewhere. It also may be owned by another party, such as a news organization.

Now there are exceptions - fair use for one, but it's a gray area you always want to avoid.

If it's a release about it's own company on it's own web site, you would tend to believe that they would love to have a million web site replicating that content for PR purposes. In this case, I assume most will leave you alone, but there are others that are scavengers and vultures and will go after people for the littlest things just because they know they can get away with it and make a few bucks. (the RIAA comes to mind)

But as far the photos go, they are still protected under copyright by the PHOTOGRAPHER. Just because you saw a photo of Angelina Jolie in a press release does not give one permission to take that photo and do what they want with it.

[Mr. Sal]

Just because you saw a photo of Angelina Jolie in a press release does not give one permission to take that photo and do what they want with it.
No comment! :D