Some people take their music seriously. So seriously, they’re willing to take the potential next President of the United States to court!
The singer-songwriter sued McCain and the Ohio and national Republican committees in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Thursday, accusing them of using his song “Running on Empty” without his permission.
The lawsuit claims the song’s use was an infringement of his copyright and will lead people to conclude he endorses McCain. The suit says Browne is a lifelong liberal who is as well-known for his music as for being “an advocate for social and environmental justice.”
The advertisement mocks Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s contention that if U.S. drivers got regular tuneups and drove on properly inflated tires, they could save the same amount of oil that would be gained by offshore drilling. According to the suit, “Running on Empty” plays in the background of the ad criticizing the remarks.
Robert Bennett, chairman of the Ohio party, said the ad was pulled when Browne objected. He called the lawsuit a “big to-do about nothing.”
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers disavowed the ad, saying it wasn’t a product of the Republican presidential candidate’s campaign.
Browne’s lawsuit contends the Ohio Republican party released the ad on behalf of McCain and the RNC. The RNC did not return a phone call seeking comment.
The suit notes that other musicians, including ABBA and John Cougar Mellencamp, have asked McCain to stop using their work.
Browne’s attorney, Lawrence Iser, called the ad’s use of the song “reprehensible.”
The 59-year-old singer claims his reputation has already been damaged and is seeking more than $75,000 in damages.
Browne released “Running on Empty” — the song and an album by the same name — in 1977. According to the lawsuit, the album has sold more than 7 million copies.
Browne’s financial success has aided Democratic candidates over the years. Campaign finance records show he contributed $2,300 to Obama’s presidential campaign last year and $2,000 to the Illinois senator’s campaign coffers in 2004.
John McCain is losing my respect rapidly. First all of his ads are geared towards “bashing the competition”, instead of pushing his own goals and merits — now he’s blatantly using copyrighted songs without the artists permission. Shame on you!
source: Jackson Browne sues McCain, RNC over song in ad [yahoo news]
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but not when royalties are at stake.
The Black Crowes have filed a copyright-infringement suit against country star Gretchen Wilson, accusing the self-dubbed Redneck Woman of ripping off parts of their 1991 hit “Jealous Again” on her new single, “Work Hard, Play Harder.”
It may only be rock ‘n’ roll, but it has the brothers Robinson mad enough to file suit not only against Wilson, but against Wilson’s label, Sony BMG, the publishing company J Money Music and TNT, which is using Wilson’s song in a promotion for the new season of Saving Grace.
[original]
[copy]
So far, Chris and Rich Robinson as well as Wilson have personally refrained from commenting on the similarities between the songs. But the Black Crowes’ longtime manager is chiming in with his two cents.
“We find the musical verses of Wilson’s song to be such an obvious example of copyright infringement that I expect all parties to reach a relatively quick resolution to avoid legalization.”
On the bright side, should the Crowes’ claims hold in court, at the very least it would show that the band’s peers, if not necessarily their critics, actually do listen to their music all the way through.
source: Black Crowes Caw Out Gretchen Wilson for Alleged Song Stealing [e! online]
Dismissing privacy concerns, a federal judge overseeing a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against YouTube has ordered the popular online video-sharing service to disclose who watches which video clips and when.
A judge ordered YouTube to produce data on which of its videos get viewed most often and by whom.
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton authorized full access to the YouTube logs after Viacom Inc. and other copyright holders argued that they needed the data to show whether their copyright-protected videos are more heavily watched than amateur clips.
The data would not be publicly released but disclosed only to the plaintiffs, and it would include less specific identifiers than a user’s real name or e-mail address.
Lawyers for Google Inc., which owns YouTube, said producing 12 terabytes of data — equivalent to the text of roughly 12 million books — would be expensive, time-consuming and a threat to users’ privacy.
The database includes information on when each video gets played, which can be used to determine how often a clip is viewed. Attached to each entry is each viewer’s unique login ID and the Internet Protocol, or IP, address for that viewer’s computer.
Stanton ruled this week that the plaintiffs had a legitimate need for the information and that the privacy concerns are speculative.
Stanton rejected a request from the plaintiffs for Google to disclose the source code — the technical secret sauce — powering its market-leading search engine, saying there’s no evidence Google manipulated its search algorithms to treat copyright-infringing videos differently.
The court has yet to rule on Google’s requests to question comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Viacom’s Comedy Central.
source: YouTube ordered to reveal its viewers [cnn]
Viacom filed $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube’s ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said.
