Will Splash News sue themselves out of business by suing Perez Hilton?
I haven't done any business blogging in a long while. Well, I have a reason now : The idiots of Splash News and 6 other agencies are happy slapping themselves on the back for threatening Perez Hilton with a lawsuit for photographs they claim he "stole" from their website.
Perez Hilton is to be hit by a multi-million dollar federal lawsuit from the top seven paparazzi agencies in the US.
Splash News, INF, Ramey, Bauer Griffin, WENN, Most Wanted and Flynet have joined forces to stop Perezhilton.com from using copyrighted images.
"Perez claims he is making a fortune off exploiting pictures taken by photographers. He blatantly violates copyright and makes advertising revenue off other people's works," said Gary Morgan of Splash News.[...]
The seven agencies have spent the last few weeks conferring over how to stop Hilton. In an unprecedented co-operation between paparazzi and showbusiness agencies, the heads of the agencies agreed to take action.
A letter was sent demanding full payment of all infringed material or face a lawsuit next week.
I honestly do not understand why people in the gossip business hate Perez Hilton (aka Mario Lavandeira) so much. I don't know if it's because he is :
1. A successful blogger
2. A successful gay blogger
3. A successful gay latino blogger
Even if professional gossip bloggers like Mario wanted to register with the Splash News site and check the prices on their photos (which are not posted publicly, by the way), this is what they are hit with:
Please note that use of our site is restricted unless you are a professional photo editor for a newspaper or magazine.
We do not offer images to fan web sites or personal collectors for legal reasons. Granting of download privileges is contingent upon satisfactory review of your application; it is not immediate nor is it guaranteed.
This is, by the way, the same kind of crap you get at WireImage and other agencies.
All these companies are still functioning on the old business model of focusing solely on print media. Yet they all have websites full of watermarked photographs that get plastered on thousands of sites daily.
So is Mario really the problem? Nope. The problem is that they have a business that did not take into consideration at all the real explosion of blogging that is happening right now.
These companies have business models that are not hip to the times. They're still working on the hope of getting that $1 million for that 1 photograph while wasting terabytes of bandwidth on photographs nobody gets to see because they have them locked down on sites where, unless you are a magazine you can't even look at. And if you are indeed a magazine you have to pay insane amounts of money for the right to post on a blog.
Here's an example picture of George Clooney from Getty Images.
First off, the licensing dependens on where you are going to show it. You are a newspaper in Tokyo? Your fee is different if you are in New York. Online? If the image appears on the front page you get a different price than if it appears deep in the publication. Since once you post on a blog the image stays there forever in the archives, you have to pay a whole different fee.
So this here photo you see of George Clooney would cost me $150 dollars to run only at a maximum width of 300 pixels and only if I posted it once on the site. Oh, and that one post can only get a licence for 2 years. If this blog stays online for over 2 years, that would mean I would have to pay again at the end of the contract.
Do you see the problem?
That's not just the problem with editorial images, mind you. It is worse at Getty for the images they have on their Creative division. Licences can run in the thousands if you want to use it as the logo on your blog banner. Which is why I have been buying my images at iStockphoto.
This is what Robert Scoble had to say about Getty Images:
This is a business that’s seeing radical changes due to folks like Thomas. Thomas is an amateur. He gives his high-res images away for free, or for a low price if you want to use them commercially. He uses the same Canon 5D that other professionals are using. And, his images are often as good or better than the ones the pros are getting.
And Thomas is HARDLY the only photographer out there who is putting pressure on the professionals. Nikon and Canon are selling hundreds of thousands of digital SLRs every year, most of which go to amateurs or semi-pros who aren’t able to get their images onto Getty right now.
Guess what? GettyImages bought iStockPhoto a few months ago. For how much? $50 million.
Of course, Gary Morgan created Splash News as one of those upstarts ready to take on Getty Images. I even wrote about them as the little paparazzi company that could.
