Celebrities And Copyrighted Images

[DailyDi]

I have been informed that Hollywood will soon be better enforcing their rights to celebrity images, including publicity shots and film stills not intended for personal use. With that in mind I ask that all members using any celebrity images, fan pics or movie stills as avatars or profile pics please change them to something not copyrighted.

In a few days Repaid and I will begin compliance checks of the photos on this board, but it would make our lives SOOO much easier if you guys and gals could help us out by taking care of it yourselves

As always this applies to copyrighted images from Paysites outside the [DD] Network, tv shows and music as well.

Mikey

[babykeiff]

Theodore IS a copyrighted image... he is copyrighted to me and Theodore, so no baby better copy him... otherwise fur and fluff might have to fly.

Re this change in Hollywood Attitude, won't that reduce the availability of celebrity images available, (due to tighter controls) and therefore reduce their exposure. This will have the direct effect of reducing the celebrities worldwide appeal (less people know about a person, less people want to see that person) and therefore reduce the commercial value of a celebrity? Won't this be indirectly opposite to what Hollywood wants? What 'bean counter' worked out this policy. It seems stupid in the long term.

[TDL]

Is my image copyrighted?

EDIT by Repaid1: "Hello Kitty" is a trademark of Sanrio, Inc. sooooo...

[Repaid1]

Yeah we are gonna start...wuh..wuh? Yah what he said!

So take 'em down folks, we don't need the powers that want to be, cruising our site! It also may cause a conflict of interest of members on this site that may have a vested interest in this type of thing.

Better safe then sorry, if in doubt change it out. Thanks in advance. I will send out a warning first and then delete your suspect art..whatever in a day or two in case you would like to archive the stuff. Now I gotta just relearn some of you as I know most by Avatar first.

EDIT: Boy I just was looking at posts today and noticed a whole slew of what I would assume are Avatars in question. I'm thinking all you with Disney Characters and other such cartoons are going to have to remove them and that is going to suck!! Not sure how far this is going to entail, but just a heads up.

I don't even know if Alex04's ALF is permissible?

Additionally, Let's not get all upset over this, I'm sure that nobody on the site as a whole is happy that this is happening. So let's just conform to the issue, and move on in our "little" community!

[DailyDi]

Yes, sorry but Hello Kitty should probably be changed.

I feel like it's not just a "better safe than sorry" situation, but also a case where we'd be a softer target to start with than the teen girls with eclipse pics on their facebook pages. Easier to paint us and other adult communities as the bad guys. Plus I actually do respect copyright law as an entertainment industry member.

[AutieAB]

I have been informed that Hollywood will soon be better enforcing their rights to celebrity images, including publicity shots and film stills not intended for personal use.

Is there a public source for this? I'm not doubting you - I've heard of Hollywood going on some crazy un-winnable crusades before... This would take the biscuit though - Hollywood vs just about the entire internet and almost every single avatar/signature image on the planet....

[DailyDi]

It comes from somone who I trust 110% when it comes to these things, but I shouldn't reveal the source.

[baby_snow_white]

It is going to suck that I can't use Snow White for my avatar.

[Darkfinn]

Oh you can't possibly be serious. This is absolutely ludicrous. There is no way they are going to put out the manpower, time, or money to hunt down and take legal action against every single person using one of "their" images.

This would so destroy Facebook and Myspace. You are talking millions of users... not going to happen.

[tommee]

As ridiculous as using hollywood's resources to track down every single copyrighted image is, a headline saying that weirdo fetishists steal hard working americans's wages is worth more in the war against file sharers than like, a million lawsuits.

P.S. I'm quite drunk, so i'm sorry if this don't make no sense.

[Nat]

Okay, I was just shown this thread and I really wish I was informed in PM when my profile was messed with because I thought it was a glitch or a bug in the forum.

I think members should be informed when a mod wishes to remove their photo or avatar or sig so the user doesn't get all confused or think there is some glitch going on in case they didn't see the new rules.

[DailyDi]

Responded in your other thread, sorry!

In truth it's my fault as it's something we never should have allowed since we do have rules about copyrighted material... just that fan-material is so prevalent on the net it didn't even cross my mind.

As best as I know so far it's mostly going to be about Hollywood movies and celebrity images, not so much cartoons and such, but if the campaign works others will get in on it (like Viacom's attempts to keep content off of youtube.)

[ErinM]

To be honest, I'm surprised Disney didn't do something like this years ago.

[BBB]

Not that I'm trying to fight the system, and I can't check this from my BlackBerry easily, but if its hosted off site, does that relieve you of any liabilities?

[spoonchicken]

#1: Respect the copyright laws...period. #2: If I were a celebrity, (especially female),I wouldn't enjoy the "Celebrity Diaper Pasties" I've seen elsewhere on the Web....LOL !and #3:....Not only did I get my avatar from the artists own website, it's from a section of the site with free downloadable avatars & stuff! So, I'm cool....

[DailyDi]

Not that I'm trying to fight the system, and I can't check this from my BlackBerry easily, but if its hosted off site, does that relieve you of any liabilities?

Technically yes, but we would still have to remove it if we got a demand too.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

I feel like it's not just a "better safe than sorry" situation, but also a case where we'd be a softer target to start with than the teen girls with eclipse pics on their facebook pages...Plus I actually do respect copyright law as an entertainment industry member.