Google’s lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.’s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to “an explosion of copyright infringement” by YouTube and others.
The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”
In papers submitted to a judge late Friday, Google said YouTube “goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works.”
It said that by seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom “threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression.”
Google said YouTube was faithful to the requirements of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, saying the federal law was intended to protect companies like YouTube as long as they responded properly to content owners’ claims of infringement.
On that score, Viacom says Google has set a terrible example.
In a rewritten lawsuit filed last month, Viacom said YouTube consistently allows unauthorized copies of popular television programming and movies to be posted on its Web site and viewed tens of thousands of times.
Viacom said it had identified more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted programming — including “SpongeBob SquarePants,” “South Park” and “MTV Unplugged” episodes and the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” — that had been viewed “an astounding 1.5 billion times.”
The company said its count of unauthorized clips represents only a fraction of the content on YouTube that violates its copyrights.
It said Google and YouTube had done “little or nothing” to stop infringement.
“To the contrary, the availability on the YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of plaintiffs and others is the cornerstone of defendants’ business plan,” Viacom said.
Frankly, I think it’s all blown out of proportion. Most of what is perceived as copyright infringement could be simply chalked up to promotion. They should be glad we care enough.
source: YouTube suit called threat to online communication [yahoo news]
Catherine Bosley is nude as hell and she’s not going to take it any more!
A Cleveland television news reporter has filed a lawsuit against Hustler magazine for publishing nude photos of her hamming it up during a 2003 wet T-shirt contest.
Catherine Bosley, of WOIO Channel 19, is suing the pornographic magazine and its parent company, LFP Inc., for copyright infringement.
Bosley, in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Cleveland, said she legally owns the images, which the magazine published in a February 2006 issue.
Bosley’s decision to bare all during a Florida bar’s wet T-shirt event has caused more than one headache for the news woman. The shenanigans happened while she was vacationing with her husband in Key West, Fla.
Video of the contest spread on the Internet, forcing Bosley to quit her anchor job at Youngstown’s WKBN Channel 27.
Bosley turned to federal court to try to block the spread of the images. In 2004, Bosley testified she had trouble finding work shortly after the Internet exposure. She has been with WOIO since 2005. In her lawsuit, Bosley said she won ownership of the photos and video and copyrighted the material in 2004.
Bosley has requested $150,000 for each instance of copyright infringement and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of at least $1 million.
A lawyer for LFP Inc. told the Associated Press that the magazine would seek a dismissal and that the publication of the photo in a news story is protected by the First Amendment.
You’d think that nude photos of a public figure taken in a public forum would be fair use for news commentary. Not so much, probably, for a jack-off magazine.
Jerry Seinfeld and his wife, Jessica, were sued yesterday for defamation and copyright infringement over Jessica’s cookbook called, “Deceptively Delicious“.
Jessica has already denied the accusations from another cookbook author, Missy Chase Lapine, that she copied her recipes. Missy’s book came out a few months before and had several of the same recipes.
Attorneys for Missy Chase Lapine, author of “The Sneaky Chef,” today filed a lawsuit against Jessica Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld for copyright and trademark infringement and defamation in Federal District Court in New York.
The lawsuit alleges that Jessica Seinfeld blatantly plagiarized Ms. Lapine’s book, “The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids’ Favorite Meals,” a critically-acclaimed and commercially successful cookbook with an innovative approach to improving children’s eating habits.
“The Sneaky Chef” shows parents how to, among other things, camouflage purees of carefully selected fruits and vegetables as ingredients in less healthy foods that kids like, such as cheeseburgers, pizza and brownies.
Running Press Books, an imprint of Perseus Books, published “The Sneaky Chef” in April, 2007, generating positive reviews and quickly becoming a New York Times bestseller.
Six months later, in October, 2007, Jessica Seinfeld released a substantially similar book, “Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Getting Your Kids Eating Good Food.”
Prior to the publication of “Deceptively Delicious,” Ms. Lapine saw promotional material and alerted her publisher to the striking similarities between the two books, including cover art, subtitles, structure, design and overall look and feel. Running Press, seeking to prevent any violation of Ms. Lapine’s rights, brought the striking similarities to the attention of Jessica Seinfeld’s publisher.
Jessica Seinfeld’s publisher, which had earlier reviewed and passed up a book proposal by Ms. Lapine, nonetheless published the book with only insignificant changes. The lawsuit lists detailed examples of identical language in the two books.
