Bad news?

James Earl Jones · Post by **James Earl Jones** » 15 Jul 2004 13:47

Bad news indeed, I will miss Hi Res pics.

Creepy Bob · Post by **Creepy Bob** » 15 Jul 2004 13:50

Rivers wrote: I must say how gay this is. These are pictures! These are no mp3s or movies. They are pictures! People are not burning them and then playing them in their cars and burning copies for people. These are good looking pictures. Pictures! shit whats next, we are going to sue any person that says any famous persons name. These are just high rez pictures. People need to quite being so fucking dumb. Next thing will be me getting sued for reading the tabloids in line and not buying them becuase they are not making enough money. EAT SHIT YOU DOUCHEY SUE CRAZY FUCKERS!

Because people aren't allowed to make money off of photography? How would you like it if I came and sat outside mcdonald's, where you work, giving away free burgers?

joe · Post by **joe** » 15 Jul 2004 13:53

well if the backstreet boys and ashley simpson can be considered artists, i suppose stocking celebrities with a big camera can be an art form too. lets protect the paparazzi!!!!! smooth move exlax.

Rivers · Post by **Rivers** » 15 Jul 2004 13:54

There pictures my friend. If you are going to bitch about people and giving out pictures how about you go bitch at yahoo or maybe some other search engine about giving away free pictures. If you put them on the net, their open game.

Creepy Bob · Post by **Creepy Bob** » 15 Jul 2004 13:57

There is a difference in yahoo and somone taking high res pictures that someone else photographed and has on a paysite and selling them on ebay.

Rivers · Post by **Rivers** » 15 Jul 2004 14:00

ok so if they have them on a pay site or on ebay and someone now has them then that means someone bought the pictures right. When you buy gum and decide to share it with everyone do you have to get permission from juicy fruit?

heineken · Post by **heineken** » 15 Jul 2004 14:11

NO you Strawberry Douche! You Douchey SUE!

Creepy Bob · Post by **Creepy Bob** » 15 Jul 2004 14:12

You aren't buying the pictures just the right to view the pictures, and in some cases to download to your pc. Read the membership agreements.

Rivers · Post by **Rivers** » 15 Jul 2004 14:19

thats pretty exspensive for the viewing rights. But yes bob you are right. I didnt do the research before I spoke I have taken the douche award for today.

neonblack · Post by **neonblack** » 15 Jul 2004 14:35

But the pores... Why? Possibly no more pore(n)? FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHY?!

Nuzman · Post by **Nuzman** » 15 Jul 2004 14:38

Rivers wrote: ok so if they have them on a pay site or on ebay and someone now has them then that means someone bought the pictures right. When you buy gum and decide to share it with everyone do you have to get permission from juicy fruit?

Dude, you just don't comprehend the value of creative work or the analogy.

Sure, if you buy 5 pieces of Jucy Fruit, you can share those 5 pieces with others... even resell them if you so choose. What you can't do is make your own gum with the same or similar flavor and sell it in a Juicy Fruit wrapper. Actually the analogy isn't perfect because photography is in the realm of copyright law, not trademark and patent law.

Sure, that print on eBay might have been created using an image that was purchased... but it was purchased for a specific use with a restricted license for that use. By selling or even giving away unauthorized copies, including electronic copies, the creator of the image (or copyright holder) is being denied the opportunity to profit from the creation.

Just a little FYI... every instance of an infringement of a registered copyright can result in a punitive damage award of $150,000.

Here's what WireImage.com has in their individual subscription service agreement:

Customer is only granted the right to view the Images furnished by WireImage on the Website. In no event will Customer be able to save or print the Images on the Website. WireImage grants Customer no other rights in connection with the Images. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT AND AGREES THAT HE/SHE WILL NOT (i) SAVE, PRINT, COPY OR REPRODUCE THE CONTENT AND/OR IMAGES RECEIVED THROUGH WWW.WIREIMAGE.COM, or (ii) RETRANSMIT, DISTRIBUTE, DISSEMINATE, SELL, PUBLISH, BROADCAST, OR CIRCULATE THE CONTENT AND/OR IMAGES RECEIVED THROUGH WWW.WIREIMAGE.COM TO ANYONE.