Di, while I admittedly don't use an avatar on this forum, I understand where you're coming from here. On the flip-side of the coin though, I also understand where the other members here are coming from. I've spoken to a couple of lawyers on this subject before, and each of them has noted that time and again, U.S. courts have upheld that "thumbnail" sized images, such as those used for avatars, (while there's no "magic number," generally images under 150x150 pixels are considered thumbnails) are exempt from copyright protection. (Laws may, and in many cases do differ in foreign countries.) While I'll obviously be respecting your request, I can't figure out what Hollywood lawyers hope to accomplish with a "crackdown on avatars," for lack of a better term. Furthermore, this precedent has been upheld in three landmark cases, and several less noteworthy cases, which makes me wonder just how these lawyers plan to overturn previous rulings that have been generally consistent, at least within the US.

Also, having my own ties to the TV/Film industry, I have to say that I don't think any good can come from these proposed lawsuits. The public relations backlash will likely be just as bad as, if not worse then the backlash caused by the RIAA and Napster.

To be honest, I'm surprised Disney didn't do something like this years ago.

ErinM, while Disney hasn't attempted anything like this, at least not to the best of my knowledge, they have engaged in other relatively underhand copyright lawsuits in the past. Here are two memorable ones:

1. Disney sued a small, independent daycare center, because the daycare center had images of Disney characters on the walls. Fine, I understand that Disney's character's are copyrighted and they don't want people using them without compensation; I get that. The daycare center simply couldn't afford to pay Disney what they were "asking," (and I use that term loosely, demanding is more accurate,) for as compensation, and they (Disney) attempted to drag out the aforementioned lawsuit. The story does have a rather "happy ending" to it though. Warner Bros. found out about the lawsuit, and offered to paint the daycare center with WB characters such as Bugs Bunny; the daycare center owner accepted and the Disney lawsuit was settled. Unable to resist a shot at the competition, Warner Bros. came out looking like the "good guys" (again, I use that term loosely,) and Disney came out looking like the "evil mass media conglomerate" in this particular situation.

2. The Sonny/Bono copyright act, often panned as the "Mickey Mouse Bailout Bill," is one of my favorite Disney copyright cases, albeit one that I admittedly have mixed feelings on. This bill admittedly gave us the relatively ambiguous "fair use," but it also extended copyright from 75 years+death to 100 years+death. Had this bill not become law, several older Disney films, as well as Mickey Mouse himself would now be public domain. My worry is that the precedent set by this law will be abused the next time Disney is about to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse, and that the court will just extend how long material remains copyrighted once again. My primary complaint about this particular law though is that it really benefited Disney more than anyone else, and that it failed to address the flaws of our current copyright system. The next major change to US Copyright law will hopefully make it so that Copyright law is more like Patent and Trademark law.

[TDL]

EDIT by Repaid1: "Hello Kitty" is a trademark of Sanrio, Inc. sooooo...

NO!

EDIT: Heh, no worries, found a new one

[Darkfinn]

My comment on all online media... from Personal pictures to Youtube to Million dollar music and movies. If you didn't want it spread around to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet, then you shouldn't have put it on the internet in the first place. Doesn't matter what the laws say or what the courts try to do... everything posted on the internet is public domain, if I can see it... then I can take it and use it as my own.

[TDL]

My comment on all online media... from Personal pictures to Youtube to Million dollar music and movies. If you didn't want it spread around to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet, then you shouldn't have put it on the internet in the first place. Doesn't matter what the laws say or what the courts try to do... everything posted on the internet is public domain, if I can see it... then I can take it and use it as my own.

In theory, yes you can; but that certainly doesn't mean that you are allowed to do that. In fact, YouTube are already enforcing copyright infringement prevention methods, and have done so for quite some time. Publicizing stuff with the world via the internet is almost like asking people to copy it and use it for their own purposes. That is why there's so many ways to prevent copyright infringements. I don't know the methods in detail, but I myself has used a copy-paste blocker several times while publicizing pictures on deviantART.

-TDL

[sarah_ab]

in regards to the daycare lawsuit... at any home depot, walmart, lowes etc... you can get disney characters that stick to your walls, and then peel off without harming the paint. Its like 10-30$ for a packaet depending on how many stick ons you want.... so the daycare could have just gotten them there....

[Andy]

in regards to the daycare lawsuit... at any home depot, walmart, lowes etc... you can get disney characters that stick to your walls, and then peel off without harming the paint. Its like 10-30$ for a packaet depending on how many stick ons you want.... so the daycare could have just gotten them there....

Problem usually is not what you get where but if it is public or stays in between your own four walls. Daycare is public, the own four walls are private.

That said, I just hope I don't have to give up my beloved Colonel Klink

[FretaBWet]

My avatar was removed from my profile and I should have done it myself but stupidly I didn't think of it as "copyrighted" because it wasn't a photograph. My apologies. I noticed today that when I posted to the board the post still shows my deleted avatar. I don't know if this is a glitch or I'm just not very technical.

Hugs,

Freta

[ErinM]

My avatar was removed from my profile and I should have done it myself but stupidly I didn't think of it as "copyrighted" because it wasn't a photograph. My apologies. I noticed today that when I posted to the board the post still shows my deleted avatar. I don't know if this is a glitch or I'm just not very technical.

Hugs,

Freta

It's not a glitch. They are two different things. The one in your profile is just a photo, the one that is shown next to your post is your avatar. If you look in my profile I have two different photos.

[babyfett]

Problem usually is not what you get where but if it is public or stays in between your own four walls. Daycare is public, the own four walls are private.

That said, I just hope I don't have to give up my beloved Colonel Klink

So are you also saying that a daycare that has any plushies and toys based on Disney characters my also get sued for using them? If so then maybe I need to be a lawyer for Disney because business would really be good.