Predictably enough, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s legal team have sent out notices to several blogs to pull the baby shower pictures that capture their clients in private moments. The digital card with the photos was stolen, they say. They never sent notice to us, but TMZ is a higher-profile site and was threatened with a lawsuit:
This letter is to provide you with notice that the Stolen Photos are copyright protected, to which my clients own right and title thereto. Any unauthorized publication, reproduction or dissemination of the Stolen Photos constitutes an infringement of my clients’ copyrights in violation of the U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code Section 101, et seq., and exposes you, and anyone else acting in concert with you, to civil liability, damages, injunctive relief and reimbursement of all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by my clients in connection with any copyright infringement action. Furthermore, if any monies are paid for the purchase of the Stolen Photos, you will be engaged in the purchase of stolen property.
In addition, under the circumstances that the Stolen Photos were taken, namely, at private and personal events on private property, my clients had a reasonable expectation of enjoying total privacy. The publication of the photos would therefore constitute a unlawful invasion and violation of my clients’ right of privacy and would also be an unauthorized commercial appropriation of their names, likenesses and personas.
Anyone who publishes, disseminates, displays or otherwise exploits the Stolen Photos will be liable for substantial compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. If you publish or disseminate and of the Stolen Photos, our clients will take further legal action to protect their rights, including by the filing of a lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages, statutory damages for copyright violations, and attorneys’ fees.
We’ll take ’em down shortly, but as much as people like Angelina and Brad – they’re too heavy handed with legal and security tactics. This is the cost of fame. If you don’t like it, then don’t try to fight it with all your might and just stop making movies. You could be gracious about it and play it up for what it’s worth, but no, you have to fight every picture tooth and nail.
I understand not wanting someone to publish all 450 pictures, but making a huge fuss and threatening bloggers for publishing three of the pictures is ridiculous.
It’s like the music industry acting all indignant that people are copying digital music. It’s the nature of the medium, and that’s how these things work. Digital files spread – get over it, and use it to your advantage.
Angelina decided to close down an entire country to give birth. What gives her that right? Namibia’s National Society for Human Rights claims that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are acting like “Colonial Overlords” and that they have no right to use an entire government to shield themselves from the paparrazi. The NSHR said “To shut down a national border so she can give birth in peace is a massive abuse of power.”
To shut down a bunch of websites so people can’t see your cute baby shower pictures is also a massive abuse of power. It’s not on the same scale, but they’re abusive. Fans made them popular and fans pay for their luxurious lifestyle. Just because they do some charity work doesn’t mean that they don’t have to play the game.
they have very little control over what happens to them as far as public exposure anyway–according to a recent phone interview with Brad (Newsweek), at time of the interview the Jolie-Pitts had 40 paparazzis by the gate, two boats in the water with the lenses on them and a helicopter above the house (the sound of which made it impossible to talk). Not to mention some guy climbing over a fence at their son’s daycare. I’m not surprised they’re trying to control the flow of it, particularly as the photos here were not taken in public or meant for public consumption. If someone took one of my private photos and decided to post it over the internet, I’d threaten to sue just the same. The language in the letter is standard legal language, nothing unusual. Given the circumstances, I’m not surprised they decided to go to Namibia–they would have been prisonners in their own house had they stayed home. I can only imagine the circus on the way to the hospital. If you make a precendent of allowing 3 photos to be published, who’s going to stop 450? What would be the basis of that then? Sure they manipulate the media to their advantage but their tactics are nothing unusual or heavy handed, imo. Look at Cruise-he sues everyone for even looking at him wrong. Sweet Reese sues a tabloid for gossiping that she’s pregnant. Stuff like that happens and it’s not just Brangelina that’s doing it. The stuff about Namibia–you report just part of the story. Namibian gov. and people I’ve seen interviewed on TV were more than pleased about A & B bringing attention to the country. They treated them with too much reverence imo, but that was their choice. Did they shut down the border or the government did it to protect them and make them happy? Besides, the restrictions, as far as I know, were for paparazzis, not regular people. Again, an overkill imo, but it’s not like Brangelina demanded it.
