Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
Zenyatta Makes "Her"Story
Pixies 'Doolittle' @ The Palladium 11/4/09
-thumb-110x110-455795.jpg)
Build Your Own BBQ for Under 10 Bucks!
The Bravery @ the Wiltern 11/05/09
In a bizarre attempt to fund his defense of the $7 million lawsuit being launched against him by several paparazzi organizations because he steals their photos, Perez Hilton today released some new items of merch.
The only problem is, two of the designs are blatant rip-offs of artwork created for an interview our Canadian sister-site Torontoist conducted with the controversial LA gossip queen last fall.
According to Torontoist, Perez approached the Ontarians to design elements for t-shirts for the embroiled blogger, but nothing ever was finalized.
So it appears as if Perez simply ganked the beautiful original and made knock-offs for his own financial benefit. As if!
Stay tuned to see if Perez suddenly makes Torontoist (majority) partners in his t-shirt company, since it is their design that he's riffing off, cheaply, if you ask us. And since Mr. Hilton makes between $9000 - $16,000 (American) per week per ad on his infamous blog, hopefully Torontoist can settle out of court for a princely sum.
One thing we've gotta say, although Perez is a self-hating gay-bashing unoriginal hack and unworthy of being placed in the same genre as folks like Defamer, Trent, CityRag, and goldenfiddle, the haters in his comments are always worthy of a laugh and possibly the only reason why God Almighty hasn't chosen to strike him and his site down.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Is this an attempt by Perez Hilton to make an honest dollar? Maybe he's going to be the next big TV personality-- The next Ryan Seachrest (I hate Ryan!Ryan go away!) Perez isn't bad in this video clip...
www.msnholidaychallenge.com
I dont care for perez or his blog myself but in his defense satirizing a pope/a saint/or jesus has been done for decades by the old fashion 'cut and paste head' trick! I dont think torontoist was the first to use that image.
I am glad that pig Perez is going down but how is he different that the list of blogs the author listed?
The author is clearly an idiot who picks and chooses what is wrong and what is right.
All those shitty blogs are doing something illegal. I found it fascinating that the author of this silly article was able to randomly draw a difference.
Goes to show how stupid the author was.
of course Perez wasn't the first to use it, but he clearly got the idea from the Torontoist interview, which he asked them about, and then stole.
read the post next time please.
if the blogs listed were doing things that are illegal, then why aren't they being sued in a similar law suit?
don't be stupid.
That guy is such a douche bag. I hope they take away his lame site.
my point is the other "gossip blogs" dont do illegal things and when they are asked to take down photos owned by other people they dont respond by saying "sue us, its good for our publicity, fag!"
Per ad per fucking week. Motherf*cker.
Is it bad taste for a member of the paparoachi to purchase one of those t-shirts?
do those people actually wear tshirts that they dont get for free for signing up for credit cards at dodger stadium?
Wow speaking of free promo crap. Have you seen Perez's new occupation?
perez_has_a_new_job_thank_goodness
Fair Use Anyone?
ehhhh try again
Fair Use usually requires that you
1) dont sell the image
2) give credit to those who created/originated the image
3) dont ask them to make something for you and then rip them off when you decide not to pay for it
we're watching this issue....
readers watch, bloggers blog
blog it, spyparazzi!
When I realized Perez stole pic from x17 I tried to post the link on one of his comment blogs. Of course he blocked y entry repeatedly and banned e from posting for about a week until the story broke.
A real journalist would own up and at least give a response. I hope hegoes down in flames. (Pardon the pun).
I'm sorry, he makes HOW much on ads??
If he doesn't do something before the court date and it does go to court, he'll lose. He's not parodying the people, he's presenting copyrighted photos on his site without paying for them or being given permission as you need to do by law. He is trying to say that Fair Use permits him to use without permission or payment, pictures that others have taken. Fair Use allows for people to use parts of a work when analyzing or criticizing the work itself, but he isn't analyzing the work (the picture), he's writing about the people in the pictures, which is a huge difference.
The four factors of Fair Use:
1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use - perez 0, x17 1
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work - perez 0, x17 2 (as I understand it, perezhilton.com acquired and used some photos before they could be sold, thus making them useless to others)
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken - perez 0, x17 3
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market - perez 0, x17 4
Total score - perez 0, x17 4 PEREZ LOSES!
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html