Celeb Sites and Paparazzi Photos

All these celeb sites with the paparazzi photos - are the webmaster buying the rights to these photos? If you want to start one of these sites, what's the best way to get images? Thanks.

 

I would guess that 99% of celebrity websites with photos are guilty of copyright infringement. You can buy usage rights from various agencies (Getty Images) but the cost can run thousands of dollars per image - and that is usually for a set period of time.

The photographer, not the celebrity, is usually the owner of a photo and they are the ones who will come after you for a usage fee (which they get to set). Taking the photograph down will not let you off the hook. Saying you got the photo from a site that said you were allowed to use will not get you off the hook if they didn't have the rights. Taking a photo off of another site is also not legal.

That being said, I would guess only a small portion of sites are ever discovered by the rights holder. Of course, the more popular the site, the more of a risk of being discovered. I have a neighbor who is a pretty famous photographer and sues every site that uses any of his photos (which he has never licensed to be used on the web). He doesn't do it to make money (in fact I'm sure his legal fees are more than he has ever recovered) but just because it's an issue that really gets to him. He has about a dozen published books and some people scan those images for web usage.

Even if you only have a 1% chance of getting caught, it is a risk I wouldn't want to take. Copyright infringement can actually be criminal and there are people who have gone to prison for several years in extreme cases.

There probably isn't a low-cost way to do a site by dealing with professional agencies or photographers. The site owner is always responsible for photos & content used on your site - make sure you get a release. Even if you hire a designer, you are still financially responsible to the rights holder (although you may be able to turn around and sue the designer).

 

I use www.photorazzi.com for my celebrity sites.

VERY NICE PACKAGE:
$99/per year - All photos of ONE celebrity

And many others, but that is the one I use for each site of mine, and make back that easily in a year.

 

I took a quick look at their TOS, and you have to give photo credit on every image you use and are only for editorial and news use, not commercial usage. You also can't alter the image in any way (clipping a portion out for making a header, etc) without express written permission. $99 is cheap, just make sure you read the TOS and understand what their usage allows.

 

Lol - you don't think I know that?
I promote this site ALL the time on this board... do you think I would do that with a site that I know nothing about...

By now I must have made photorazzi a pretty penny with all the people I have told about that place and now use their images.

I have contacted both the owner and my sales representative (have talked to them NUMEROUS times via email and phone - mention my name and they would know me no problem). So YES - I have written permission in a form of a modified contract.

My contract with photorazzi allows me to use them in the design portion of my site and to modify and alter to my specifications as long as it's not defamatory to the artist in the picture.

Also - I am allowed to use them in galleries, etc on my site.

As far as commercial goes - all sites have SOMETHING commercial be it ads, or paid text links - they already know I would be using them on a site like this. I believe they mean you cannot sell items (ie posters, pictures etc) with their images on them.

What's wrong with giving them credit? For the deal they are giving, it's worth it. At least you don't look like your trying to rip off 1000's of photographers.

 

There is nothing wrong with giving credit. Far too many people don't take the time to read the TOS. If you have a special agreement, then others should do the same if they want to use it for site design.

The legal definition of a "Commercial" website means the site takes in revenue - and there are certainly fan sites that don't run advertising. I don't think think most fan sites would qualify as a news site either - but I don't know what they were thinking - only what their legal TOS states.

 

Here is a quote from their website:

http://www.photorazzi.com/store/category.cgi?category=websites

 

Again, I am only reading their legal agreement, which might contradict other parts of their site. A NEWS site is a permitted use - and most news sites run advertising. Legally, there is a big difference between a news site and a commercial site making money off the name of a celebrity.... but this particular site might not care.

 

Well I never got that part changed on the contract because when I was talking to them on the phone ...

I mentioned I would be using the pictures beside google ads
(also another reason I got the part changed in their contract where you cannot manipulate the photo because I would have to shrink them down quite a bit)
and he said that is fine.

 

In general most small celebrity sites obtain their photo's from sites like photorazzi or prphotos. The commercial definition may not always be the legal defination. After all, they sell basic packages for people to use on any website, the person is not profiting from the actual photo. They may earn from ads, but not actually using the image for commercial purposes.

All websites that licence content nearly always include a 'non commercial' clause. They will define that if you ask them as profiting from the image. In fact consult a laywer about commercial use of an image if you don't agree, but common sense shows you are profiting from ads not the image.

 

A lot of people are talking about photorazzi or prphotos but when i visit those sites i come to the same site. Are they now the same company?

 

Fanaddict: How fast can you get setup at prphotos.com? Is it a long signup process?

 

I contacted my rep by phone - purchased with a credit card and all was up and running in less then 10minutes.