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 Da Vinci Code” author Dan Brown and his publishing house were cleared of copyright infringement in a British court Friday, with the judge finding the lawsuit based on a contrived and “selective number of facts and ideas.” Authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had sued Random House, claiming Brown’s best-selling novel “appropriated the architecture” of their 1982 nonfiction book, “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.” “It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC (`Da Vinci Code’) has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright,” Judge Peter Smith said in his 71-page ruling.
Both books explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives, ideas dismissed by most historians and theologians. “The Da Vinci Code” has sold more than 40 million copies — including 12 million hardcovers in the United States — since its release in March 2003. It came out in paperback in the United States last week, and quickly sold more than 500,000 copies. An initial print run of 5 million has already been raised to 6 million.
[...]
“Cases like this hopefully will clarify what copyright is all about,” said Allan Adler, vice president for legal and government affairs at the Association of American Publishers. “Copyright doesn’t protect ideas and copyright doesn’t protect facts. That’s why we have genres, fiction and nonfiction, and a number of people can write novels based on the same idea and still have freedom of expression.”
[...]
The case proved a distraction for Brown, who dislikes publicity and has been trying to complete a much-anticipated follow-up to “The Da Vinci Code,” and a costly embarrassment for Baigent and Leigh. They spent two years on the lawsuit and nearly $3.5 million, between their own legal expenses, and Random House’s fees. Though Smith ruled against allowing the authors to appeal, they can still apply to higher courts. . . The authors must also find an interim payment of $600,000 by May 5. In court, their lawyer said at least one of the claimants will have to sell their home to make the first installment. When Leigh was asked if his house would be going on the market, he smiled and said wryly, “what house?”
Yikes. Either the Brits have not developed a contingency fee system of civil litigation (where attorneys take the case and get paid only if they win) or Baigent and Leigh could not find an attorney to take the case on contingency.
Natalie Portman hosted “Saturday Night Live” and was featured in an allegedly* humorous rap video. YouTube had it, as demonstrated by the video link below [via Miu von Furstenberg]:
Over the weekend numerous people uploaded video of a Saturday Night Live skit involving Natalie Portman rapping. At least 100,000 people have watched the video on YouTube. This time it looks like YouTube (and, in all likelihood, NBC) was quick on the draw: By 1:15, YouTube had taken the video off its site. In its stead disappointed searchers found a message reading “This video has been removed due to copyright infringement.”
For now, then, NBC has been satisfied. But one has to wonder how long this kind of thing can go on. Will networks like CBS and NBC continue to be willing to keep the status quo, in which their content is available for free until the lawyers demand it be removed? Or will they try to force companies to vet videos before they are posted, essentially crippling sites like YouTube that give users control of what goes up – and host plenty of unobjectionable, homemade content?
One understands SNL’s desire to keep control of its copyrighted material. The problem, though, is that they themselves are providing it at a suboptimal level. Most of us don’t watch SNL anymore because it really sucks. The few decent skits a year are just not worth it anymore. So, when they actually do something funny on the show, approximately twelve people not related to a member of the cast know about it. Because SNL embargoes its content until the show re-runs at a later date, that means people who would like to see those rare gems miss out.
YouTube and similar services help get the word out. If there are enough funny videos coming out of a given show, people will soon come to the conclusion that SNL has stopped sucking and actually start to watch again. Blocking people from the ability to enjoy their programming is, therefore, quite shortsighted.
TVSquad posts a quick summary of the rap, however, which makes me append the “allegedly” above:
Chris Parnell is interviewing Natalie Portman and her response is an extremely vulgar rap video. But it was hilarious. She was so angry: “I’ll kill your dog.” “I’ll sh*t on your face.”
This is truly the Golden Age of Comedy.
Update: Mac Stansbury comes to the rescue with a video you can download and keep safe from NBC’s evil clutches.
Update 2: Actually, via Kevin Aylward, I see that NBC has obviated my original rant:
Now, instead of searching the web for “borrowed” NBC highlights, you can go to the source! We’ve taken your viral favorites and gathered them into one convenient location. Watch. React. Tell a friend.
As one of the original SNL characters used to say, “Never mind.”