At the same time, Jerry Seinfeld went on a malicious campaign against Ms. Lapine, publicly calling her a “nut job” and “hysterical.” On an appearance on ‘Late Show with David Letterman’ in October 2007, Mr. Seinfeld called Ms. Lapine a “wacko” who had been “waiting in the woodwork” for a chance to attack the Seinfelds. He also asserted, incorrectly, that the two books came out “at the same time.” The lawsuit cites several examples of defamatory language by Mr. Seinfeld, apparently intended to intimidate Ms. Lapine.
“This action for copyright and trademark infringement and defamation arises from conduct that gives new meaning to the terms ‘arrogance’ and ‘greed,’” states the lawsuit.
Seinfeld is the embodiment of arrogant entitlement. It’s totally outrageous the way he casually links the lady who is suing him and his wife with men who have assassinated presidents. He might have a lot of money but he’s got no class.
source: Cookbook Author Sues Jessica and Jerry Seinfeld for Copyright Infringement and Defamation [reuters]
A slew of lawsuits involving a celebrity have surfaced this week. Our justice system will be working overtime as the complaints of the high powered suing or being sued.
Dennis Quaid Suing Heparin Makers
After he and his wife Kimberly Buffington welcomed their newborn twins to the world the were overdosed with a blood thinner. Zoe Grace and Thomas Boone were almost killed by a lethal amount of Heparin being administered. The babies were given adult sized doses from a 10,000 unit vial two times before they started to bleed out. They were originally set to receive just 10 units. A technician at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles put the wrong vials in the storage cabinet used for infants.
Three other infants were killed from the same overdose in Indiana this year. Six other babies and two adult patients were also overdosed since 2001. The makers of Heparin, Baxter Healthcare issued a warning memo nearly a year ago of the overdosing. Cedars-Sinai had gotten the memo.
So why is Dennis suing Baxter Healthcare instead of the hospital? The suit sites poor labeling and failing to recall the drug despite the deaths. The couple is seeking $50,000 is damages. That is a modest sum being that their children almost died.
Us Weekly is feeling the wrath of Scarlett Johansson. The magazine ran a celebrity plastic surgery based issue. It contained side by side photo comparisons and a headline reading, “A-List Nip/Tuck. Did they or didn’t they? The best before and after photos that prove not all stars were born beautiful.” The cover featured Scarlett Johansson and insinuated that she had a nose job.
After seeing the copy of Us Magazine Johansson and her attorney issued statements calling their accusations of surgery defamatory and outrageous. She assured the press that she “will be taking legal action.” No word on what grounds she will be suing or for how much, but I foresee a settlement out of court.
Teri Hatcher and Hyrdoderm signed a contract in 2005 with a $2.4 million dollar price tag. Under the obligations, Teri was not allowed to support, back, represent or promote any other beauty products. The suit accused her of associating herself, name and image with at least 17 other beauty related products or companies. CityLips was one of the named products Hydroderm seemed to have the biggest problem. She gave the lip plumper from the competition credit for her red carpet glamour.
The skin care company is seeking the full $2.4 million in their suit. Meanwhile Hatcher and her lawyer are fighting the suit and seeking the full payment promised to her.
A New Zealand strip club is being served. Kylie Minogue sent her attorney team after the establishment after an image feature Kylie in a wet t-shirt was used to attract customers. The lawyers sent a letter asking them to remove the poster and stated that the image gave the idication that Minogue “endorsed” the club.
The owner of the strip club said that the image on the photo was not Kylie. A local paper quoted him as defending that he simply downloaded the image from the net over three months ago. He also felt it looked nothing like Kylie. After throwing a fit, he took it down due to a lawsuit threat. He is still trying to post the image and sent it to her attorney team to see if they would reconsider.
A rapper is trying to score some funds from a song he supposedly was a part of. Kyle Jones, aka Scratch, has filled a suit against Pink, aka Alecia Moore, for copyright infringement and breach of contract. Kyle claims he recorded a performance in November 2001 for the track “Respect” on her album “Missundaztood” and was never paid for his “work.” The legal papers state that they verbally spoke of payments but never came to an agreement. He is seeking at least $717, 600 in damages.
Why he waited six years to sue is probably one giant sign the guy is desperate and seeking some cash he doesn’t deserve. Pinks reps brushed off the suit saying it was “unjustified.”
A bouncing YouTube baby has be-bopped his way right into the legal cross-hairs of the pop star Prince, sparking a lawsuit that could test the boundaries of U.S. copyright law.
Holden Lenz, 18 months old, is the pajama-clad star of a 29-second home movie shot by his mother in the family’s rural Pennsylvania kitchen and posted last February on the popular video site YouTube.
