SP tidbit

[youkeepmewaiting]

how many other singers would cause such a stir after being photographed in a tux? 250 replies and over 6000 views, amazing

[CatEyes]

Well this has been entertaining.


Now, if he starts taking legal action to remove the Journey/SP boots and music vids from yootoob, be forewarned I will most definitely have a very heartfelt and very passionate hissy fit.

and don't forget that stronly worded letter!!!

[Marabelle]

I think that he probably had them taken down in deference to the bride. The spotlight should be on her; all this hubbub about him being there and how he looked was probably annoying to her and then a 9 page swooning thread kind of turns the wedding into a celebration for a man wearing a tux instead of a marriage to the man she loves. I think it just shows how much class he has to consider her feeling and how she'd like her wedding photos to be viewed.

[sindee67]

It's Mr. Perry's PEROGATIVE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgnvZ5OYilk

[Ftloperry]

I know we all loved seeing the recent pictures of Steve and those pictures were very complimentary to Steve but we need to remember that this was not a public event for all the world to see....this was a private wedding of very close friends of Steve where he was asked to be the best man. Copyright or not this was a private event and should have remained so.

[Shadowsong]

It would seem a professional wedding planner site would be more professional
but heck

I LOVED those pics!

[*Laura]

An explanation regarding the removal of the pictures...From Jill Smith,the owner of the site:

we received a cease and desist letter from steve perry's attorney. mr perry says he did not agree to have his name and likeness used in the promotion of our site. our intention was not to promote our site but to add relavant news to our site. we immediately complied with his request. but stay tuned, the photographer that took the photos owns the copyrights to the images so there may be a fight in terms of how he can use them.

[Ms_M]

He does keep those C&D's handy....

[perrylover52]

An explanation regarding the removal of the pictures...From Jill Smith,the owner of the site:

we received a cease and desist letter from steve perry's attorney. mr perry says he did not agree to have his name and likeness used in the promotion of our site. our intention was not to promote our site but to add relavant news to our site. we immediately complied with his request. but stay tuned, the photographer that took the photos owns the copyrights to the images so there may be a fight in terms of how he can use them.

This doesn't surprise me. I had talked with a professional photographer and was told that the negatives were his and that he owns the copyrights to the pictures for at least 75 years. That's why you can't just go to Staples and make copies of pictures because Staples could get sued. Personally, a letter to Jill just asking her to remove the pictures first would have been better. But the fact that he went for a C&D letter first. Has me shaking my head and wondering why the heavy hand.

[PROPERRY]

An explanation regarding the removal of the pictures...From Jill Smith,the owner of the site:

we received a cease and desist letter from steve perry's attorney. mr perry says he did not agree to have his name and likeness used in the promotion of our site. our intention was not to promote our site but to add relavant news to our site. we immediately complied with his request. but stay tuned, the photographer that took the photos owns the copyrights to the images so there may be a fight in terms of how he can use them.

This doesn't surprise me. I had talked with a professional photographer and was told that the negatives were his and that he owns the copyrights to the pictures for at least 75 years. That's why you can't just go to Staples and make copies of pictures because Staples could get sued. Personally, a letter to Jill just asking her to remove the pictures first would have been better. But the fact that he went for a C&D letter first. Has me shaking my head and wondering why the heavy hand.

The way I see it, regardless of who owns what , the subject of the pictures were Perry, and he doesn't want them posted publicly, so I feel the owner of the website should just leave it alone out respect for Perry's wishes and privacy.

[Rick]

It's the same thing with magazines posting celebrity pictures. The subject doesn't usually have any control over it unless it's libel or slander.

[perrylover52]

It's the same thing with magazines posting celebrity pictures. The subject doesn't usually have any control over it unless it's libel or slander.

So very true.

[Shadowsong]

An explanation regarding the removal of the pictures...From Jill Smith,the owner of the site:

we received a cease and desist letter from steve perry's attorney. mr perry says he did not agree to have his name and likeness used in the promotion of our site. our intention was not to promote our site but to add relavant news to our site. we immediately complied with his request. but stay tuned, the photographer that took the photos owns the copyrights to the images so there may be a fight in terms of how he can use them.

