Anthony's Paid Fees For Video, Pictures Used In Interviews

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
celticthyme

celticthyme

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
894
Reaction score
747
http://www.wesh.com/news/21101165/detail.html

“Licensing Fees Bring Money To Anthony’s”
Networks Pay For Video, Pictures Used In Interviews
From WESH.COM: “A representative for the show said, "CBS News did not pay for any interviews relating to the Anthony story. Licensing footage is a standard industry practice done by television news programs to produce a visually complete story."
In other words, the network may have paid Cindy Anthony, who is Casey Anthony's mother, thousands of dollars for her pictures and video.”
 
Great article! I think "fair market value" for "photo licensing fees" (what a EUPHEMISM) should be a fixed amount and not dependent on the notoriety of the case.

And it sure shouldn't go over four figures. If CA wants that kind of money she can go peddle her lies to the Enquirer (who would probably expose them anyway).

Well at least LA has enough class not to pimp out his little murdered niece. Jeepers!
 
celticthyme said:
http://www.wesh.com/news/21101165/detail.html

“Licensing Fees Bring Money To Anthony’s”
Networks Pay For Video, Pictures Used In Interviews
From WESH.COM: “A representative for the show said, "CBS News did not pay for any interviews relating to the Anthony story. Licensing footage is a standard industry practice done by television news programs to produce a visually complete story."
In other words, the network may have paid Cindy Anthony, who is Casey Anthony's mother, thousands of dollars for her pictures and video.”
Click to expand...

To quote the murderer, "Surprise Surprise" (said during one of the jail visitations)
 
I understand the concept of licensing photos. BUT the prices paid in many cases are so out of proportion to the value of the photos themselves that is is just a way to get around "paying for interviews". I have a friend who is a professional photographer and he sells many photos via Corbis, a stock photography website. In this economy, advertisers are turning more and more to stock photos as a cost saving measure. Example, he sold a photo that was of a friend and her daughter to a cosmetic company. I think it was about 15-20K. HE IS A PROFESSIONAL. When people are selling poor quality film from a point and shoot, and receiving the same or more, it is clearly evidence of an inappropriate transaction. I for one would like to see some sort of legislation that prohibits payment to anyone for images related to a criminal case that exceed current market value of similar photos. I know it's unlikely to ever happen, but one can hope. Perhaps I should take some photos of shady characters in my town in anticipation of a future crime so I can cash in. Maybe news agencies could offer payment via a contribution to a non profit in that persons name. If someone should be making money, how about those who help victims?? JMO and a wee bit of a rant.
 
This explains why Cindy was so mad at momtective!!! It wasn't about Caylee-it was about MONEY!!!:snooty:
 
essies said:
This explains why Cindy was so mad at momtective!!! It wasn't about Caylee-it was about MONEY!!!:snooty:
Click to expand...

Oh for sure! And it probably made ABC feel like they had egg on their faces, too! CBS is about ready to fold financially; their ratings are in the toilet and maybe they are desperate. I can see why if they are paying for that kind of swill.

Sleutherontheside is so right about that - in this day and age, when a monkey can take pix with a phone, we certainly need to rethink Son of Sam tenets (which were more centered on publishing and not an instant "Kodak Moment" snapshot) and come up with something that includes profiting before the trial, not only for the defendant, but for family members that might be paying for a defense. This is also a motivation for idiot type defense attorneys to fight gag orders and drag their feet hoping that a lengthy delay will add to the profits. Talk about a conflict of interest!

At the very least, the ABA should take a stand and make it unethical for attorneys to engage in directly, or indirectly benefit from, tactics like this. It's disrespectful to the victim regardless of whether the defendant is ever cleared. And if the victim's family is also the defendant's family, it makes it even worse.

I need to get some hand sanitizer now. My fingers feel filthy even writing about this. Dante needs a new circle in Hell for this new level of loathsome.
 
cecybeans said:
Oh for sure! And it probably made ABC feel like they had egg on their faces, too! CBS is about ready to fold financially; their ratings are in the toilet and maybe they are desperate. I can see why if they are paying for that kind of swill.

Sleutherontheside is so right about that - in this day and age, when a monkey can take pix with a phone, we certainly need to rethink Son of Sam tenets (which were more centered on publishing and not an instant "Kodak Moment" snapshot) and come up with something that includes profiting before the trial, not only for the defendant, but for family members that might be paying for a defense. This is also a motivation for idiot type defense attorneys to fight gag orders and drag their feet hoping that a lengthy delay will add to the profits. Talk about a conflict of interest!