In the video, the child is seen bouncing and swaying for the camera, as, faintly, the Prince hit “Let’s Go Crazy” plays on a CD player in the background.
Twenty eight people, mostly friends and family, had viewed the YouTube video by June, when mom Stephanie Lenz said she received an e-mail from YouTube informing her that her video had been removed from the site at the request of Universal Music Publishing Group, the recording industry’s largest label, and warning her that future copyright infringements on her part could force the Web site to cancel her account.
Then responds the mother:
The mother has filed a civil suit against the pop star, claiming they were abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by sending out reams of what are known in the industry as “take down notices” to Web sites like YouTube, claiming their artists’ copyrights had been infringed upon — when in fact, sometimes they may not have been at all.
source: The Home Video Prince Doesn’t Want You to See [abc news]
CLICK HERE to see Britney Spears AWFUL performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards.
Oh my god!!! It’s Britney Bitch. That was so awful. Was she drunk? Seriously, I felt like I was watching a bad impersonator that was 50 times fatter and 50 times less talented (is that possible?). She didn’t even attempt to Lip Sync. Instead of singing, you could just see her going 5, 6, 7, Drink. The only people who should be happy about that performance is Lane Bryant, since Britney apparently decided to wear something from their bra and underwear collection.
How about 50 Cent looking like WTF? during her performance. That was the best part for me. Retire homegirl.
UPDATE: I had the video up, but it’s already been pulled for “possible copyright infringement” … probably by Britney’s people because it was so bad. Too bad for her it’s going to be playing 8 times a day on MTV for the next month.
UPDATE (Allie): CLICK HERE - for video… but hurry before it’s taken down again.
The director of Strange Bedfellows thinks the movie, I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was stolen!
The makers of Paul Hogan’s most recent hit film are investigating whether it has been ripped off for a new Hollywood comedy starring Adam Sandler. The director and co-writer of Strange Bedfellows, Dean Murphy, is concerned about the similarities with I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.
He believes the Australian investors should be compensated if there has been a copyright breach. Starring Hogan and Michael Caton, Strange Bedfellows was about a straight cinema owner and a mechanic who pretend to be gay to claim a financial benefit.
It was the highest-grossing Australian film in 2004, taking $4.8 million, and has subsequently been released on DVD in the US.
Backed by the Hollywood studio Universal Pictures, Chuck and Larry stars Adam Sandler and Kevin James as two straight firemen who pretend to be gay to claim a financial benefit. While he is yet to see the new movie, Murphy said he was struck by the similarities when he saw the trailer on the weekend. He heard other cinemagoers mention Strange Bedfellows as the trailer screened. Murphy has also been receiving emails every day saying Chuck and Larry seems like exactly the same film.
“It’s obviously annoying if they have ripped the film off but until we see it, it’s so hard to know,” he said.
The American distributor of Strange Bedfellows is looking at possible copyright infringement.
“I don’t think they’ve seen the other film yet but … they’re going to have a careful look at it and see if there have been any breaches,” Murphy said.
“It’s hard to know if they would be that blatant but apparently it has happened before so we’ll wait and see.”
A spokesman for Universal Pictures Australia said he was seeking comment from the studio.
Caton has told The Sun-Herald that he gave a copy of Strange Bedfellows to the comic Rob Schneider. They worked together on the Hollywood movie The Animal, which had Sandler as executive producer.
“I’m going to have to get onto Rob Schneider and say you owe me one pal … or Adam Sandler owes me one,” he said. “They’re really good mates and it’s obvious he’s said ‘Hey, have a look at this’.”
Don’t you know, in Hollywood… stealing ideas is the new black! Idiots!
Comedian Carol Burnett has filed a copyright infringement suit against the makers of Fox TV’s cartoon sitcom “Family Guy” over an episode poking fun at the performer and her variety show from the 1960s and ’70s. The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, claims “Family Guy” violated Burnett’s exclusive rights to her name and likeness by depicting her signature cleaning-woman character in a segment last April without her consent. The suit, which seeks at least $2 million in damages, also says the cartoon episode used a “slightly altered version” of the copyrighted musical theme to “The Carol Burnett Show” without permission from the 73-year-old entertainer.
A spokesman for 20th Century Fox Television, which produces “Family Guy,” said on Friday the suit was without merit and that references to Burnett and her show in an 18-second sequence of the cartoon amounted to parody. “‘Family Guy,’ like the ‘Carol Burnett Show,’ is famous for its pop culture parodies and satirical jabs at celebrities,” the studio said in a statement. “We are surprised that Ms. Burnett, who has made a career of spoofing others on television, would go so far as to sue ‘Family Guy’ for a simple bit of comedy.”