It seems though that the notoriety brought to the company by their photos of a drunk Mel Gibson and Britney Spear's hairless crotch has gotten to little Morgan's head ... and made him paranoid. Since Splash News has a blog, they are now indeed competing with Perez Hilton --the little gossip blogger that could.
Do I dare say Splash News is feeling the same heat as Getty Images?
The bottom line is that, combined, companies like Corbis, GettyImages, WireImages and now Splash News have hundreds of thousands if not millions of images they have no use for and that are sitting on their archives with licences hundreds of thousands of bloggers cannot afford.
Isn't it time for these people to get on with the program?
A company that seems poised to become the iStockphoto of celebrity photography is Photorazzi. Take a look at their website packages:
Web 50
$50 Per Month
100 Images
$.50 Per ImageWeb 100
$100 Per Month
500 Images
$.20 Per ImageWeb 250 $250 Per Month
5,000 Images
$.05 Per ImageWeb 500
$500 Per Month
20,000 Images
$.025 Per ImageWeb Unlimited
$1000 Per Month
Unlimited
Under A Penny Per ImageFansite $99 Per Year
All Photos Of 1 Celebrity
Pennies Per Image
I don't know you guys but that looks to me like a good deal.
Here's an idea:
Why not get .... I don't know ... 100 of the top bloggers in the United States to get a nice exclusive deal with Photorazzi? The bloggers get a nice break and Photorazzi gets also advertising and publicity from the bloggers.
Wouldn't it be nice for Splash News to have Photorazzi as a real competitor with a referral traffic that runs in the millions daily? You know, the kind of traffic that would get the people at Photorazzi the money to twist the panties of the lawsuit-happy ninnies into a tight little bunch.
A word of advice to Morganito : Just because there are a lot of commenters out there dissing Perez Hilton, it does not mean bloggers will be enjoying any of your bully tactics.
You take on Mario, you are taking on a whole industry of professional and pro-amateur bloggers that would be more than happy to pay realistic fees for your content.
You want to stick to People Magazine and Vogue? Fine. Then take your content off the web.
The truth though is that bloggers are your new market and by hurting Perez Hilton you are unleashing a chilling effect that will only hurt your company. Money is what you want? Take Perez Hilton to court and we will take our money to your competitor and deprive of your market.
And grock, how I will so love that.
Photorazzi, here I come!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Blogs | Business | Chilling Effects | Copyright | Fair Use | New Media | Photography | Mario Lavandeira aka Perez Hilton | PerezHilton.com | Photorazzi.com | SplashNews.com
But I do honey
Submitted by liza on 1 December 2006 - 9:41pm.
Check out the archives or Google "culturekitchen copyright". I think it's the other way around ---you don't understand the web.
Oh, and by the way : I am not saying Mario shouldn't pay for images if indeed they were used without a license.
The DMCA is unfortunately used by media companies like Splash News to hurt businesses that are not aligned with their own old ways.
SplashNews and X17 shouldn't just be cutting deals with Mario, they should be restructuring their whole business.
Photo use
Submitted by Robert H (not verified) on 1 December 2006 - 3:22pm.
As a photographer, I expect to be paid for any and all uses of my photographs, unless I specifically and in writing give permission otherwise. I need to live and expect others not to steal or misuse my photographs. That's the bottom line here. You steal, I sue....because I need to live just as you.
Rates for photo use are based on numbers of viewers or in the case of print, copies printed, just as advertising rates are. That seems the fairest and most sensible way to do it.
I never said you shouldn't get paid
Submitted by liza on 1 December 2006 - 9:51pm.
I said you can't charge for usage on the web the way you charge for magazines. I mean, seriously, this comment is ridiculous:
Rates for photo use are based on numbers of viewers or in the case of print, copies printed, just as advertising rates are. That seems the fairest and most sensible way to do it.
No, it's not the most sensible way. There is no way for image companies to assess eyeballs --or at least they are so behind the times they refuse to use good, sensible tactics like EMBED widgets to support claims like those.
