This one is for Perez Hilton : Check out the banned image of Brangelina's baby
WELCOME PEREZISTAS!
WELCOME CBS READERS!
Media Advisory
Liza Sabater is available for comments about this post. Please use the "write to the author link" to get in contact with her.
UPDATE | 08 June 2006
TimeWarnerAOL has used a claim of DCMA against our Fair Use of the Hello! cover photo to force our webhosting company to take down the photo "or else".
Read all about how TimeWarnerAOL can get away legally with this kind of harrassment here.
A little levity for the end of the day; since babies past, present and future are everywhere.
Lawyers can be the scourge of democracy these days. You'd think the automatrons at People Magazine would have thought about all the digital details involving the publishing online of Brangelina's baby photo. No they obviously did not think of the little detail of time zones when paying for an "exclusive".
The photo has been disseminated all over the internet but thanks to Perez Hilton's growing notoriety, he's been slapped with a cease and desist; which he is obviously relishing at Celebrity gossip juicy celebrity rumors Hollywood gossip blog from Perez Hilton.
What I don't understand is how can a magazine expect to have exclusive rights to every single image of the most famous baby in the world. Especially after Brangelina pledged to charity the money they made off said pics.
A word of digital common sense to any and all publishers : Just bite the effing bullet; give out one image for worldwide circulation --paid or otherwise. Then reap the benefits off the free publicity. You will have your readers fight to get the magazine in their hands first. They'll race to report on their blogs the "just published" photos. You in turn will have even more publicity and sells.
It's called having a clue.
So here's to ya Perez. Let Brangelina's baby image spread all over those pesky internets. b
UPDATE! (Edited)
The principles of fair use of copyright are far too important to fight for and I don't care if it involves a Brangelina photo. Now, I am not a legal expert; but for someone who was affected by Mattel's cease-and-desist orgy back in the 1990's (they wanted to sue every single site owner who posted images of Barbie); I can tell you this is deja vu all over again. The lawyers at People.com ought to know better because Mattel lost.
In the case of Perez and Trent at Pink is the new blog, they use the pics as part of their satire, parody and commentary. Their use of images I believe falls under fair use.
Now, there are a zillion miles of legal gray areas involving digital restrictions management. And I have said, I am not a copyright scholar. The point that ought not be lost with this Brangelina photo is that People.com is missing a golden opportunity here. If they had smarter lawyers and marketing people, they would use the image to get more publicity for their magazine and turn it into a collectible. But, you know what, not only are they not smarter, they're lazy.
There are so many projects that have benefitted from "leaked" photos. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, comes to mind. Peter Jackson's companies had an amazing synergy with the OneRing.net. And guess what? His fans loved him for it. I hear they made his movies a billion dollar plus franchise. Gotta loves the internets.
People Magazine needs to chill and not get the internets angry. There's nothing like a blog backlash to kind of get your priorities straight. What should People Magazine's priority be? Legal dustups with bloggers is certainly not one of them. Making people escape through entertainment gossip most certainly is.
Hat tip to LiveJournal's gossip group, Oh No They Didn't.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Celebrity | Copyright | DRM | Fair Use | Intellectual Property | Internet | Popular Culture | Public Relations | Publishing | Technology | Angelina Jolie | Brad Pitt | Brangelina
Mattel
Submitted by Mimine (not verified) on 6 June 2006 - 11:00pm.
talking about Mattel, copyright, and all, the Supreme Court here (here being Canada...)just rejected claims that a BBQ restaurant "Barbie" was using their trademark. The judge told Mattel that "Barbie" was protected only for products... linked to the doll.
BTW: these Barbie restaurants are not good; there's so many good places to go in Montreal, don't bother eating there (and there's nothing doll or barbie there; more a sport bar kind of place)
» email this comment | 0 points
They did this to him 'cause their scared of him
Submitted by liza on 6 June 2006 - 11:02pm.
Of course, it will so totally backfire. I mean, its just baaaaaad publicity.
Tsk, tsk.
» email this comment | 0 points
Perez Hilton can suck my balls....
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 6 June 2006 - 11:11pm.
he sucks.. and so do you
» email this comment | 0 points
you're jealous
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 6 June 2006 - 11:31pm.
bitch
» email this comment | 0 points
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 6 June 2006 - 11:25pm.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
» email this comment | 0 points
Brangebaby
Submitted by Naima (not verified) on 6 June 2006 - 11:51pm.
Rez Rox!
» email this comment | 0 points
what a sexy baby
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 6 June 2006 - 11:57pm.
what a sexy baby
» email this comment | 0 points
the baby
Submitted by Detrius (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 12:07am.
That baby is not even a week old & they're already pimping it for charity
» email this comment | 0 points
the baby
Submitted by toya (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 8:06pm.
why do they feel the need to pimp there kid. they have the money for charity.
» email this comment | 0 points
Nice
Submitted by From Brooklyn (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 12:49am.
Glad to see the picture. Only People would get upset, i bet Angelina and Brad don't care.
By the way Lisa is a dyme!!
