The Paparazzi Don’t Just Own Pictures Anymore - They Own Stories of the Day
I have been having issues with the paparazzi for a long fucking time. They hit me up for using their pictures all the fucking time, and despite hating them for annoying me, I get what they are doing, because it is their business and they are the ones who own the images by law. Morally, I still don’t think it’s right and if I find something on the internet for my personal blog, I should be allowed to post it and comment on it. I feel like with these copyright regulations my hands are tied behind my back, like I can’t talk about things I want to talk about, because they want 500 dollars an image and to me, that is wrong, it is extortion, especially coming from scum like them.
To me, the internet is a place to exchange information and ideas and shouldn’t be regulated, but I am old school like that, and those days are a thing of the past as bigger companies move in on the shit, but regardless of our moral disagreement, I still get their side of the story and I still take down the pictures when I get notices, because the pictures are something tangible that belongs to them.
I won’t ever pay those assholes the insane prices that don’t really make any sense for a site that makes no money to pay, unless this site starts making some money, but when this email was forwarded to me I had no choice but to post it.
We have sold a story to TMZ.com about Gerard Butler attacking our photographer. If you want to run anything on this story please contact me…crediting TMZ should not be done. If anyone runs a story on it we will negotiate a fee.
thanks,
Sales Manager
INF (Insight News & Features)
321 West 44th Street, Suite 702
New York, NY 10036
Ph: 212.582.0066
Fx: 212.582.0498
The fucking paparazzi are selling stories now. They want fucking money for a fucking story they think they broke about someone no one gives a fuck about. They don’t want us crediting TMZ, they want to get paid. So now, the paparazzi are trying to control and profit off fucking stories and if we get caught mentioning their story, or linking to their story, we get fuckin’ billed for it.
I find that fucking INSANE, it makes no fucking sense to me. That means that if I read something on another site, I can’t write about it because I don’t own the rights to talk about it. Fuck them.
For the record, I’ve broken my fair share of stories to the internet over the last bunch of years, and still haven’t seen a fucking dime from it, I don’t see how these people can legally get away with what they are doing. It just makes no sense.
On a side note, I know a girl who banged Gerard Butler when he was filming 300 in Montreal and he had turned down drinking and coke for the role so he wasn’t all that fun to hang out with. If you use this story, feel free to send a check my way. I may throw in the nude shots of him that I’ve been sitting on for 2 -3 years, because I don’t run that kind of site, but we’ll have to negotiate.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
NICE! My friend recommended me a very interesting place ☆☆☆ wealthyromanceS.Com☆☆☆ This is an online dating service where wealthy singles can join who are looking for younger unattached people to enjoy their wealthy lifestyle with.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Copyright of news protects form of expression but not facts, since facts are public property.–International News Service v Associated Press (1918) 248 US 215, 63 L Ed 211, 39 S Ct 68, 2 ALR 293.
There can be no copyright of news facts, for such are public property. Davies v Bowes (1913, DC NY) 209 F 53, affd (1914, CA2 NY) 219 F 178.
Reproduction by newspaper of independently newsworthy photographs without permission is fair use when those photographs were acquired and reproduced in good faith and work had already been distributed on limited basis. Nunez v Caribbean Int’l News Corp. (2000, CA1 Puerto Rico) 235 F3d 18, 29 Media L R 1108, 57 USPQ2d 1239.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
As this Court long ago observed: “[The] news element — the information respecting current events contained in the literary production — is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day.” Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 556 (U.S. 1985)
October 8th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
You can share anything you want with your friends as long is your doing it for free. So screw these assholes, and thing you for being here.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Sorry I got a little pissed off. THANK YOU for being here.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
INF is in the wrong. If you think you can help DSF and the internet by talking some sense into INF then use this contact info and see what you can do:
Telephone: (+1) 212-582 0066
24 Hours: (+1) 646-529 0593 (Urgent calls only please)
General Inquiries: info@infphoto.com
Photo Desk: photodesk@infphoto.com
News Desk: dbryan@infphoto.com
U.S. Print Sales: tcordes@infphoto.com
U.S. Website & TV Sales: tina@infphoto.com
Sub-Agent Inquiries: tina@infphoto.com
Account Inquiries: mrae@infphoto.com
October 9th, 2008 at 4:15 am
This just means that the ‘razzi will start creating stories. It’s going to get dangerous before laws are hanged to stop this stupid perpetuation of hollywoodism. It should be about the creation, and not the creator…and it’s too far out of control. I don’t go to TMZ for that very reason. The stepfather is okay, because with the shit he says, he isn’t going to be getting a TV show anytime soon. Shame.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Just got through emailing with INF. Below is what they said:
“We are selling pictures related to the story…pictures that we own the copywright to and we are licensing them to anyone who is intereted which is what our company does. Does that make it more clear for you?”
{Tina is obviously a bitch}
“I understand that pictures are your primary business and that’s what you sell. However, the info I’m getting seems to relate directly to stories - not pictures. I’m trying to understand if you believe you are due license fees for stories, not just images.”
{Tina doesn’t want to tell the truth, but she breaks down}
“We are due licensing fees for images only.”
Looks like INF was trying to strong arm DSF into paying for something they didn’t own.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:08 am
how come we never see breaking news stories of paparazzi being shot at from roof tops? I personally think we should hear about a new one 3 times a day, every day.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Now people own stories about OTHER people’s lives? Of course it’s truth is debatable, but that is ridiculous. These people don’t even have permission of the people they are taking pictures of, and obviously most of the pictures they take the celebrity does not want their picture taken. These stories don’t even belong to them, they belong to the celebrity, if anyone the celebrity should be contacting you, not these fucken creepers.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
LMAO, fuck the papz… may they rest well in hell…