Question is was the phographer a guest or hired to take pictures for the event?
Did she say "Fight"

In either case it's sounding more like paparazzi than a professional photographer.
If you get hired to take pictures for an event such as a wedding it would be considered unethical to be reproducing them for your own purpose.
If this photographer plans to make a good portion of his income out of taking wedding pictures
it may not be in his best interest to get a reputation for exploiting his clients & their guests
but then again being an artist is all about "you" & anyway ethics has really nothing to do with the law.



PS: Note to Jill Smith... Relevant is mispelled...

[ohsherrie]

anyway ethics has really nothing to do with the law.

And there ya go.

Look at it this way folks. Suppose some complete lunatic used that site's services for no other reason than because of Steve's picture being there. (Believe me, there are people who would.) Then let's say something went wrong with the arrangements for the wedding and the day was a disaster. Now we have a lunatic pissed off at Steve because she only used the services of that site because his picture was on there, and now she's gonna sue his ass because her wedding was ruined.

Steve's not stupid people, and he's not mean. He protects himself legally for a reason.

[larryfromnextdoor]

i dont see how that garbage that TMZ puts up is not sued over night and day..

[TigerBite]

It's the same thing with magazines posting celebrity pictures. The subject doesn't usually have any control over it unless it's libel or slander.

I thought I would be bored with this topic, but I am having trouble with SP's logic:
Example: I show horses. I get my photo taken by a professional photog. They OWN the images. I don't.
So, they post my photo in a equine sport mag. Nothing I can do about it unless it is derogatory toward me. which most pros are beyond that anyway.
Same with ANY celeb. Unless it is slanderous or the like, what can they do if the photo has a copywrite?
SP's friends knew the likelihood that any photos taken at their wedding could be published whether it be of them or their guests.
I think SP is overreacting to the whole thing. I am sure there are other matters in his life that need attention more than something this petty.

[ohsherrie]

Same with ANY celeb.

Not really.

Steve didn't take any action that I know of to stop the use of the pics taken at the premiers of Monster or those taken surrounding the World Series. I'm guessing that the reason he didn't is because those were CELEB pics and therefore available for use by the media.

The wedding of a friend and a website using the pics to promote its services aren't quite the same.

[johnny15]

I also emailed them. Jill SMith emailed back stating the photographer was very sorry and had no idea that it would be such a big deal. He's going to contact the bride to see if SP would be willing to let the photographer use some of the pics on his actual website. Who knows, maybe SP would allow this?

I did some checking about copyright law and such. It's so vague and comes down to who has more money to throw lawyers at it and such. If the bride signed a contract that allows all copyright to stay with the photographer, that still does not give him the right to use images of a celebrity (name and likeness) without his permission. Moreover, I doubt the photographer has lawyers at the ready like SP does. If the photographer is established and reputable, he/she probably doesn't need or want the hassle of all this.

[Perrydise]

The pics were excellent, and now they are gone. I wonder how much money Your Bridal Planner, bookings and what not, made off the time his face was on their site?

Steve, as we all do, has the right to protect himself and his image.

[perrylover52]

The pics were excellent, and now they are gone. I wonder how much money Your Bridal Planner, bookings and what not, made off the time his face was on their site?

Steve, as we all do, has the right to protect himself and his image.

Since I'm never getting married the site will never make a dime off of me. That's for sure. Besides that, I'm from Wisconsin, I'll use companies from Wisconsin, not from California if I'd ever do something like that. At the age of 55 those days of marriage are over with anyway.

[larryfromnextdoor]

days of marriage are over with anyway.

marriage is for kids..not us old folks

[johnny15]

The pics were excellent, and now they are gone. I wonder how much money Your Bridal Planner, bookings and what not, made off the time his face was on their site?

Steve, as we all do, has the right to protect himself and his image.

I'm using the site to plan my wedding. They don't sell anything. People getting married use the site for free advice and to find vendors in their area. I don't see how any financial gain could have been had by placing the pics. I believe them when they say they were only reporting wedding related news. However, I do agree with SP that he should be able to decide if his name/likeness can be used on the site.

[youkeepmewaiting]

The pics were excellent, and now they are gone. I wonder how much money Your Bridal Planner, bookings and what not, made off the time his face was on their site?