The Clooney pic on this post is a chaff photograph that is not worth $150 dollars. Maybe $5 or $10. It's just an inocuous image of him coming out of an SUV. Sell these images just like iStockphoto --don't go for exclusivity but for volume.
Exclusives? Charge for those as you like for complete use of the image --and over a discounted version with an EMBED widget instead.
Photo companies claim with lawsuits like these that they are defending their copyright ---but have they really done all they can to protect it in the first place?
The answer? No.
perez hilton
Submitted by GARY MORGAN (not verified) on 1 December 2006 - 4:09pm.
I'm glad you are stirring the debate on blogging and copyright as this is the hot topic.
The threat of a Federal lawsuit comes after scores of demands, cease and desists and negotiations with Perez to simply use watermarked images and link and not take valuable exclusive copyrighted images. He refused to do so. All other agencies have done the same.
He knows full well and has been told the law requires him to seek authorisation for the use of copyrighted images.
Perez is being targetted right now by eight agencies in total because he
1. is a thief
2. infringes copyright
3. makes hundreds of thousands a year, but pays none of the people he has relied on for making him a success.
4. Now he has money he can pay for images like any other 'respectable' company should.
5. being a blogger does not mean you can break the law.
I would direct you to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, in which Congress has already legislated on this issue. Section 5:12.. clearly states any website or person who posts a copyright infringement or defames someone can be held accountable under the law.
Watermarked images are given out by splash and other agencies, as long as a link is given to our blog, by us for free to meet the fans needs. This is made clear at the bottom of the blog at splashnewsonline.com
We want traffic to drive ad revenue as a business. The same model Perez has used to enrich himself. But unlike legitimate sites, he uses copyrighted images without authorisation, a clear breach of federal law.
The difference is we share our revenue with contributors.
By law we can sell to news and editorial websites. The law makes it very clear when the celebrity owns their own image and has the right to commercially profit from it and when agencies can sell their image. You should check the law.
We don't just sell to print media. We all sell widely to online clients, mobile phones etc. You havent done your homework. We have also started to sell to blogs. Brian at Popsugar being a primary blog that has understood the need to be legitimtae in its commercial endeavours and we applaud them for that.
Remember, these images are taken by professional photographers who have an inalienable right to make a living. Stealing images and posting them on blogs is therefore theft. It is no different to coming to your house, taking your framed photos and posting them on a blog without your permission. I suggest you would be upset at this. You would have the right to sue and to report it as a criminal act.
Try going into a cinema with a videocamera and recording the film. That is a copyright infringement under Federal Law and a criminal act.
Photo agencies represent professional and amateur photographers. We sell images on their behalf to make them and us money. We are legitimate businesses making money and paying taxes. We have a UGC site called peoplepaparazzi.com where the public can make money. Have a look at some of the prices we have got for the public.
My photographers rely on me as their agent to make sure they are paid. That is an obligation we take seriously and why we are successful.
You make a good point about the new blogging business model. Photo agencies were slow at taking up the model. But most blogs are amateur sites who are non-profit. These are the ones the watermarked images are aimed at.
Blogs that actively seek ad revenue and financial backing are now profit making businesses and therefore must pay for images used.
You mention you buy your images at iStock, instead of Getty. Thats the point of business. Businesses make money and there is a business for each level. However, you get what you pay for. iStock only have old images, most blogs want uptodate images.
You might be interested to learn we were actually around before Getty.
Blogs are part of the online future as you say and as such its about time the ones that make money share it with the people whose product they steal.
At the end of the day, all photo agencies have been asking for is payment for services rendered. Only a thief would argue that stealing is the correct method.
Any blog that would like to purchase images or use watermarked images are more than welcome to contact Splash News for rates, which by the way reflect the traffic on the site asking for images, so the prices can be suited to the pocketbook of each site.
Gary Morgan
CEO Splash
It was interesting hearing you at Reuters
Submitted by liza on 1 December 2006 - 11:49pm.
Next to Hilary Rosen.