The episode in question refers to Burnett by name as working as a part-time janitor, and depicts her “charwoman” character — complete with trademark blue bonnet and mop bucket — cleaning the floor of a pornography shop, the suit says. Another character then makes a vulgar reference to the signature ear tug used by Burnett at the close of her variety show each week, according to the lawsuit.
You’d think even public figures would have some right to protect themselves against particularly salacious use of their image and intellectual property but that doesn’t seem to be the case. If 2 Live Crew can do a vulgar parody of Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Women,” and Weird Al Yankovic can have a career at all, then surely “Family Guy” can do this.
Here’s the video of the “Family Guy” Burnett spoof, which has somehow managed to stay on YouTube for months:
MTV owner Viacom Inc. sued the popular video-sharing site YouTube and its corporate parent, Google Inc., on Tuesday, seeking more than $1 billion in damages on claims of widespread copyright infringement. Wow!
Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube and represents the biggest confrontation to date between a major media company and the hugely popular video-sharing site, which Google bought in November for $1.76 billion.
YouTube’s soaring popularity has been a cause of fascination but also fear among the owners of traditional media outlets, who worry that YouTube’s displaying of clips from their programs — without compensation — will lure away viewers and ad dollars from cable and broadcast TV.
Viacom is especially at risk because much of its programming is aimed at younger audiences who also are heavy Internet users.
Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down.
YouTube said at the time that it would comply with the request and said it cooperates with all copyright holders to remove programming as soon as they’re notified.
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube’s business practices, saying it has “built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google.”
Viacom said YouTube’s business model, “which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws.”
Viacom said YouTube has avoided taking the initiative to curtail copyright infringement on its site, instead shifting the burden and costs of monitoring the video-sharing site for unauthorized clips onto the “victims of its infringement.”
A representative for Google didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.’s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. CBS Corp. used to be part of Viacom but has since split off into a separate company.
Universal Music Group, a unit of France’s Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with the company.
In addition to damages, Viacom is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips.
Google shares dropped $4.82, or 1.1 percent, to $449.93 in Tuesday morning trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market, while Viacom’s Class B shares rose 43 cents, or 1.1 percent, to $40 on the New York Stock Exchange.
The Perez Hilton blog has been sued over the publication of a topless photos of Jennifer Aniston
The online publication of a topless photo of Jennifer Aniston has triggered a lawsuit against gossip blogger Perez Hilton. According to a copyright infringement complaint filed yesterday against Hilton (real name: Mario Lavandeira) by Universal City Studios, the Aniston photo came from footage shot during filming of “The Break-Up.” The footage, the studio charges, was stolen during production of the 2006 comedy, which starred Aniston and former boyfriend Vince Vaughn. The shot of Aniston, 38, was not included in the final version of the hit film, which grossed $118 million last year. Attached to the studio’s complaint is a copy of the revealing Aniston image, though Universal lawyers placed a “redacted” mark over the actress’s breasts (as can be seen below). The lawsuit against Lavandeira, 28, seeks an injunction barring further distribution of the picture and requests a court order “directing the U.S. Marshall to seize” the copyrighted material from the blogger.
Gone Hollywood earlier received an email entitled “Demand for Removal of Jennifer Aniston Photos” from Edward A. Ruttenberg, Esq., the attorney representing Universal Studios. We have removed the photos in question under protest. As I emailed Mr. Ruttenberg,
I must say, however, a policy of treating the promotional use of promotional photographs as a copyright violation is an odd practice. Certainly, many sites use these types of photographs on a routine basis without any such claims being made.
Furthermore, the suggestion that digital images widely available on the Internet are somehow “stolen” is absurd. Indeed, the existence of topless photographs of a public figure has obvious news value.
We obviously don’t have the legal resources of a major film studio, though, and aren’t in a position to contest these things in court. Lavandeira is, however. I hope he prevails.
It’s quite legitimate for stars to sue papparazzi who take photos of them on their private property or for studios to protect their copyrights. It’s far from clear, though, how the publication of digital photographs not being offered for sale harms the studio’s interests.
Hilton’s legal camp is saying, however, that the picture was just as available for viewing on other Websites, and that because Hilton published the picture “for the purpose of commentary and satire,” his actions constitute fair use.