So if an image from WireImage.com were to show up on this site and has a mere 1000 downloads, it would be possible for Justin to face a fine of $150,010,000 ($150,000 x 1000 plus the $10 subscription fee x 1000).

Greedy? Naaah. Fair to the holder of the copyright? Certainly!

BTW, I make part of my living as a photographer, so feel free to steal and illegally distribute my images... I need the cash!

heineken · Post by **heineken** » 15 Jul 2004 14:43

Um, he admitted he was wrong...

Purge · Post by **Purge** » 15 Jul 2004 14:43

Bob wrote:
Rivers wrote: I must say how gay this is. These are pictures! These are no mp3s or movies. They are pictures! People are not burning them and then playing them in their cars and burning copies for people. These are good looking pictures. Pictures! shit whats next, we are going to sue any person that says any famous persons name. These are just high rez pictures. People need to quite being so fucking dumb. Next thing will be me getting sued for reading the tabloids in line and not buying them becuase they are not making enough money. EAT SHIT YOU DOUCHEY SUE CRAZY FUCKERS!
Because people aren't allowed to make money off of photography? How would you like it if I came and sat outside mcdonald's, where you work, giving away free burgers?

I don't know bob, did you pay for that pic in your avatar?

They have every right to demand thier photos removed from for profit sites, but sites like justins would be very far down on thier to-fuck-with list. To police the entire internet would be just about impossible, what they are trying to do is make a point to those few that are making a profit by stealing these images ( who the hell pays for anything on the internet any way, I mean, do a google search for these pics and I am sure in 15 minutes you could easily fill your needs of daily spank. ).

Basicly the RIAA is searching for a way to put fear into the public, take back some of the openess that we all have experienced for years and the confidence we have all gained that we can and will get what ever we want, when ever we want for nothing ( like I said, who buys this shit any way? ). They see the internet as a black hole where thier money is disappearing, I personally see it as justice finally served for the years I payed 20$ per CD, for something that cost 2 cents to burn and next to nothing to record.

Don't give me that bullshit that they deserve it either. Celine Deon can waddle her ass into the studio, cut some shit that she probably thought up in the shower that day and have 200 thousand printed up that week for 12 thousand turn around sell the single... SINGLE for 12$ if she only sells half of what she printed, no a quarter thats still 600k in sales. Now your telling me, that from the 60-300$ a fucking ticket to her concerts selling out stadiums of 60k plus people, the 20$ a pop in cd sales and the merchandising these rich greedy fucks aren't making enough money?? You know who deserves to make this much money? Our teachers, our police, our fire fighters, the real role modles out there.

Its thier fucking job to tour, and they get paid well for it. I am not taking food out of thier mouth by downloading anything because if I respect the artist enough, I'll donate money on thier websites which I have, to evanessence, to various indy bands that are getting started or yes, I'll even pick up the CD but charge me to look at a picture? ... fuck you.

P.S - People would still buy Mcdonalds no matter how many burgers you sold, because people like the taste of the burgers they can get inside. Its the same with music and pictures and movies. People will buy/support the artist even when they can get it for free, because they will buy thier concert tickets, they will buy thier magazines, they will pay to see it in the theater.. because they can.

Creepy Bob · Post by **Creepy Bob** » 15 Jul 2004 14:44

heineken wrote: Um, he admitted he was wrong...

Im guessing he was still typing that at the time.

And what does music artist have to do with photographers? Just cause you don't think they should charge you to see their pictures doesn't mean that it isnt within their full legal right to do it.

I don't need to pay for the pics in my avatar cause they are either offered free or they were taken by me.

Nuzman · Post by **Nuzman** » 15 Jul 2004 14:50

My apologies to Rivers. I took the time to look up the numbers. Considering the direction this was going, I honestly didn't expect anyone to back down from the "they're just pictures" position. Rivers has class for doing so!

Bob, music and photography are both creative and covered by copyright law. That's where the comparison has legs.

and Bob, I love the MJ wannabe flying through the air on your site ... cool pic!

PART OF THE BOARDS FORMERLY KNOWN AS TJNR

Bad news?

Who is online