Celebrity Blogger Perez Hilton Sued By Seven Photo Agencies
December 1, 2006 – 5:58 amby Darren
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
We all know bloggers love to steal photos, and it might be okay, as long as you don’t get too high-profile. Perez Hilton, for those who don’t know, has managed to propel himself to the top of the celebrity blogging business, in part because of his agressive diregard for intellectual property laws. Well now, the crow is coming home to roost in a class action lawsuit filed by 7 internet photo agencies who say Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandiera) has stolen MILLIONS of dollars worth of exclusive pictures from them, without giving due credit.
If you’ve ever checked out his blog, you’ll know the basic idea is:
1) He captures photos from other websites (exclusives from news agencies)
2) He defaces the photos so they can’t be used by others
3) He ignores C&D orders concerning the photos
4) He’s RUDE to the people whose pictures he’s stolen
5) He implies the photos are his “exclusive work”
In a nutshell, Mario has done just about everything you can think of to piss off the photo agencies and push the issues of “Fair Use” to the forefront. Rumors are that Perez Hilton is taking in over $120,000 PER MONTH at his blog, which would put him at the high end of the heap concerning pro bloggers.
This case should be extremely interesting for all of us in the blogosphere.
What are your thoughts about the case against Perez Hilton?
If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to the Blog Republic RSS feed!.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe to Updates via Email
11 Responses to “Celebrity Blogger Perez Hilton Sued By Seven Photo Agencies”
It sounds like he’s going to be busy with lawyers for a while.
I noticed he stamps his URL across pics there, too. That seems bold to me.
By Heather on Dec 1, 2006
Well, although I feel bad for the blogger but I think such issues will bring some order in the blog publishing world.
By Amrit Hallan on Dec 1, 2006
If he is, in fact, earning $120,000 monthly from the blog, then paying a licensing fee to the agencies should be a simple choice.
Bloggers have to run blogs like a business, and that is just an expense of doing things. I think it’s his high profile that did him in, anyways.
By Darren on Dec 1, 2006
DEFINITELY if he’s truly making that much money each money he should pay the fees and have an expense - just like any other person or company running a business including you and I.
But, after all is said and done - it’s not the licensing or class action suit that’s the problem or stealing pictures off of the internet for his own use. It’s the defacing of them and then rebranding them his own - THAT’s the real issue here that’s unacceptable. At minimum, he should take it off the site and leave them out of his archives and in future, just give proper attribution.
In a new world with camera phones everywhere and celebrities seeking out their own publicity .. these type of 7 photo agencies will be obsolete, and they are paying these papparazzi guys waaaaaay too much that it really gets annoying seeing news shots of them in action, flocking around and causing mayhem. i.m.h.o. of course.
By HART (1-800-HART) on Dec 2, 2006
I email with Perez now and then, there was one time where he was “served” and he just threw it down and ignored it. It was orginaly just X17 photo agency, but they brought in Splash news and other agencys to get on his back also.
In my last email to he a few days ago I asked he what he was going to do with the law suit.(he still uses their images today).
He said “It’s cool, don’t worry”. I think he is either very stupid and in denial, or he some great lawers and inside information we don’t know.
One thing I know is, like you said, he defaces the images some what, changing them over the original, so they are not “exact copies”, maybe he thinks that gets him around the copyright laws?…..who knows. I don’t think it will be a happy ending though.
Also on a side now, X 17 (the main driving force here) gave permission to some blogs to use one or two smaller sized image as long as there is a link back to the agency……they keep on changing what they allow, but perez in for sure in the wrong now.
By Matt on Dec 2, 2006
That sort of sounds like an argument he might make.
I’ve been content using “thumbnailed” lower quality images and then linking back to the source. So far, I haven’t heard any complaints.
When they complain, it’s probably easiest to do something about it right away.
I do see a ton of websites that have “photo galleries” and I have no idea where the pictures come from. A thumbnail that doesn’t link to the full picture (on your server) seems like a fair bet to me, but I’m no lawyer.
By Darren on Dec 2, 2006
I used to blog for a website and he stole an article from me personally. His whole site is about ripping off other people’s articles and pictures and taking credit for them. My senior editor, in fact, talked to Perez about the article in hopes that if Perez published it Perez would give credit and the link would drive traffic to our site. This is common courtesy in the blog world. So, after speaking to us he blatently used my story and claimed it as his own.
It’s not the fact that he steals articles and pictures or that most of his personal celeb gossip is mere speculation or opinion and in no way fact, is not so much the problem. Plenty of bloggers do that. It’s that he lies, embelishes and consistantly makes claims that he is always first to publish something or that it’s a Perez exclusive.
It’s like if I was in school and I was to write a book report and directly take something from another book and not list credit for it, that is plagerism. Well, majority of Perez’s sight is plagerism and slander.
Him taking claim for everything as if it were his own is a bit part of what catapulted him to success. People believed him as a reliable inside source because he claimed it so many times. This drove traffic to his site which helped make him a public figure which helped drive more traffic to his site.
So, essentially he is a huge liar and a thief and has been running his mouth for too long and publicly taking credit for everyone else’s work. I knew it was only a matter of time before it came back to bite him.
By Riley on Dec 8, 2006
Hey Riley,
It’s “plagiarism”, not “plagerism”.
LOL.
By lalala on Dec 11, 2006
I have a picture of james brown. I only want to find out how much it is worth.
By Tyralene Terrell on Dec 30, 2006