PDA

View Full Version : Illegal photo shoot outtakes?


EmotionSickness
09-07-2004, 06:53 PM
Yeah, I know this probably didn't deserve its own thread (so, feel free to move it whenever and wherever you'd like), but I love KKW and I don't want them to get into any 'trouble'.

Keira-Knightley.org has this to day on their main page yesterday:

Another thing: I removed photo shoot pictures because last night I was informed that we had some illegal photo shoot outtakes on here. If you have a Keira site with photoshoot outtakes, I suggest taking them down because legal action may be taken against you.

OK, I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Part of me thinks he/she is being serious, but another part of me thinks this is him/her trying to cover their ass after I pretty much proved to everyone (in the 'Photo Sightings' thread) that they had flat-out stolen tons of pics from KKW's photo shoot galleries.

How could having these 'outtake' photos be illegal, anyway? I don't quite understand all the fine print on the 'owning' of pictures, so I'd love it if someone could explain it to me.

Any thoughts/ideas on this matter, anyone?















Good Lord, I'm bored.

Sarah
09-07-2004, 06:55 PM
It would be nice if they could inform us of what photographs they actually mean.

apoggy
09-07-2004, 06:57 PM
We received written confirmation from the webmaster of keira-knightley.org regarding the ownership of the photos. They were taken from a photoshoot by a photographer (forget the name) and the original email was from the photographers agents telling them and us to remove the pictures or face legal action, barrington would have got one too but he's not here to sort it out. For now they have been removed till the situation is sorted out.

Titooy
09-07-2004, 09:44 PM
Actually you should know that almost EVERY picture on this website (like any fansite) is illegal. We don't have any authorization to publish these pictures (except for 4 of them if I remember well). But a fansite without pictures doesn't make sense, doesn't it?

Sarah
09-07-2004, 10:05 PM
Is it those blue ones? The ones with the blue background?

Kathy
09-07-2004, 11:46 PM
I got an email too - two actually. The first one was concerning the new Chris Floyd photoshoot images, which we removed from the site. Then I got another one from someone at Celebrity Pictures Ltd. who told us ALL the photoshoot images posted were copyright infringement, so we had to take all of those down as well...

Hazzle
10-07-2004, 01:21 AM
Actually you should know that almost EVERY picture on this website (like any fansite) is illegal. We don't have any authorization to publish these pictures (except for 4 of them if I remember well). But a fansite without pictures doesn't make sense, doesn't it?

Well...almost. You don't actually need authorization, but consent...and consent CAN be implied by the fact no objection has been raised...now one has been the situation could differ (although I wouldn't mind trying an estoppel theory if all else failed). Furthermore I do believe that so long as the author's name and the source of the photograph are identified, that suffices in the online environment, but that's merely some vague recollection I have and I haven't researched it in any depth so please don't take that as gospel because it's not legal advice ;)

Ducky has alerted me to this...I gave him some advice and offered that if it IS indeed serious, I shall endeavour to research the issue...although time is a major problem for me right now as I'm revising...or supposed to be :D

Taking it down for now seems a wise course of action...

Narg
10-07-2004, 02:25 AM
The photos were from the samartis shoot, awsome pics also, glad i got them.

/me points to sig...

amishka
10-07-2004, 03:04 AM
Depends on the photo to who actually owns it, if they are not bought (bough are generally photos appearing in magazines or adverts that a company has purchased) then they are most likely property of the model in them and the photographer or the photographer solely

Hazzle
10-07-2004, 04:48 PM
Depends on the photo to who actually owns it, if they are not bought (bough are generally photos appearing in magazines or adverts that a company has purchased) then they are most likely property of the model in them and the photographer or the photographer solely

Well...it's a tad more complex than that. If the photo itself has been bought, that doesn't affect the copyright...which is why when a magazine has to buy its photos it will not only have to purchase the physical object but also pay a license fee to publish (usually it's just paid as one fee, but technically there are two present). This is why magazines often prefer to use their own photographers, because as employees the copyright belongs to the employer in the UK and US (and in most other common law countries...if memory serves the same is true in Canada and Australia)...that way they just pay their wages and the photos are theirs to do with as they please.

As for the model...I've never heard of them owning copyright in the photos. Often they have privacy/image rights associated with them, but these are often waived in official photoshoots in agreements. The physical photos, however, always belong to the photographer or their employers...basically whoever paid for the film, equipment and processing of the negatives.

Anyway...this may all be a hoax...as I told Ducky...until you guys get an official solicitor's letter I wouldn't worry too much...take it off the site (as you have done) as a precaution...but if you don't get an official solicitor's letter within a reasonable time after requesting one I'd suggest you put them back up. I'll look into the situation regarding internet photos when I have a little more time...

celebritypictures
27-07-2004, 03:29 PM
Hazzle, you seem to know quite a lot about copyright and the various infringments that go on. I am glad that the users of this forum have taken note of the recent e-mails that have been sent to webmasters. I would like to point out that every e-mail we have sent has said if the material is removed we will not take further action, if images (as you suggest) do re-appear on sites then legal letters will be sent out, this is not just an idle threat. We understand that most users of the material are just fans who just want to share pictures, however their are a number of sources on the net making money from the material which is not as innocent. We have to protect the photographers assets which is why we have issued the e-mails. What concerns us the most is when high resolution files find their way on the sites, if anyone has any information as to where these files are being sourced from it would be greatly appreciated

Sarah
27-07-2004, 03:31 PM
What have people been doing with your pictures then? I assume they are yours when you said ''we'' when talking about sending e-mails.

barrington
27-07-2004, 03:31 PM
Most of these emails supposedly issuing orders to remove photos are scams perpetrated by sad individuals with nothing better to do than worry webmasters under-educated in copyright law.

