Celebrity question

[Brian2]

I read that it's not allowed to post images of celebrities here. What are the rules for posting a link to a site (your own) which contains celebrity images (before and after retouching)? I have been doing retouching for some time now, but almost always on celebrities (just for fun, nothing paid) and I'd like to get some feedback on those jobs.

Thanks in advance for the answer!

[Flora]

Hi Brian2,

welcome to RP!!

What are the rules for posting a link to a site (your own) which contains celebrity images (before and after retouching)?

... Let me ask ...

[Brian2]

Originally Posted by Flora

Hi Brian2,

welcome to RP!!

... Let me ask ...

Great, thanks!

[PatrickB]

Hm, in my own humble opinion I think celebrities don't have any private copyright on their photos as they are "persons of public interest" and hence cannot claim their rights on photos. But what the photographer says is something different. Good question if a picture published on the internet may be retouched or not

[NancyJ]

ah but then you have to define 'celebrity'. How famous does someone have to be before its OK to completely invade their personal privacy.
And as you say - the copyright likely remains with the photographer not the individual - regardless of their 'public interest'.
Then aswell, different laws apply in different countries - for example in the UK, if you are in a public place then you're fair game for photographers - regardless of celebrity status. (However photographing from a public place into a private place (eg taking pictures from the street into someone's house is not OK)

[Brian2]

The pictures I retouched are all from photoshoots. There are two of Toni Ferrari (ex-Paradise Hotel contestant) for which she gave me the authority to retouch, would that be considered OK to post?

[NancyJ]

I would say if you have permission to retouch them then they are OK to post (but I'm not a mod) your retouches at least - you should probably ask her (Oand the photographer) for permission to post the originals

[DannyRaphael]

Brian...

The site owner/admin, Doug Nelson, has been off line of late. He's among thousands in the U.S. who have experienced lengthy power outages due to the extreme heat this summer -- in fact he moved his family to a temporary location until power is restored to his home neighborhood.

I don't know when he will be logging in again, so it may take a few-to-several days until he is able to reply.

Let me assure you he will reply when he can. This is an issue near and dear to his heart.

Thanks for asking.

~Danny~

[Godmother]

The Photographer who created the image is the only person who can normally give you the right to retouch his/her images. Under US Code - Title 17 (the copyright act), manipulating or displaying someone else's work for commercial purposes without permission is illegal, and punishable by up to $1,500 per incident (on the web, a page view is considered an "incident" - so if 100,000 people hit your page, it's 100,000 different instances - you can see how large the penalties can get). Most countries enforce these rights under the International Trade Agreements they have with the United States.

As for CELEBRITIES must also be given those ancillary rights to alter x celebrity likeness by her/his management, who also controls the use and re-use of her/his likeness.

I'm not saying I agree... but that's the law... as for this site... I'm posting my Deviant and I have Celebrities retouched (without permition) but I'm to lazy to take them down I guess I should have ask here first.

[PeteyB]

Should RP knowingly link to a webpage that is violating copyright law?

RP may be liable for contributory infringement, since the link encourages the further distribution of the copyrighted images

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[DannyRaphael]

Originally Posted by PeteyB

Should RP knowingly link to a webpage that is violating copyright law?

RP may be liable for contributory infringement, since the link encourages the further distribution of the copyrighted images

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

An excellent point that I'm sure Doug will take into consideration. Thanks for the link.

[PeteyB]

Your welcome-----

Here is another interesting link entitled "Can a Web Link Break Copyright Laws?"

This incident occurred in 1998, but I think it speaks directly to the question presented here.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/...law/25law.html

[Doug Nelson]

Celebrity image protection is not a case of copyright (although the image itself likely has a copyright). (In the US at least) a person owns and controls their likeness. This is under the privacy provisions of US law, not copyright. In practice, the litmus test is usually loss (or dilution) of income. So while posting my image without my permission on the web is just as illegal as posting one of Johnny Depp or Charlize Theron, they are much more likely to win in court due to the fact that they make money off their likenesses and I don't. And, of course, they have much larger bank accounts, and can therefore more easily afford to sue.

However, it is not fear of lawsuits that prompts me to forbid the posting of these images here (well, not totally anyway). There are sufficient precedents in place to protect me (but not the poster). But this is an educational site (as opposed to an entertainment or otherwise "fun" site) so it behooves us to encourage best practices, be it technical, aesthetic, or legal.

Just remember that this is separate from copyright.

There are shields used by other sites that I choose not to invoke. Some sites claim parody protection, which I guess would be possible here except I loathe most parody work and don't want my site known for that. Others yell "fair use", which is one of the blurriest legal terms in existence, but is generally aimed at helping students and teachers in a recognized educational environment (of which we ain't).

As for the linking, remember that linking to a site also links them to you. And frankly, there are a lot of sites I'd rather not attract attention from.

[Brian2]

Thanks for the answer Doug! I guess I'll start doing unfamous people to get some critique then

[Doug Nelson]

Unfamous people that you've obtained permission from (it's still illegal if they haven't given it).