“It is unfortunate that Universal has chosen to bring this lawsuit as our client has done nothing wrong,” attorney Bryan Freedman said in a statement obtained by E! Online, adding that the brazen blogger did take the Aniston picture down when he finally learned of Universal’s request. “Apparently, Universal’s notice was sent somewhere in Arizona rather than to our client directly, and when our client received direct notice, in good faith, our client removed the picture notwithstanding the right to the fair use of the photograph.”
“Our client questions whether this lawsuit was in fact motivated by Ms. Aniston as a result of her disdain for viewpoints expressed about her on the site,” Freedman continued, referring to the fairly catty tone Hilton, 28, generally takes when commenting on the former Friends star, going so far as to refer to her as “Maniston.” “Otherwise, there seems to be no reason to single our client out when, as Universal and Ms. Aniston know, the picture was published on numerous Websites before any publication on our client’s site,” Freedman said.
Cindy Margolis, the self-proclaimed most downloaded woman in the history of the Internet, has finally gotten completely naked for a Playboy photo shoot. That’s after twenty years of being nearly naked on the Web and elsewhere.
Oh, yeah: There are also articles about the Dixie Chicks (who, unfortunately, aren’t nude) and Al Gore (who, thankfully, is fully dressed, probably in earth tones).
The magazine hits newsstands November 7th but the photos are available to Playboy.com subscribers now. And probably everybody else by this afternoon.
Here’s some older Cindy Margolis pics to tide you over until then:
UPDATE: I was right. It’s afternoon and the pics are available at various sites. I’ve thumbnailed them below the fold. Obviously, NSFW.
UPDATE: Playboy has claimed copyright infringement and has asked that we take down the nude Cindy Margolis photos. We have complied, leaving only the thumbnails above.
UPDATE: Apparently, the folks at Playboy think that even thumbnails of photos of the nude Cindy Margolis photos is an infringement of their copyright. Presumably, they figure people will jerk off to the tiny images of Cindy Margolis’ naked body rather than buying the magazine. Or looking for full sized images on a server where the owner isn’t as easy to locate.
Cindy Margolis, known as the “Most Downloaded Woman” on the Internet, is following up her win on “Celebrity Cooking Showdown” with a career first — posing nude for Playboy. The mother of three told The Associated Press that she finally agreed to pose for the magazine when they called on her 40th birthday.
“Thank goodness for ‘Desperate Housewives.’ You’re not dead just because you are married and have children,” the actress and model said Monday, on the phone from her Los Angeles home. After turning down offers to pose for the magazine in the past, Margolis said she accepted this time because she felt posing nude at the age of 40 is empowering. “In the past it would have been for gratuitous reasons,” she said. Now, Margolis said, she is enjoying being the ultimate desperate housewife. “It will be fun to go up against the 20-year-olds and show them that they don’t have anything on me,” she said.
The story notes that Margolis is a former “Price is Right” model, which I had not known. She’ll join Dian Parkinson, who did several stints in Playboy, also relatively late in her career.
Egotastic’s Phil, displaying the agism so common in the Gossiposphere, is not impressed.
This is the problem with Playboy magazine. They always have people posing well after anyone ever cared to see them naked. They should save the cash they would have paid for all these nobodies so that they can pile it all together, and finally have an offer that Jessica Alba will say yes to.
While that may indeed be a good business plan, I’m sure there are plenty of folks out there who have been waiting for years to see Cindy Margolis nude.
Phil partially make ups for his comments by posting several enormous photos of Margolis’ famous cleavage, such as the one on the right. I’m resized them so they’ll fit onto my page. He has several originals that are so large that you’ll have to scroll to see them. They are simply enormous.
The lawsuit claims the song’s use was an infringement of his copyright and will lead people to conclude he endorses McCain. The suit says Browne is a lifelong liberal who is as well-known for his music as for being “an advocate for social and environmental justice.”
A Cleveland television news reporter has filed a lawsuit against Hustler magazine for publishing nude photos of her hamming it up during a 2003 wet T-shirt contest.
Attorneys for Missy Chase Lapine, author of “The Sneaky Chef,” today filed a lawsuit against Jessica Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld for copyright and trademark infringement and defamation in Federal District Court in New York.
In the video, the child is seen bouncing and swaying for the camera, as, faintly, the Prince hit “Let’s Go Crazy” plays on a CD player in the background.
The makers of Paul Hogan’s most recent hit film are investigating whether it has been ripped off for a new Hollywood comedy starring Adam Sandler. The director and co-writer of Strange Bedfellows, Dean Murphy, is concerned about the similarities with I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.
Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon.