She basically helped redraft copyright law in this country and around the world while at the helm of the RIAA. Ms. Rosen, also interestingly enough, admitted in a now infamous WIRED Magazine profile --Hating Hilary--to having lobbied for BAD LEGISLATION in a last ditch attempt to save the music and film industries outdated business models.
I have not said at any moment that your company or your clients ought not be paid. What I am saying is that you have either not the knowledge or the wherewithal to be a new media company.
Honestly, none of the photographic companies have done anything other than to use lawsuits to claim to protect their copyrights; when in fact, iFilm, YouTube and Revver have demonstrated, there is no excuse not to avail your business of the use simple technologies like EMBED widgets to effectively monetize your content.
I don't know the details of your claims to Lavandeira --that's what are lawsuits, no? To put the onus of evidence on the alleged offender.
What I do know is that your dealing with one blogger at a time shows also your inability to think beyond your print media model. Going to PopSugar, a company that got $8 million in venture capital is your answer to addressing the blog market? Are you kidding me?
So you want to go with high end, VCed "blogs". Fine. The way you choose to disseminate your content still shows your company has not addressed blogs as a new publishing platform.
I am not a lawyer but I have been writing for years now about how companies like yours use lawsuits not to protect their copyright but to destroy new businesses and markets. Poke around the archives.
Yet, 10 years ago, photo companies only had watermarks as acceptable ways to protect their product. Some went with funky layering with Java and Javascript but those proved cumbersome.
Nowadays, with the popularity of the EMBED widget, companies like yours have no excuse for claiming to sufficiently protect their copyrights by use of a watermark. You ought to be using the similar concepts as Revver and YouTube if "views" and "attribution" are that much of deal in the pricing of your photographs.
But that is topic for another post.
Nice try on trying to stir
Submitted by Tom Cruise's EMeter (not verified) on 1 December 2006 - 7:06pm.
Nice try on trying to stir up traffic to your own (boring) blog.
Its quite hilarious how you have no understanding of how businesses work. If I came to your blog each day, stole your words and reprinted them elsewhere making myself thousands of dollars - I dont think you would be singing the same tune.
Perez is a thief and you my dear are a sanctimonious bore.
You dont get my point do you
Submitted by liza on 1 December 2006 - 10:03pm.
If Mario did indeed use unlicensend images, then negotiate. But not only don't these people seem intent in wanting to negotiate, they want to take down a whole industry represented by Mario ---and that affects me and other bloggers who make a business of what we do.
What I am interested in addressing here is the problem of licensing for the web --the model is offensively outdated and does not take into consideration publications like blogs.
Also, I want to point out that Splash News and X17 have not done what they need to do in order to protect their copyright. They claim the have but they haven't --not now that YouTube and google have proven what you can do with EMBED widgets.
I don't think people hate
Submitted by cupcake (not verified) on 1 December 2006 - 8:50pm.
I don't think people hate perez because he's successful; They hate him because he is a self-promoting fraud. Personally, I quit reading his website when I realized he was plaguerizing his content from other bloggers--photo stealing never even crossed my mind. But hey, if they got it together to shut him down good for them. If Perez goes down it's no one elses fault but his own.
Why not self-promote
Submitted by liza on 1 December 2006 - 10:06pm.
That's what blogging is about.
As to the claims of fraud : Hasn't it ocurred to you that PR and other media companies send bloggers, including Mario, the same press releases?
I honestly do not understand
Submitted by K (not verified) on 2 December 2006 - 9:31am.
I honestly do not understand why people in the gossip business hate Perez Hilton (aka Mario Lavandeira) so much. I don't know if it's because he is :
1. A successful blogger
2. A successful gay blogger
3. A successful gay latino blogger
*********************************************
Um, no. Personally, it's because he is a misogynistic, biased hypocrite, who takes great pleasure in attacking and humiliating women for being "fat" or "old", while acting as (paid? unpaid?) publicist for certain D-list celebrities.
I'm not in the "gossip business", and am a former reader of Perez Hilton.
