4 Celebrity Sites Pack - Custom, Great Unique Design, Low Starting Price

They were asking a question relating to your sale. When you live in the US you can't tell the judge "go look at all the other fan sites!". It's a common question on a sale of this sort.

 

I was going to ask the same question and against popular belief there are places to license these images. Many of the larger sites you just assume don't have rights really do.

Cheers.

 

Ok, that does it!

Ricneato > For your peace of mind (and others'), the places where I took the pictures didn't mention any specific usage clauses other than not removing some tags which I didn't. If someone "stole" the images, which I personally consider an outrageous language, it was those where I took the pictures from. According to your way of thinking I should sue you 'cause you spoke to me without permission, right? I'm not selling here a paparazzi empire, just a bunch of websites, there is no issue in comparing these sites with the top media ones which are a totally different level. It's like comparing you to Oprah when it comes to forming opinions.

30k Challenge > I am not out of this world, I know what copyright means and that the guys before were partly right, however that doesn't make this thread a chat thread, it's a sales thread so please stick to the subject which is buying the websites. For your information, I didnt register last month on DP, like you did, and I have created and sold enough websites on various subjects to know how to handle this stuff.

The sites are sold as they are and any normal buyer would think normally about what they are and nothing more.

Period.


Thank you!
Mihai

 

For those who base their decisions on fact and law.

Not people playing lawyer online...

Source


One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006

 

Do you have any bids yet? Would you consider an offer of less than $400?

 

THREAD UPDATE:

1) Biography content of the sites switched to Wikipedia under GPL License with source links.

Had some offers/enquiries over PM, wouldn't mind to get more. Once/if a deal is established via PM, I will announce it here.

Thank you
Mihai

 

Nope, no bids here yet. Just the same drivel that appears over and over and over in every single celeb site sales thread at DP.

Well, that's not really true. Some DP members seem to somehow avoid this discussion.

Some of the loudest complainers in this thread seem to bless other sales with "Oooo, nice site!!!", and don't even ask where the images come from when there are images in those sites as well.

Seems odd, don't you think? ???

I guess Mihai just doesn't know the secret handshake.

Mihai, I am truly sorry to see how badly your thread has been trashed by copyright lecture #49,000.

You create very nice sites. Keep up the great work!

 

What a relief to see there are normal people around here. Thank you for your support, browntwn and jkjazz. It's much appreciated.

Mihai

 

I would be interested in your Keira Knightley site, but not all for of them. You should really consider selling them seperately. Also does your news page update automatically from rss feeds? Or did you manually link from the google news website?

 

jaiz > Thank you for your interest. I may sell the sites separately if this auction fails to end in a satisfactory manner. However that would be a disadvantage to the eventual buyers since they will not hold an unique design all for themselves.

The news script reads the news at a custom time interval to save bandwidth. That interval is now set at 6 hours. Between these updates, the news are cached on the server.

 

THREAD UPDATE

- Since no public offers have been made and no private offer is 100% certain, I will make this fun and slash the starting bid down to $250!

Thank you!
Mihai

 

This auction is now closed! Thank you

Mihai

 

Are the sites sold or are still available ?

 

PM sent...

 

same question

 

Same PM...

 

I have the same question too

 

I am in talks with a couple of interested buyers. I will announce it here when the sites are no longer available.

coderjeff> will send you a PM shortly.

Thank you
Mihai

 

It really is shocking how little respect people give to copyright.

 

Looking at the site in your sig, it looks like you don't mind copyright infringment that much, ehh?

You have copyrighted images, content, and lyrics on that site....Nice glass house buddy.

p.s. The info on the sites for sale in this thread are from Wiki and is sourced, not from imdb. Again, that is just for those who care about the facts.