We have reinstated all the photos that were removed in my absense. The stance I have asked those maintaining the galleries to adopt is to remove nothing without my consent. Typically I ignore any requests unless completely satisfied that we have no choice but to comply. This equates to a verified solicitors letter arriving at my house ordering me to cease and desist, outlining the legal procedures that may be undertaken without compliance under UK law.

Unless that happens, we don't care.

I would also urge nobody to disclose any sources they have for their images. These matters shall not be discussed in an open forum, only in writing.

EmotionSickness
27-07-2004, 03:42 PM
Duly noted, Barrington. Something seemed a little off to me about the whole thing.

Just glad the site and everything within is in good hands.

celebritypictures
27-07-2004, 04:49 PM
I repeat, these are not idle threats. The copyright law states that by putting images online you are publishing them and we are fully entitled to charge you usage fees for this.

Sarah
27-07-2004, 04:58 PM
So do what Barrington says.

barrington
27-07-2004, 05:04 PM
To be as polite as possible, If you wish to counter the automatic consent we reply upon to publish images, you are welcome to write us a letter on headed paper, including a business card (I shall dispense the address via Private Message if required) detailing exactly which images you believe to be in use fraudulently on our website and the means to verify the unequivocable proof of ownership thereof.

On receipt of this letter we shall indeed endeavour to amend our galleries inkeeping with your requests.

We do not wish to appear bullish, but as a fansite we deal with this type of (almost exclusively false) request very, very frequently and do not wish to pander to those who seek solely to disrupt our appreciation of an actress through nefarious means.

Barrington

celebritypictures
27-07-2004, 05:06 PM
Barrington, send me your address via private message and i will send you a letter. I appreciate your reasoning, however i have got far greater issues resulting from these illegal usages to deal with so will not hesitate to issue you something in writing. If you put your phone number on their i will happily call you to discuss too.

barrington
27-07-2004, 05:22 PM
Resolution on the way.

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 12:35 AM
Hazzle, you seem to know quite a lot about copyright and the various infringments that go on.

Just a student of copyright law, nothing more, nothing less. As Barrington said, and I entirely concur, we have no way of knowing if these threats of legal action are genuine or not. I'm sure if you approach this in the right manner (as in official correspondence with the webmaster in letterheaded paper outlining the details requested) you'll get a favourable response.

The webmaster, I'm sure, has no wish to incur extra costs or worse still be injuncted from use (which I'd have guessed would have been your prefered legal action, what with you worrying about re-utilisation by commercial entities...be easier to injunct than get usage fees from everyone).

The staff of KKW respect copyright, and if they receive what they've requested, I'm sure you'll find them compliant with your requests.

barrington
29-07-2004, 10:51 AM
The problem in this instance is us publishing the obscenely high-resolution images that frequently make up the gallery. CelebrityPictures informs me that they may be used (without payment) by less morally abundant foreign magazines in their copy, thus depriving his company of income.

A situation that, although we value the pictures, we do not want to form an active part of.

Hazzle
29-07-2004, 11:43 PM
The problem in this instance is us publishing the obscenely high-resolution images that frequently make up the gallery. CelebrityPictures informs me that they may be used (without payment) by less morally abundant foreign magazines in their copy, thus depriving his company of income.

A situation that, although we value the pictures, we do not want to form an active part of.

Aye, thanks for clearing that up. My only concern was the validity of the claim, but if you've been satisified it's valid, that's good enough for me. Now that it's been established, I'm in total agreement we don't wish to be part of that sort of activity, as although we've done nothing wrong, others can use that behaviour to do wrongful acts. I'm glad that's been resolved.

barrington
30-07-2004, 01:17 PM
Of course the enormous headache is that since pictures rarely come watermarked or with any identifying marks whatsoever (and they are delivered at least second hand) it becomes impossible to know which images are outlawed from publishing.

There's really no answer to this problem.

Hazzle
30-07-2004, 03:57 PM
Of course the enormous headache is that since pictures rarely come watermarked or with any identifying marks whatsoever (and they are delivered at least second hand) it becomes impossible to know which images are outlawed from publishing.

There's really no answer to this problem.

Yeah, and of course you can't just go yanking down pictures left right and centre until you can be sure there's been a problem.

Really tricky situation...

nylonmanus
11-05-2006, 07:00 AM
It's quite simple. All the pictures are being used illegally unless you have the consent fo the copyright holder to publish them on the site the same as when you download an mp3 without paying or using a copy of a software program unlicensed.
Obviously the web is awash with illegal useage buts it's very easy for the copyright holder to find this with a google search. If they have identified you and notified you then they have good cause to take legal action. There are legal firms happy to take on these claims on a no win no fee basis as it is pretty easy to prove. One of the bigger picture agencies made over a million dollars in legal compensation last year from illegal useage. It will be the person or persons running the website who will lose out financially and thed fact that you have already discussed it on the site and not withdrawn the pictures is only giving them more evidence which they will be storing. Looking at the pictures mentioned it's opbvious they are not scanned from magazines which although still illegal does mean it's less of a problem for them to be sold on commercially. These pics are hi res and have been stolen by some other means. I would be inclined to comply with their request and be a bit more careful what you allow on the site in future. By only allowing lo res scans from published pictures you are not aiding the distribution of images which can be used commercially. As they say "It will never happen to me" but remeber the kids parents who were fined for the kids downloading of music

Leonie
11-05-2006, 07:08 AM
Luckily the business was sorted roughly 2 years ago :icon_razz

Also, I think Baz said something about the consent you mention. It doesn't have to be written approval, as long as no one is disagreeing with you using them, you have implied consent to use the pictures. After all, we are a fairly innocent Keira Knightley fansite - most photographers don't take offence from putting a bunch of pictures up for fans to drool on.