At the very least, the ABA should take a stand and make it unethical for attorneys to engage in directly, or indirectly benefit from, tactics like this. It's disrespectful to the victim regardless of whether the defendant is ever cleared. And if the victim's family is also the defendant's family, it makes it even worse.

I need to get some hand sanitizer now. My fingers feel filthy even writing about this. Dante needs a new circle in Hell for this new level of loathsome.
Click to expand...

BBM

A bit off topic but with all the cases regarding "sexting" and the law not having "caught up" with technology, situations like this really do beg for some updating to statutes. I know the process is lengthy and will be difficult, but until there is some action to stop or at the very least "derail" these media practices it will continue to breed the ugly monster that much media has become. I read a very good book "Mediated" that discusses the moral and social implications of media bias. FACINATING and unnerving at the same time. Our world is changing too quickly to react with legal consequences for certain behaviors. BUT, we have to get moving on it and soon. I see chaos in the near future and I don't like it.
 
sleutherontheside said:
BBM

A bit off topic but with all the cases regarding "sexting" and the law not having "caught up" with technology, situations like this really do beg for some updating to statutes. I know the process is lengthy and will be difficult, but until there is some action to stop or at the very least "derail" these media practices it will continue to breed the ugly monster that much media has become. I read a very good book "Mediated" that discusses the moral and social implications of media bias. FACINATING and unnerving at the same time. Our world is changing too quickly to react with legal consequences for certain behaviors. BUT, we have to get moving on it and soon. I see chaos in the near future and I don't like it.
Click to expand...

ITA! Even physicists realize that observing an experiment affects the outcome. Ever since the "New Journalism" put stories in the first person, inserting an observer into the circumstance itself, we've been in danger of having media interact and influence events. It's a huge ethical problem that has infected all areas of media. Editorializing is substitute for facts these days, and people believe anything they hear or see. And Warhol's "fifteen minutes of fame" seems to be a social constant these days, which fuels it even more.

Even if the world and technology is changing quickly - we need to get a handle on the potential impact of certain behaviors on others - whether in person or electronically - and start setting some legal precedents that can be used to formulate guidelines. Freedom of speech has never been license or there would be no parameters like libel or defamation.

As far as "sexting" goes, all I can say is that I'm glad my daughter is a mother herself and I don't have to personally think about it for awhile. On the other hand, there is all that brouhaha over the family that innocently took naked pix of their kids playing to WalMart unaware of their policy on "decency". It's hard to keep up with private policies that have great social impact - particularly when they are unpublished. It sure is a mess out there! (and thanks for the cathartic OT opportunity to get that off my mind!)
 
I'd like to see someone depose the ABC producer that was with the Anthony's at the Ritz Dec. 11th, Jim Lichtenstien and Geraldo!! Wonder if that's possible?:waitasec:
 
A comment... "Licensing fees" are used by the news programs as their way of separating themselves from "tabloid" news like the Enquirer - so they can say they don't pay for interviews - but we all know they do and I'm not as upset about them paying as I am about them trying to say they aren't. At least the "tabloids" admit that's how they get their stories - who is more reputable - the one who admits it or the one who hides it!

A question... Someone brought up son of sam laws which are supposed to prohibit the perp from profiting from the crime but wouldn't the A's relationship to the victim as well as the perp make them "exempt" from those laws? I mean, they couldn't be stopped from book deals or interviews or outright selling their story to the Enquirer by those laws since their connection is not only to the killer but to the victim as well - right?
 
Well let's put the licensing fees in perspective.
Here's what other notable parents of missing/murdered obtained as payment for photos of their dead children,
Mark Klaas- zero
Mark Lunsford-zero
Beth Holloway-zero
Joshua Duckett-zero
John Ramsay-zero
Ron Cummings- zero
Shall I go on?

Oh, of course, the Anthonys- at least $200K that we know of, but probably 5 times that is their goal.
 
Oh yea, those comments are brutal. I like the one that brought to light the fact that

CAYLEE is now financing the defense of the one who MURDERED HER.

That is so Wrong on every level. The Anthonys can't see that? They should rot.
 
ziggy said:
Oh yea, those comments are brutal. I like the one that brought to light the fact that

CAYLEE is now financing the defense of the one who MURDERED HER.

That is so Wrong on every level. The Anthonys can't see that? They should rot.
Click to expand...

Couldn't get that comments link to work
 
I believe this case has shown all of America that the Son of Sam laws need to be revamped.

Not only should the defendant not be able to acquire financial gains after a conviction the defendant and there family, lawyers, and anyone working on their behalf should not be able to profit other then standard fees for said services at any point after they have been arrested for said crime.

The money for those fees should come from the defendant or their immediate family.

