Perez Hilton being sued by X17

The LATimes has a pretty good run down of the recent lawsuit filed by X17 (a photo agency specializing in celebrity photos) against Perez Hilton.

The article brings up some interesting points by each party about what they belive is fair use for photographs. Is a photo taken of a celebrity kissing in public newsworthy to the point that it’s fair game? Does that fact that Perez Hilton alters the photographs in a satirical manner fall under fair use? Does the fact that he takes the photos when X17 has specifically told him that they were being licensed exclusively to someone else mean anything? Is a photo of Kevin Federline pumping his own gas of interest to anyone except satirists?

I’m just curious what readers think about Perez, the paparazzi industry and the lawsuit. I fear that the lawsuit will have wide reprecussions against bloggers, but then again, maybe it will garner us greater protections against scrapers and hotlinkers.

11 thoughts on “Perez Hilton being sued by X17”

  1. I imagine that if Perez Hilton had a celebrity gossip scoop that was reported by the magazines and celebrity tv shows, he’d want to be credited, and rightly so. The photographers are the ones capturing the images that he’s using on his blog to riff on celebrities. It only seems fair (and really not a big deal) for him to credit where he got the images from.

  2. Well Perez can go ea shit for all I care, hes ripping off working photogrpaher of their livelyhood, I happen to know some of the architects of the demise of shitbag and I have to say the fall of the celebrity bloggers ripping off pro shooters works will be a beautiful day for all pro shooters

  3. If someone took one of my photos and used it, for satire or not, without crediting me I would be very unhappy… in fact my CC license specifically forbids just that.

  4. How difficult is it to give credit where credit is due? I’m all in favor of giving credit to the individual photographers, but this is not a clear cut case of one person stealing from another innocent person. You can just as easily say that the paparazzi is stealing from the celebrity they take the photo of – and I’ve never heard of a paparazzi photographer splitting the funds from a sold photograph with the celebrity. Both only care about mooching off the celebrity’s stance. You don’t see paparazzi stalking non celebrities…

    I think it is fair game to satirize photos, but I also think that Perez should credit the source of his photos.

    Insanely enough, there are 557 comments about this on Perez’s blog. Whew…

  5. I love Perez, but he really should credit his sources. It’s no big deal. “Image stolen from XYZ” is all he needs to do.

  6. Insanely enough, there are 557 comments about this on Perez’s blog

    I think it’s insane that there are 557 readers, let alone commenters, of a gossip blog with crudely altered photos, but that’s just my opinion, I know.

  7. I’ve been reading Perez since he was Page666, and he does give credit to a lot of his photos. I always wondered why some of the photos have the little doodles on them, and now I know why. I do think he should give photo credits, but the law is the law, and if he can get away with it, more power to him. The paparazzi has been getting away with all kinds of invasion of privacy for years because when you leave the house, you are in public and fair game. That’s the law, too. Let ’em rip each other to shreds in court over technicalities. Then I’ll read about in Defamer.

  8. My favorite part of the article was Perez’s self-fulfilling quotation:

    “If the law says I am wrong, if a jury of my peers says they think my actions are wrong, then I will listen to them. But I don’t think they will. Especially if they see that the person who is suing me admitted she is suing me because I am arrogant. A judge would dismiss that.”

    The way I see it: actually, no, I don’t think a judge would. Because in this case, the arrogance in question stems from his attitude toward a company’s repeated request for compliance. In fact, I’m guessing arrogance causes many, many lawsuits. As far as remedies go, I’m pretty sure an arrogant defendant is the impetus for punitive damages in the first place. As in: we’ve told you x many times to stop doing this or start doing this, but after y number of injuries to your customers and z dollars worth of damages to the plaintiff, you’re still merrily going about your business. Therefore, congrats, you get to keep thinking you’re this shiznit, but you’ll pay the plaintiff a very, very painful amount of money until you start behaving yourself.

    Perez, you fool, arrogance is certainly punishable under the law.

Comments are closed.