Latest on MJJC

Hamid Moslehi posts pictures of Michael Jackson and his kids

Petrarose said:
Thanks Ivy so if you pay him & he gives you the photos, you can keep them in your house, but you cannot use them publicly?
Click to expand...

you can by giving the photographer credit and license fee for the use of the photos. Photographers aren't much different from a musician or an artist of any type. Photographs are considered to be artistic work.

It's no different than Michael being the owner / copyright holder of his songs. A radio station can play them but they need to pay royalties to Michael.

Of course if the photographer is "work for hire" and gives all the rights to the person that hired them, then that person can do whatever they want with the pictures.
 
I'm not sure if he took ALL the photos? Well most likely he had a rig at the top for MSG.

Well maybe that was indeed the case, like how John Landis sued Michael for Thriller funds. Well "Untold Story at Neverland" was the first instance that I saw the Arvizo tapes. It was shown during the trial but I don't think it was publicly released before, nobody uploaded it on YouTube for example.

The other Earth Song pic is epic but also terrifying, to think seconds later he would fall. It's no coincidence Michael called it the "Bridge of No Return".
 
I can actually see myself in the picture of MJ on the crane from the United We Stand concert! I wonder if there are any higher resolution images as I'd love to have a copy.

I had to find my ticket stub in order to know what seat I was in!
 
Loving these. Many thanks to Hamid Moslehi for sharing these for all the fans to see without a charge, what a big difference from so many others who are out to make as much money as they can from anything connected to Michael. Bless you.
 
is that necessary to post that much pictures in the first post? :doh:
my pc is near crash! slowed down. thats to much data loaded on this page.
 
The more pictures the better!! :)

Thanks for sharing.

MJ and his children - so sad they didn't get more time together. - But good MJ made the time they had magical !
 
Did Hamid take photos for Blanket? why didnt he post blankets pc? thank you IVY
 
Thanks Ivy and when the photographer then publish his photos, does he have to pay you money if your image is copyrighted?
 
ivy said:
mj6.jpg
Click to expand...

That is from Man in the Mirror performance! Great pics!
 
Frankyboy5 said:
The other Earth Song pic is epic but also terrifying, to think seconds later he would fall. It's no coincidence Michael called it the "Bridge of No Return".
Click to expand...

Actually that one's from the Korean show. You can tell because the vid screen is on.

Also, the Apollo pics are from a rehearsal cos Dave Navarro is wearing casual clothes, which is not what he worevon the night!
 
No I can't either, wasn't sure if it was because I am on a mobile device atm.
 
Message when you go to the website:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
 
^^What happened to those that were posted on the first page--can't you see them either?
 
DECEMBER 20--A California videographer whose home was raided last year as part of the Michael Jackson child molestation probe has sued the King of Pop for fraud and copyright infringement. Hamid Moslehi, 37, contends that he is owed more than $100,000 for his work as Jackson's private photographer (he shot video and still images of the singer, his family, and the Neverland estate). In a U.S. District Court complaint filed last week in Los Angeles, Moslehi also claims that Jackson and codefendant Marc Schaffel never compensated him for crucial video that was used in two videos produced by Team ***** (and which aired last year on Fox) as a rebuttal to Martin Bashir's damaging "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary. He is seeking in excess of $1 million for the use of that footage. Moslehi's camera was running while Bashir interviewed Jackson and lavished praise on the performer's parenting skills. Moslehi said that when he told Schaffel and other Jackson representatives that he had footage of Bashir fawning over Jackson and contradicting claims later made in his BBC documentary, he was hailed as a "hero." However, in his complaint, excerpts of which you'll find below, Moslehi alleged that he was never credited in the two Fox productions, nor has he received any royalties for the use of the Bashir footage. Last November, on the same day agents raided Neverland, Moslehi's suburban Los Angeles home was searched by investigators who reportedly left with various videotapes. Schaffel, who helped produce the Bashir rebuttal videos and himself sued Jackson last month, also had his home searched last November. (12 pages)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/hero-videographer-sues-jackson
 
Petrarose said:
I wonder if the kids have any copies of these photos of themselves? It is always a delight to see children's photos.