You may want to investigate the fact that "Mario" is now CENSORING his own readership, particularly from posting negative comments about his beloved sponsor, Paris Hilton.
Wow, what a champion of free speech.
I agree with you.
Submitted by Peggy Archer (not verified) on 2 December 2006 - 1:54pm.
I think special licensing for blogs is a great idea, and were I to write a celeb blog, I'd be over at Photorazzi right now signing up.
Suit against Perez Hilton
Submitted by Leandro Toro (not verified) on 3 December 2006 - 12:31am.
Thank you for you thoughtful comment on behalf of bloggers.
PEREZ HILTON is likely to win the case against the photographers for a number of reasons.
Please see my post at http://www.leandrotoro.com/
I don't know much about the
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 3 December 2006 - 4:31pm.
I don't know much about the photo industry, but what you guys are talking about remind me of what happened when the music industry attempted to put a lockdown on p2p services and mp3 sites. It's not going to happen. Hopefully this lawsuit will level the plainfield for everyone's benefit.
I also don't understand why those agencies keep going on about Perez stealing and breaking the "law" when they ignore ethics/civism when stealing pictures from a crying baby. Check this out:
http://x17online.com/celebrities/britney_spears/britney_attempts_glam_fa...
How long till the "law" is no longer on their side?
my 2 cents
Submitted by Paz (not verified) on 3 December 2006 - 7:04pm.
I'm a writer/photographer and it's easy to guess which party I'll side with. To me, it's simple -- don't use something if it's not yours unless you have permission to do so. But I think you're talking about the business aspect of using the photograph which is altogether different from the legal one. I don't see any grey area with Splash's legal right in this one.
I totally agree with
Submitted by Vanity Bombay (not verified) on 4 December 2006 - 5:01am.
I totally agree with you.
Digital media and the speed of the internet is changing markets and rather than suing, companies should take advantage of the opportunities at hand.
Examples:
Craig's List - Skewered the newspapers by offering free classified ads. The newspapers did not see Craig's List or the internet as a threat, and they did not act. They lost out. Craig's List won, as did other sites like Match.com.
Napster (and other peer-to-peer music sharing sites) - Music companies lost a HUGE amount of money due to file sharing online. Apple was smart enough to leverage the opportunity by creating ITunes.
Blogging is not going to go away. Hello, can you say "USER GENERATED CONTENT"? Those three words are the "we" in Web. Blogging is to information what eBay is to buying and selling of goods.
Google's AdSense program spawned BlogAds and AdBrite and other ways for bloggers to make money, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Does anyone really think that bloggers are going to stop blogging when they are making money at it? Of course not. Just like people selling on eBay are not going to stop.
Nor are they going to stop downloading music. However, they will pay for the music, as Apple has proven, if given the opportunity (and a good interface).
I think you're right -- this crisis is really an opportunity. And some (smart) people are going to make a lot of money off of it. I'm not only talking about bloggers -- I'm talking about the people who figure out how to make money off the bloggers. Remember what they said about the Gold Rush -- the people making the real money were the ones selling shovels.
Exactly!
Submitted by liza on 4 December 2006 - 2:05pm.
Remember what they said about the Gold Rush -- the people making the real money were the ones selling shovels.
You hit it over the head.
We're talking about an opportunity here, not a moment to sue. Why not use the opportunity to open the doors to scores of bloggers through better licensing agreements?
My point also is that, given the new EMBED technologies we have at our disposal, photo agencies can't cry over watermarks (or lack thereof). They are not doing enough these days to protect their "products" and quite frankly, suing is more of an expensive PR ruse than a realistic way to address the new markets emerging before them.
Paparazzi can't legally sell / license stolen images
Submitted by LeandroToro (not verified) on 4 December 2006 - 2:58pm.
We love the paparazzi, but it's well known, that legally, the only people who have a right to make money from celebrities' images are the celebrities themselves.
The paparazzi are in a gray area when they taken photographs of celebrities and sell them. But when the paparazzi ask the court to protect their stolen goods as in suing Perez Hilton, that's not too bright.