Steve, as we all do, has the right to protect himself and his image.

I'm using the site to plan my wedding. They don't sell anything. People getting married use the site for free advice and to find vendors in their area. I don't see how any financial gain could have been had by placing the pics. I believe them when they say they were only reporting wedding related news. However, I do agree with SP that he should be able to decide if his name/likeness can be used on the site.

Maybe makes money from eveyrtime someone acceses the site?

[tammy]

Well, I can see how SP or any celebrity would want to protect his image from being used on a website/business - it would look like he was endorsing something when he wasn't...obviously he was not consulted first about the pics being posted there, which he should have been. (but, it was nice while it lasted)

[bluejeangirl76]

Same with ANY celeb.

Not really.

Steve didn't take any action that I know of to stop the use of the pics taken at the premiers of Monster or those taken surrounding the World Series. I'm guessing that the reason he didn't is because those were CELEB pics and therefore available for use by the media.

The wedding of a friend and a website using the pics to promote its services aren't quite the same.

Well, there's that, plus the fact that it wasn't JUST the pics. That's what everyone keeps forgetting here. Does he have control over those pics and what happens with them? No, of course not... not unless he took them which clearly he didn't.

But that site put the pics up and then underneath them posted info about what he was doing there and talked about his interaction with the guests and went so far as to discuss how he may have felt about drawing attention. Unless he gave a direct statement to someone associated with that site, that was a little presumptous to post, no? And they didn't just share it on a news page or gallery page - they created a page called "steveperry.html". That's not crossing a line? They might as well have followed him to the bathroom and announced what color boxers he was wearing. I think I'd have been annoyed too if if pics and a description of my evening were posted without my okay.

- and by the way, the quote from the site owner that Laura posted where the owner claims the site was simply posting relevant news... how exactly is Steve Perry attending a wedding "relevant" to anything? (and how is it "news"?)

[perryfaithful]

Was surprised it lasted as long as it did, but sure did enjoy the pictures, great shots!! Believing they were short lived on line, why didn't I try to save them? Must be Xmas madness. Did anyone?

[Playitloudforme]

While I agree that the site should not have used Perry's picture without his permission... the cease & desist letter was overboard. I mean, c'mon... one letter would have been enough.

I'm a Perry fan, through and through...but this disappoints the shit outta me. There's that good ol' christmas spirit in action.

[TRAGChick]

While I agree that the site should not have used Perry's picture without his permission... the cease & desist letter was overboard. I mean, c'mon... one letter would have been enough.

I'm a Perry fan, through and through...but this disappoints the shit outta me. There's that good ol' christmas spirit in action.

Yup....

I can understand that this was NOT a "Movie Premiere" - or whatever - where he KNEW that his pics were gonna be plastered all over the place...

But please....

Over 7,500 hits and NINE PAGES???

If ANYthing, he should be happily surprised ~ and flattered ~ that there's STILL INTEREST in him.

[Ms_M]

While I agree that the site should not have used Perry's picture without his permission... the cease & desist letter was overboard. I mean, c'mon... one letter would have been enough.

I'm a Perry fan, through and through...but this disappoints the shit outta me. There's that good ol' christmas spirit in action.

Yea, a C&D seemed a little over the top for a first action. I'm sure a nice letter would've done just fine. Even a STRONGLY worded letter on legal letterhead. He really must have those C&Ds and signature rubber stamp handy.

[annie89509]

I usually avoid making comments on topics that these (I haven't made a post in any of these 9 pages), but since this thread just won't go away, I'll put my 2 cents in, like everyone else seemed to have.

I will defend and preserve SP's honor, music and legacy like nobody's business. And we do know he is a private person. But there is a lot of us that just want to see and hear what he might be up to once in a while, what's wrong with that? No, we are not stalkers, nut cases, or don't have a life. We are just devoted fans very interested in Steve Perry.

A simple "Greetings, I'm doing fine" would be nice. But this entire year of deftly silence is disheartening. Were we spoiled from the previous years' annual Birthday message, holiday greeting, and Q&A's?

Are the Perry Detractors right when they say the only time we hear from SP is when he has something to sell?