WELCOME PEREZISTAS!
WELCOME CBS READERS!
Media Advisory
Liza Sabater is available for comments about this post. Please use the "write to the author link" [1] 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 [1].
A little levity for the end of the day; since babies past, present and future are everywhere.
[2]
Lawyers can be the scourge of democracy these days. You'd think the automatrons at People Magazine [3] 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 [4].
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 [5].
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 [6] 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 [7] (they wanted to sue every single site owner who posted images of Barbie [8]); 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 [9], 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 [10]. 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 [11].
[12] | 
[13] | 
[14] | 
[15] | 
[16] | 
[17]