Question: If Hamid was being paid to take these photos, does that mean the photos belonged to Michael? Michael paid him to take pictures & video tape him, & yet the pictures and tapes belong to Hamid? How does this work?
Click to expand...

Well, that's unfortunately how it works with "creative" work. Totally unfair. He gets paid twice (or more) for the same thing.

He was filming lots and lots of stuff during the HIStory tour and on private visits... he once told me that all the stuff he shoots per day gets edited together to a shorter summary of what was filmed and that is presented to Michael. Don't know though what happens to the stuff that is not shown to Michael. I'm assuming he gets to keep all the other stuff.
 
Annita said:
DECEMBER 20--A California videographer whose home was raided last year as part of the Michael Jackson child molestation probe has sued the King of Pop for fraud and copyright infringement. Hamid Moslehi, 37, contends that he is owed more than $100,000 for his work as Jackson's private photographer (he shot video and still images of the singer, his family, and the Neverland estate). In a U.S. District Court complaint filed last week in Los Angeles, Moslehi also claims that Jackson and codefendant Marc Schaffel never compensated him for crucial video that was used in two videos produced by Team ***** (and which aired last year on Fox) as a rebuttal to Martin Bashir's damaging "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary. He is seeking in excess of $1 million for the use of that footage. Moslehi's camera was running while Bashir interviewed Jackson and lavished praise on the performer's parenting skills. Moslehi said that when he told Schaffel and other Jackson representatives that he had footage of Bashir fawning over Jackson and contradicting claims later made in his BBC documentary, he was hailed as a "hero." However, in his complaint, excerpts of which you'll find below, Moslehi alleged that he was never credited in the two Fox productions, nor has he received any royalties for the use of the Bashir footage. Last November, on the same day agents raided Neverland, Moslehi's suburban Los Angeles home was searched by investigators who reportedly left with various videotapes. Schaffel, who helped produce the Bashir rebuttal videos and himself sued Jackson last month, also had his home searched last November. (12 pages)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/hero-videographer-sues-jackson
Click to expand...

Was he ever paid the amount he was seeking? Interesting how when one person sues Michael about 5 others also come in & sue him too. It is like a domino effect.
 
qbee said:
I don't know the whole story but the Arvizo footage was released before 2009, it was shown at the trial in 2005. .. He already allowed them to use his Bashir footage which helped MJ a lot.
Click to expand...

No he didn't help mj. The arvizo footage was shot in feb 03 to counter the incredibly damaging accusations that mj had inappropriate relations with gavin. Hamid knew how important this footage was to mj and because he was still waiting to be paid for some past projects withheld it from being shown on fox tv. As it turned out it was absolutely vital as the arvizos went on that summer to claim kidnap,molestation etc etc. If that exculpatory footage had been shown to the public in feb 03 it would have gone a long way to neutralising their accusations and diminished their credibility when they went to the police. The footage was only showed at trial because hamid's office was raided by sneddon and the video seized as evidence. Partly as a result of seeing this video, sneddon was forced to alter his case against mj.

ivy said:
Normally a photographer is the copyright owner of the photos. Sometimes a photographer can be signed up as "work for hire" if that's the case the photographer gives all the rights to the person that hired them. In his lawsuit Moslehi said he wasn't "work for hire" and he is the copyright owner of the photos.
Click to expand...

I find it impossible to believe that mj, one of the most reclusive stars in the world who was fanatical about controlling his image and who was obsessive about protecting his children would allow some no-name videographer control of the copyright of these images of him at work and of his children. I just can't believe that mj would have employed hamid as anything other than a 'work for hire'. Have you link to that lawsuit, ivy? I know it was settled so we prob don't know what mj's side said but i find what hamid is saying is most unlikely to be true.

