copyright and celebrities' photos

Posted by merm (142 days ago)

How come copyright doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all in the current mess?

Privacy has also been largely ignored.

While there's plenty of ridicule, there's no show of sympathy or admittance that they themselves have taken similar photos too.

There's something terribly wrong in this city.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by Shoe Girl (140 days ago)

Actually, copyright has been mentioned. Legally, the photographer owns the copyright to the photos so technically he could mount a case (excuse the pun), but it seems very unlikely he is going to.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by merm (139 days ago)

I haven't been following the case closely since but haven't heard or seen the word copyright mentioned. Where was that Shoe Girl?

The government is considering adjusting the obscenity and indecency standards. But this is a case about neither, but total violation of privacy.

Many like to say he or he together with the women did something wrong. The worst thing that has been committed is circulating the photos not only on sites but via email.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by Shoe Girl (139 days ago)

There was a story about the copyright implications in the SCMP on Saturday. I think it's obvious that this whole saga has been botched up right from the start, because the police arrested and charged someone before sending the offending photos to the Obscene Articles Tribunal for classification. Then they locked him up without giving him bail and now, two weeks later, they deemed the photos indecent but not obscene. I guess everyone is fascinated by this case as it involves local celebrities. I personally don't know any of them and would not recognise them if I saw them in the street, so I have no interest in it. I suppose if it involved Brad Pitt, though, then maybe I might be tempted to take a look. Some people have even said that they think it was the person who took the photos who deliberately leaked them for publicity. It just goes to show, be careful when you're taking photographs and loading them onto your computer.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by omaharrison (138 days ago)

I think that if they will decide that those pictures and video( I heard there is also that) re copyright protected, then as stated above the guy who took them is the owner and another point is that this will just backfire because then what will happen? they will ask for royalties? LOL and it will just make them all be like porn stars, which I doubt any of them want.
Giving your pc with personal info of any kind to a shop for fixing is like giving your wallet to be fixed without taking out your money and all the cards and ID in it. This guy should win the "moron of the year" award.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by Shoe Girl (137 days ago)

I agree entirely with your comments, omaharrison. I do think the moron of the year knew exactly what he was doing, though. It's obvious that he likes videoing himself, and I'm not going to pass judgment on that, that's his prerogative, but he must have had lots and lots of photos and videos involving many partners - after all - he is a "famous" Canto-pop star - so how come the only pictures which have surfaced have been the ones with him and other "famous" stars?

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by merm (135 days ago)

I missed that article then but other than that it's amazing copyright is only being discussed now. Some were saying they didn't know who the photographer of the photos was and so the photos had no copyright but copyright doesn't require registration! Copyright is born together with any work. If you didn't take the pic, then it's not yours! Of all the lawyers and everyone else interviewed by tv and newspaper journalists so far, I heard/saw the word copyright used for the first time only yesterday.

(I am based in Hong Kong)