Hi Millie,
You make a good point because letting 3 private pictures out may be too many if there are 450 more to come. We don’t agree about Brangelina, and while I don’t totally hate them, my opinion is souring – and it’s not just this incident, it also has to do with their security force following, threatening, and beating up people. They have to be emboldened somehow, and I doubt they’re just following Mickey’s orders because it has to come from their employers. Kate and Tom managed to get to the hospital and back without getting harassed. (If they even did that and it’s not just a fairytale.) Brangelina does deal with a lot from the paparrazi, but taking over an entire nation is too much.
Today I am reporting that part of the story because that is how I feel after reading the legal threats and thinking too hard about their brutish bodyguards. The Namibiam government *was* grateful, and it was nice of them to do a press conference afterwards. I do think that Angelina demanded those restrictions – she at least expected them, and the fate of Namibia’s tourist industry totally depended on pleasing her. Not everyone thinks she helped Namibia. I take legal threats differently and they seem more ominous to me because I’m not in that profession and don’t have a good grasp of it. It just seems threatening to me, and it has a chilling effect on people. I did mean what I said about publicity and private moments being the price of fame. It’s part of their role as public personalities. Brangelina seems to welcome publicity – as long as it’s on their terms.
I don’t think it’s ok for Reese to sue the tabloids, and Cruise didn’t sue over reports that he was having trouble with Katie – he just threatened to. I think that he realized he wouldn’t have a case. He probably sued over a lot of other stuff, and didn’t he sue over reports that he had a gay affair?
Anyway you bring up a lot of good points, and I agree with some of what you’re saying. How far should Brangelina be able to go to keep things private? Couldn’t they handle this whole situation in a way that’s much more media-savvy and affords them some privacy without scaring people? Or is this just a Catch-22 for them?
Angie seems to want human rights for some and not others (like the naughty, nasty paparazzi) A president changing the law to accommodate one family is a disgusting abuse of power, one that for all Angies public pontificating, the public would expect her to condemn, but she didn’t. The images and reports coming out of Namibia in the weeks leading to the birth, whether accurate or not, showed them basking in their priviliged status. The photo’s with Anne Curry with little children running around them and Angelina munificently dispensing smiles and cuddles turned my stomach. Contrast this with with the naked aggresion their henchmen use when they are opposed. Of course they have the right not to be criminally harrassed (vis: Mad at school) but these celebrity superstars are not in Namibia now, no laws are going to to be changed to accomodate them.
Princess Diana used her celebrity to the nth degree to squeeze out every penny she could for her charities but did it with dignity and reserve. She didn’t shout to the world how much she gives away. I wish the’d both go back to Namibia, crown themselves Emperor and Empress and stay there! just my opinion
The real question is: WHO is this attoney representing???
Because, you see, legally it’s the person who PRESSED THE SHUTTER on the camera who is the rightful copyright owner of these images. Brad and Angie are not the copyright holders, even if it was their camera. It doesn’t matter whose camera it is. It doesn’t matter who the CF card belongs to. It also doesn’t matter who the subject is.
The copyright holder has the right to sell the image for EDITORIAL use (not commercial use) without asking for permission from Angie and Brad. So, whoever held the camera and snapped the shots, is perfectly within his/her rights to sell the pix to a newspaper/magazine/news gathering website.
I’m a professional photographer and people think that just because they are the subject in the photo, they have a right to say no to publication. That is not true. You can never object to people selling your image during the purpose of “news gathering”. You can only object to people selling it for commercial use (ads, etc.)
Chrissie,
What if the photo’s were a gift to Brangelina? How can some-one prove it was their finger on the shutter for a certain pic if say the camera was passed around ? Interesting.
Chrissie,
Sorry another thought; you seem to be saying that an image cannot be gifted. Is that true?
why are they having a baby shower? they are so rich, they dont need one!