Marty Singer's Letter From Demi Moore to Perez Hilton
Earlier we were discussing celebrity attorney Marty Singer's letter-writing skills. Here, for instance, is one for you to read! It is a response he wrote after the Demi Moore-Perez Hilton dustup, in which Demi called Perez a child-pornographer after he posted revealing photographs of her daugther-and he told her that he wouldn't let her 15-year-old daughter dress like a skank, essentially. What possible question of law is involved in any of this is beyond me-and yet Marty Singer is getting paid to craft letters such as the one that follows.
The idea that Perez Hilton is libel-proof is pretty hilarious. Sure, he's a public figure-and he may have a reputation as a gossip and a mean person. That doesn't make you libel-proof-nowhere near. (For starters: "few plaintiffs will have so bad a reputation that they are not entitled to obtain redress for defamatory statements," Guccione v. Hustler Magazine.)
And now you can read Marty Singer's complaint against Gawker. It's a good laugh. (OH SORRY, is that defamatory? Actually, it is a description of fact. I laughed while reading it.)
"and he told her that he wouldn't let her 15-year-old daughter dress like a skank"
Do as I say, not as I do.
"Your client can sure dish it out, but he obviously can't take it return."
I guess this is how they litigate West-coast-style.
Only when the statue of limitations has run on the "Nah-Nah" defense and of course the "I'm Rubber, You're Glue."
I'm disappointed that you did not include the Perez Hilton photos that you referenced.
I'm grateful.
Maybe you want to label that last Gawker link as NSFW, since it has a giant picture of naked Noxzema girl? It might be blurred, but I wouldn't know, because I had to click it closed as soon as it loaded.
Gawker: NSFjustaboutanythinginteresting, these days. Also, blurry tits
Pretty small too. The only thing remotely interesting about that video would have been Eric's dangler. But the lighting was so bad you couldn't even see that. What a bunch of crappy pornographers these 3 are.
I'll be libel proof if you give me license to kill.
When did they register the copyright, btw? I'm going to guess it's well after the fact. And if not, perhaps someone can surf through the USPTO database for all the other pre-emptive celebrity sex tape copyright registrations until we find one actually worth infringing upon?
When you create any work you automatically own the copyright.
Yes, of course, but:
"11. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Sections 202.21(g)(1)(ii) and (202.21 (2)(i)-(iv), Plaintiffs timely registered with the United States Copyright Office their rights as the authors and owners of the Video. The copyright registration number is PAu 3-404-881."
Confused. Why is the Gawker lawsuit funny? Obvs, I'm not a blogger or a specialist in internet law, but normally unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material….Yes, Gawker can argue fair use, but that's always a very specific analysis, would guess lawsuit survives motion to dismiss, meaning extensive discovery, Denton gets deposed, etc. etc.
Then again, from your perspective, maybe that is funny!
Of course, there's absolutely no requirement that a copyright be registered to be enforceable
No, sure, the copyright decidedly belongs to the makers, that's a given. But the plaintiffs aren't the entirety of the copyright holders; a third party is also an "author" of the video, and she isn't a party to the suit. Doesn't she have rights as a copyright holder to do with it what she wants? Presumably she is the de facto distributor. (That's actually a question, not sarcasm on my part: I am not a a lawyer! But it seems to me that omitting her role entirely, and she's a valid "author" of the video….
I also will think it's really funny if Denton gets deposed, but that's another story.
And to my and now your point, Danes and Gayheart are the only two registered authors on the copyright application:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=pau003404881&Search_Code=REGS
It's possible that if she is, as the rumors go, currently working as a madam she may not wish the public scrutiny. In which case she may have signed over her rights to them in a separate agreement for a percentage of any settlement they receive.
I always thought the registration was a step to enforcing a copyright in the international arena. Of course if you make it you own it and registration is not required to be the copyright holder; just convenient