Aren't they all containing copyrighted pictures? of regular photographers or celebrities? Why are they not illegal?
They might be illegal, but there are tons of them on the net, and for many companies, it isn't worth the effort to take them to court.
you are right frnd, and wallpaper site owner only share there wallpapers. they never add any logo on that and copyright picture always availble with owner logo. if picture not contain any logo that mean that picture availble for sharing and you also can add your logo on them (i am not sure about last point) ~jakki~
Well why to be illegal is not like Shakira makes it's own wallpapers and get's them on her website and people take them and post on other sites ..
For the most part, the wallpapers are personalized. Graphic designers design them their selves. Therefore it's unique. They might be using a celebrity or something of the other in it, but the wallpaper as a "whole" is unique. As for your question about copying a magazine page. Yes, that is illegal and it is different. The company that owns the magazine has full rights to its photos and property. You republishing it for free the same as it appears on the magazine is a big no no.
the pose of celebrity...of course the wallpaper designer has to get the picture somewhere. I think they take the picture from a photographer and just remove the background.
its difficult to file law suit because photos aren't just the same in all the sites.. they just do some photoshop works.. so filing law suit is waste of time and money i think
Wallpaers are made for sharing and all of them are free, unless specified by wallpaper creator. I don't think anybody would file a lawsuit even for a photo, not to speak about wallpaper.
Well most wallpaper sites are very small and big companies won't sue them. If they sue their return on time will be pathetic. If the site is very big it may get sued like pirate bay.(Just an example, it is not an wallpaper site as we all know.)