You can't ask a court to stop someone from stealing your stolen goods. Just because you slap the words "copyright" or your name across a photograph of a celebrity does not mean you own it, unless the celebrity has given his/her permission.
The paparazzi are licensing the use of celebrity images without the celebrity(ies) permission and without paying royalties to celebrities.
The court is going to come down very hard on the paparazzi.
This case will likely lead to a cessation of paparazzi freedom as we know it now.
royalties and copyright
Submitted by alon (not verified) on 30 October 2007 - 3:30pm.
i would do some home work royalties don't apply to images unless copyrighted by the artist them selves i am a paparazzi photographer
if i take a picture it is my picture and my property i own the copyright on that image regardless of what is in it or who it contains. but there are rules have statutes of limitations that apply to this process the photo must be taken on public property to take this effect if i take that same images at the private residence of a celebrities home they have the right to collect royalties because it
was produced on their private property and they have the priority of copyright on that image does this make thing a little more clear
i hope this helps
thanks,
alon
Nice article
Submitted by Emmanuel von Angst (not verified) on 17 August 2007 - 9:05am.
Very nice article. I won't defend Perez as it was shown he was posting pix he had no license to. However, the thoughts on the outmoded business model are spot on.
I run a blog, that is very tiny and mostly for my own amusement at the moment. I looked into getting properly licensed pictures and as you said EVERY single one told me 'take a hike, you aren't a legit media company'
So that was it. I wasn't going to stop writing what I love to write about. I credit photos when needed (if there is no watermark) and it's not like I'm making bank from the page. It's largely for my amusement right now. If it became a success I would try again to license the photos. As it stands now though, paying hundreds of dollars for toss away shots is a bit insane (and not possible because they won't even let me throw away money).
How there hasn't been a photo agency that hasn't used the BritePic model where ads are embedded into an image when you roll over it to make money I don't know. Google is handing out MS Office level office software doing that very thing. These photo agencies are quite out of touch.
LeandroToro is spot on as well. I work in the entertainment business in talent representation and I can tell you there are discussions everyday about ways to start making these paparazzi pay up if they are going to use images of our clients to make money. I mean, our actors make money by appearing on film. The paparazzi 'steal' their image by filming them to make money and don't compensate them in the least. Seems like a bit of a logic disconnect here.
Do you really believe that if Britney followed herself around with a camera and sold subs to video streams on her site she couldn't make a ton of money? Exactly. The paparazzi are no better than the people they claim are thieves themselves.
Listen boys, update your business model to include digital media or be left behind. That's the way it is.
Oh and note to everyone else, before you comment claiming that the article supports theft, try getting a pair of glasses and reading it again. It doesn't support theft at all. It, as I do, support people getting money for their work, but it simply doesn't think that all media should be painted with one broad brush.
P.S. the 'free' watermarked image usage Mr. Splash Online was talking about is no longer offered. So he doesn't give a toss about those people and is still mired in the old old methods of print distribution.
Embedding commentary
Submitted by choonkeat (not verified) on 17 March 2008 - 10:53pm.
Hi Liza,
Reached this post via your comment on Anil Dash's post http://www.dashes.com/anil/2008/03/embedded-journalism.html where you mentioned "the issue here is that sometimes I just want to quote a particular paragraph."
I wonder if this is closer what you were thinking about: http://sharedcopy.com/public/widget ?
Talk about the height of copyright anal retentiveness
Submitted by liza on 18 March 2008 - 12:32am.
Why a widget for quoting?
Seriously.
The fact people probably got VC money for that gig just makes my head explode.
It's just copying and pasting and a linkback.
WHY A WIDGET FOR MANAGING TEXT QUOTES?!?!?!
I can understand images, but TEXT!
Ugh.
Anyhow, thanks for the link 
YOU ARE CLUELESS
OK...you have no clue about the photo business.
Why don't you do a little research before you spout off about something you know nothing about.