» email this comment | 0 points
oops
Submitted by From Brooklyn (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 12:52am.
That is Liza not Lisa.
» email this comment | 0 points
Perez
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 12:55am.
Perez rocks but need to get off Paris Hlton's dick. She's over and he needs to admit is so we can have our fun with her.
» email this comment | 0 points
People is pissed off cause
Submitted by Bryanboy (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 1:08am.
People is pissed off cause they paid 4 million mucho manolas for photos of that beautiful child with the ugly, ugly name.
Serves them right. LOL. Say Hello to... Hello!
» email this comment | 0 points
The real Shiloh
Submitted by liza on 7 June 2006 - 1:27am.
WASSSSSSSUP!
» email this comment | 0 points
want to see mooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeee!
Submitted by barbabella (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 2:04am.
she's so cute! angie looks like a real mum now. i bet she feels it too...
» email this comment | 0 points
wow
Submitted by GrnTxqT (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 4:08am.
maybe brangelina should give britney and kevin a few parenting tips.
» email this comment | 0 points
it is a cute ass baby
Submitted by tizzy lou (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 9:22am.
... but it does have the fucking ugliest name. people mag is stupid. they should have known this would happen and they shouldn't have dished out 4 mil for the pics. they are retarded and they should feel ripped off. i'm glad the money went to charity though.... can they use it as a tax write off?? or are brangelina gonna do that?? brilliant!!!!!!
the baby has the fucking ugliest name in the world.
» email this comment | 0 points
RELAXXXXXXXX
Submitted by TAMMY (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 10:31am.
i don't see what the big deal is. it looks like a regular baby. all babies look the same when they are first born. the baby doesn't even have her eyes open... you can't see shit including her supposed "mommy's lips" give me a break
» email this comment | 0 points
Sluts
Submitted by True dat (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 11:29am.
What a couple of whores. Hope the baby isn't a slut as well.
» email this comment | 0 points
Ever thought?
Submitted by jjjj (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 11:30am.
Well as for Brad and Angelina, Did anyone think about the face that they might have wanted to get the baby's picture out there so they wouldn't be hounded for the million dollar first picture? I think it's great that they gave the money to charity.
» email this comment | 0 points
fair use
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 12:05pm.
FYI the fair use doctrine has been ruled inapplicable to claims under the DCRM, which is what People's cease and desist letter invoked as the legal basis for their claim. So while I don't necessarily agree with the result, under the DCRM you have also exposed yourself to liability for copyright infringement and will not be able to invoke a defense of fair use.
» email this comment | 0 points
care to expand on that?
Submitted by liza on 7 June 2006 - 3:28pm.
copyright law has absolutely been stricken out by the DCRM; but for the sake of our readers, would you care to expand on your comments.
also, i just want to make it clear i dont claim ownership of the image. if not, i would have cropped it so it would not look like it came from Hello! magazine.
the point i make is that it's a lost opportunity for good mojo from their online readers. they blew it.
» email this comment | 0 points
I wasn't disagreeing with
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 6:07pm.
I wasn't disagreeing with your point regarding the shortsightedness of People's actions or even the belief that the DCMA is misguided. I was simply pointing out that legally speaking, fair use is not a defense to DCMA claims. It is also irrelevant under the DMCA whether you claim ownership of the infringing image. In my personal opinion, there should be some sort of free speech defense to DCMA claims. Thus, I fully support your decision to post the picture of ugly baby Shiloh.
» email this comment | 0 points
Perez Hilton is lame
Submitted by OldWiseOne (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 12:26pm.
If nothing else, this story illustrates how laughable PH's delusions of grandeur are - he posts a lame cease and desist *form letter* on his site to show how he is being singled out and threatened with legal action over the pictures. Get over yourself pink elephant. The people at Gawker (that same site that Perez insists does not measure up to the fabulosity of his Simple Life ad) have actually been contacted directly by the lawyers in question. Just goes to show who really rules the cyber-roost.
» email this comment | 0 points
hahahaha
Submitted by yahoooooo (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 12:28pm.
bitter!!!!
» email this comment | 0 points
ewwww!
Submitted by J (not verified) on 7 June 2006 - 1:00pm.
Are those lips or an a**hole that kid is sporting for a mouth?
The kid looks small, and the other two look like their about to have it for lunch.
I hope they get a better pic of it, I've seen prettier babies, and this one ain't one of them.
» email this comment | 0 points
brad's baby girl
Submitted by goldengirl (not verified) on 8 June 2006 - 2:07pm.
HA HA Jen, you selfish bitch!!!! It could have been you if you hadn't been so concerned about your little figure!! I think brad is in heaven!!! CONGRATS to the whole family!!
» email this comment | 0 points
Lil' Brangelina
ROTFLMAO!!! Loves it!!! PEREZ HILTON ROCKS!!!! Did they REALLY think that it would NOT be leaked????? Come on!!!!! I saw the pic earlier on Perez's website...knew it wouldn't be long before they tried to bully him into taking it off. Like my grandmother used to say..."More than one way to skin a cat!"