It's significant of the man's character that he sues mj at the most vulnerable time of his life, just before the child molestation trial. He's not only asking for payment on his past projects, but also payment for the bashir excerpts shown in the fox rebuttal doc, and decides to claim $1m for that even though he knows that he kept back the most vital interview that could have saved mj. I hope the estate finds some way of stopping his book, i can't believe that this guy should have the right to profit from those personal photos of mj's children.
 
Last edited:
Bonnie Blue said:
No he didn't help mj. The arvizo footage was shot in feb 03 to counter the incredibly damaging accusations that mj had inappropriate relations with gavin. Hamid knew how important this footage was to mj and because he was still waiting to be paid for some past projects withheld it from being shown on fox tv. As it turned out it was absolutely vital as the arvizos went on that summer to claim kidnap,molestation etc etc. If that exculpatory footage had been shown to the public in feb 03 it would have gone a long way to neutralising their accusations and diminished their credibility when they went to the police. The footage was only showed at trial because hamid's office was raided by sneddon and the video seized as evidence. Partly as a result of seeing this video, sneddon was forced to alter his case against mj.
Click to expand...

How do you want to know he withheld stuff?? He sued Michael in late '03. The rebuttal was produced in early '03, with his participation. He even is featured explaining why this footage exists. If he already was at a point of not being paid, being "angry" with Michael at that time, it is illogical to assume that he held back and refused to give them more footage but at the same time still participated in the documentary. The problem only arose later in the year, when he supposedly wasn't paid.


I find it impossible to believe that mj, one of the most reclusive stars in the world who was fanatical about controlling his image and who was obsessive about protecting his children would allow some no-name videographer control of the copyright of these images of him at work and of his children. I just can't believe that mj would have employed hamid as anything other than a 'work for hire'. Have you link to that lawsuit, ivy? I know it was settled so we prob don't know what mj's side said but i find what hamid is saying is most unlikely to be true.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with that though. Then again, the Bashir doc also was aired without MJ and his people seeing it first. So I do have to assume that contracts weren't quite clear on that issue.


It's significant of the man's character that he sues mj at the most vulnerable time of his life, just before the child molestation trial. He's not only asking for payment on his past projects, but also payment for the bashir excerpts shown in the fox rebuttal doc, and decides to claim $1m for that even though he knows that he kept back the most vital interview that could have saved mj. I hope the estate finds some way of stopping his book, i can't believe that this guy should have the right to profit from those personal photos of mj's children.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with that though. And I'm certainly not going to buy that book... I'd rather steal it.
 
Last edited:
Prometheus77 said:
How do you want to know he withheld stuff?? He sued Michael in late '03. The rebuttal was produced in early '03, with his participation. He even is featured explaining why this footage exists. If he already was at a point of not being paid, being "angry" with Michael at that time, it is illogical to assume that he held back and refused to give them more footage but at the same time still participated in the documentary. The problem only arose later in the year, when he supposedly wasn't paid.
Click to expand...
It's a fact that the arvizo rebuttal video was not shown on the fox documentary and that was down to hamid refusing to hand over his copy. Hamid allowed some of 'his' footage to be shown, eg the bashir excerpts, but withheld what would probably be the most important evidence that mj was innocent of anything untoward with gavin. It's tragic in retrospect.



I somewhat agree with that though. Then again, the Bashir doc also was aired without MJ and his people seeing it first. So I do have to assume that contracts weren't quite clear on that issue.
Click to expand...
There seems to be some controversy as to whether bashir ahd the right to do that - whatever, mj's lawyers failed him bigtime over that doc but in any case it's a different example as the tv company clearly had copyright. With hamid, i would need to know what his contract actually said - he was used alot, as you seem to be aware of, and i find it totally bizarre that mj would allow his personal videographer all the rights and copyrights over material he shoots of mj and his family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top