L.A.J. WEEKLY

Hey… if people can portray someone famous on TV, film and print, and profit heavily from it, why can’t this happen on the Internet as well? And why should it even make a difference between the “mainstream” Internet and the Adult Internet? Should the venue matter? After all, the Internet is the Internet, and portrayal is portrayal, right? Ahhh… if only it were that easy.L.A.J. WEEKLY

Hey… if people can portray someone famous on TV, film and print, and profit heavily from it, why can’t this happen on the Internet as well? And why should it even make a difference between the “mainstream” Internet and the Adult Internet? Should the venue matter? After all, the Internet is the Internet, and portrayal is portrayal, right? Ahhh… if only it were that easy.

The fire that is the debate over the legality of celebrity sites still rages on, but who is going to eventually put it out? The government? The adult community? I’d love to put this issue to rest already but there is still somewhat of a gray area. There are still tons of celebrity sites out there so one really does have to wonder where exactly is the fine line of legality here, even though by and large adult industry veterans everywhere including YNOT Network, LP will swear up and down that aside from being highly unethical, that celebrity sites are illegal. In fact they will site several laws and legal rulings to back up their claims.

Consequently, I am still trying to find someone whether they have a legal background or not who is actually willing to explain to me why these types of sites deserve to exist, and how despite legal rulings against celebrity content, these types of sites still continue to operate. Unfortunately, no one will really afford me the time or the explanation as such. In fact, it should be noted that an entire seminar at Internext was dedicated to this hot topic last month with all panelists opposing, and it was covered in great detail shortly thereafter by Judd in the July 5 edition of YNOT News.

And before I press on, I will also add that in my heart of hearts, I will trust the word of two people pretty much above anyone else’s when it comes to matters like this – Greg Geelan (http://www.ynotmasters.com/wm_directory/profiles/Otto.html), President and General Counsel here at YNOT (who was actually one of the speakers on the aforementioned panel) and Jeff Miller (http://www.ynotmasters.com/wm_directory/profiles/SunUp.html), CEO of SunUp Media, who has not only publicly gone on the record condemning celebrity sites, but has also personally educated me on the topic. I have learned that the biggest problems with celebrity sites involve copyright infringement (someone else owns the photos that you are using),

misappropriation of likeness (the model’s image has been altered in the photos), and commercial misappropriation (the model owns her likeness and you don’t have a release to use it). Miller has actually won a case dealing with the first of these issues as the plaintiff (see: case (http://www.cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/knb.html)).

So that being said, perhaps against my better judgment here, I am going to try a devil’s advocate approach just for the sake of argument, and say “Why not allow celebrity content to legally exist?” They have been spoofing celebrities and profiting off of their likeness in things like Mad Magazine and Saturday Night Live for several decades now… WHY NOT allow it on the Internet as well? For starters, celebrity sites lie. Unlike a satirical TV show or magazine, many sites tell you what you are seeing is the “real thing,” so I can see the arguments as to why celebrity sites should be considered illegal in that respect alone. However, I am still not 100% completely sold on the idea due to the lack of justification from the other side, because what if these sites threw in a disclaimer or two saying that their celebrity site is for “satire purposes only, and/or all pictures listed are fake.” Would that make a difference? At any rate, I really wish someone who feels that these sites should be legal and legitimate would just strap on a set and enlighten all of us already. It’s a pity, because I can see where the value and demand for celebrity content can be huge as well as a huge money maker, yet these same profiteers aren’t willing to step into the limelight nowadays and sound off about it.

In my quest to see what the other side thinks, I was unfortunately only able to get some brief insight from attorney Steve Workman from CEN. CEN has been criticized in the past for promoting celebrity sites and profiting off of unlicensed content. I posed a few questions awhile back to Workman, who serves as General Counsel and Vice President of Business Affairs for CEN, but was only told that “celebrity content is legal, and that people in our industry need to realize that.” Previously, Workman used to be an entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles, so it could be argued that he would have a very legitimate understanding of what is legal and what isn’t, regarding a celebrity’s likeness. Ironically though, Workman, who in the past has been believed to advise against adult companies getting into celebrity content, now works for one of the largest adult content providers in the business, and who also happens to be a large supplier of celebrity content. I do give some credit to Mr. Workman though for acknowledging me on this topic, as several others who I posed similar questions to in the past either ignored my e-mails or wouldn’t return my calls. One might be inclined to believe now that, if silence and omission of facts equal guilt, then people are taking a safer “no contest” route.

Nobody has vocalized public outrage against unlicensed and stolen adult content, including celebrity sites, more so than Steve Easton, President of APIC. Several well-known celebrities already work closely with APIC, actively combating the illegal use of their likeness and name. Steve Easton says, “Based upon our experience, we have found the celebrities to be opposed to the morphing of their heads onto pornographic images and the suggestive captions accompanying their photos on adult sites.” He adds, “We feel that these actions show little professionalism on the part of Webmasters, and legal action should be taken.” Easton believes that it is wrong to infringe on anyone’s rights, especially for financial gain. This would probably hold true for John Q. Public, with the exception of the fact that most celebrities that end up on these sites already look great from the neck down, whereas for the rest of us, often times adult content would be an improvement over an average person’s form. Joking aside though, it’s obviously about the defamation of character here, and the lack of financial compensation for the unlicensed use of their likeness.

I won’t bullshit you though. Personally, I think a lot of the celebrity content out there is absolutely hilarious, but I see it strictly as satire as opposed to erotica. I laugh at the idea of many of the sexual situations as well as how obvious it is that the bodies have been “switched” on the celebrity being spoofed. But much like laughing at the misfortune of someone falling down a flight of stairs, I know as it stands it isn’t right. Does this make me part of the problem because I get enjoyment out of looking at doctored photos? Maybe so. But give me a document to sign stating that these sites are illegal, and should be removed from the Internet, and I’ll sign it. I’ll even take action to see that it is done for the good and welfare of our industry.

Eventually though, it probably will be accepted across the board that celebrity sites are illegal, and if at that time the ethical adult community doesn’t run you out of town, the government will. But until that day of reckoning happens, we here at YNOT will continue to not sell advertising to those companies that operate celebrity sites. You see, the burden of proof as it were here, doesn’t lie upon YNOT. By that I mean it’s not up to us to prove that celebrity sites are not legal, but rather it is up to the companies that promote them to prove that they ARE legal, before we can move forward with various business opportunities, and based upon existing law, we strongly believe that these sites are in fact illegal.

An interesting argument against celebrity sites as well – not that we need to kiss Hollywood’s ass, or bow down to them for anything, is that it is important that we as an industry align ourselves with them. Why? Because Hollywood is extremely influential, powerful, liberal, rich, and with great political ties. Piss them off enough times, and then you’ve got another group who hates the adult Internet and would like to see it done away with, with celebrity sites fueling their fire. They’ve had their hands full enough with censorship and battles with the likes of Joseph Lieberman, and always seem to be winning, so why work against them?

I know and am friends with quite a few people who do business with celebrity sites, and while I don’t condone what they are doing, I can’t blame them 100% either, considering too many power players who run celebrity content are still in full operation, and getting respect from the masses. Setting a positive example for the adult Internet at large is no easy task, and certainly not one that most people are willing to step up to. Besides, no one is busting them… yet. I just hope that when the shit hits the fan and the government decides to clean up our industry for us rather than doing it by ourselves, that ethical business practices will get the best of everyone for the long run before this inevitably happens.