Third parties should not be able to provide or filter finances to the defendant for legal fees and other fees associated with their defense.

Someone is behind the scenes financing Casey's defense in order to get rights to profits made from various media deals. (ABC, CBS, Geraldo, ect)

This case has shown the true greed in the media and all of the individuals profiting from this case should be penalized one way or another for their actions in this case.

All of these individuals/entities are profiting off the death of this poor innocent little girl (blood money). This to me is just as horrible as if these entities providing money to the A's actually killed Caylee themselves. Her blood and the injustice she is getting is on there hands as much as it is on Casey's imho.

I will say it's a different thing entirely to report on this story and be an advocate for the victim much like Kathi Belich and others have been. Compared to what we are seeing from the ones paying this blood money. My hats off to honest journalist who have proven not everyone in the media is profiteers no matter what the moral cost.
 
Exactly!,
No MooooooooooLaaaaa = PUBLIC DEFENDER
I do think it is sooo important in this case, where Caylee HAS NOT A SOUL in her family fighting for her, that we try to keep a line on the Money Trail ... I think it is long and deep . .

Do we know yet if all of the attorneys for the Defense are doing this Gratis, hoping to rake in after the trial is over, win, lose or draw?
If AL gets her LWOP . . she wins!
 
marspiter said:
...
The money for those fees should come from the defendant or their immediate family.

Third parties should not be able to provide or filter finances to the defendant for legal fees and other fees associated with their defense.
....
Click to expand...

respectfully snipped & bolded by me

Marspiter,

I understand your frustration and I agree these laws should be revisited but I would not want to see it go so far that I could not help a friend pay for an a lawyer just because I wasn't family. And for that matter, if I were accused of a crime (of which I'd be innocent - of course) I wouldn't want others restricted from helping me if they chose to do so. Yes, a case like this where it is so clearly abused makes us crazy and we want to stop the madness, and the laws need to be strengthened - but (to use a phrase my mother did) we should not cut off our nose to spite our faces.
 
essies said:
http://www.wesh.com/video/21102498/index.html
This is video of last night's (9/23/09) broadcast! Very interesting info came from Lee's former lawyer T. Luca!:waitasec:
Click to expand...

Thank goodness that Mr. Luca let this little gem out of the bag, otherwise we wouldn't have known yet this admission of CA. (We all knew it, but to have her admit it under oath, is priceless.) I know Morgan, Mitnick and Jesse and Amy's lawyers are just loving this! This is the answer for everyone who keeps asking why sue them civilly, they are in bankruptcy.......not for long, they plan to make a fortune off this story. What was interesting is that Luca claimed it came as a surprise to Lee (I doubt that, after hearing Tracy nd Rob's accounts Lee knows if not dictates what goes on). For what it is worth, I do admire that he hasn't sold his story, I trust he has been offered huge, life changing amounts of money to do so. I know he will eventually, I just hope he at least waits until the trial ends. I am sure Andrea is screaming at the screen just shoot me! There is going to be a lot of hay made with this by the DA during the trial while they are impeaching Cindy. She would be fun to cross examine, she is so easily agitated and she so very very many changing stories.
 
sleutherontheside said:
I understand the concept of licensing photos. BUT the prices paid in many cases are so out of proportion to the value of the photos themselves that is is just a way to get around "paying for interviews". I have a friend who is a professional photographer and he sells many photos via Corbis, a stock photography website. In this economy, advertisers are turning more and more to stock photos as a cost saving measure. Example, he sold a photo that was of a friend and her daughter to a cosmetic company. I think it was about 15-20K. HE IS A PROFESSIONAL. When people are selling poor quality film from a point and shoot, and receiving the same or more, it is clearly evidence of an inappropriate transaction. I for one would like to see some sort of legislation that prohibits payment to anyone for images related to a criminal case that exceed current market value of similar photos. I know it's unlikely to ever happen, but one can hope. Perhaps I should take some photos of shady characters in my town in anticipation of a future crime so I can cash in. Maybe news agencies could offer payment via a contribution to a non profit in that persons name. If someone should be making money, how about those who help victims?? JMO and a wee bit of a rant.
Click to expand...

I don't think your post is a rant. Instead, sounds like something folks should be contacting their congresspeople about, imo. I've repeatedly written about my concerns of "copycats" thinking they'll get in on that media gravy train and the possible harm to other children. I think it's time to write again. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 266 more.
Total: 4,305 (members: 267, guests: 4,038)

Online statistics

Members online
267
Guests online
4,038
Total visitors
4,305
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,552
Messages
17,954,700
Members
228,531
Latest member
OwlEyes
Back
Top