Courtroom artist renders Paris Hilton's BFF judge

By Eriq Gardner

We weren't the only ones amused by Paris Hilton's declaration to Judge Frederico Moreno that he was her "best judge forever."

Here's the court artist's depiction of what's going on in the Hilton case:

We think this is good evidence that if more cameras are allowed inside the courtroom, as recently broached in Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, we'll be losing out on some pretty cool art.

(Hat tip to Above the Law.)

Paris Hilton declares Hon. Federico Moreno 'my best judge forever'

By Eriq Gardner

Trial is under way in a case that asks us to believe that Paris Hilton is not good at self-promotion. She's being sued for more than $8 million* because she allegedly failed to provide "reasonable promotion and publicity services" for the film "National Lampoon's Pledge This!"

Here's our favorite bit so far from the AP's recounting of this high-stakes legal drama:

The trial is being heard by Chief U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno, who reacted with surprise when Hilton gave him a little wave before testifying. "I've never had a witness wave at me before," the judge cracked.

In another exchange, Moreno was puzzled by the title of Hilton's current reality show, "My New BFF."

"What does that mean?" he said. After Hilton gave the title - "Paris Hilton's My New Best Friend Forever" - the judge remarked, "This will be my best case forever."

Without missing a beat, Hilton replied "You're my best judge forever."

Of course, there's tape of Hilton entering the courthouse too. She's wearing a spiffy black-and-white ensemble that certainly accessorizes the entourage of trailing lawyers quite well.   

*Correction: The original post incorrectly asserted that the plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of $75,000. In fact, the plaintiffs are looking to recover more than $8 million from Ms. Hilton.

Forgettable Paris Hilton Film Subject Of Copyright Fight

By Eriq Gardner

The distributors of the 2006 stinker "Bottoms Up," starring Paris Hilton, are being sued in U.S. District Court in California for allegedly infringing the copyright on the film by distributing DVDs and showing it on cable television.

Keith and Lee Pettle claim they were granted rights to the film by producer Freddy Braidy. After the transfer, Braidy is alleged to have signed unauthorized agreements further licensing the film. The Pettles claim that defendants Sony Pictures, All Channel Films, and Showtime Networks, now hold no legitimate rights to "Bottoms Up."

The plaintiffs want $150,000 in statutory damages, an injunction from further distribution and exhibition, and additional restitution.

Paris Hilton can't be blamed for this case, though she has a knack of getting herself involved in projects that wind up in litigation.

LA Police Chief Better Watch His Step In Hollywood

By Eriq Gardner

Note to celebrities living in Los Angeles: Your police commissioner doesn't like you very much.

That may seem like a strong statement, but it's the only conclusion we can reach after reading this quote from LA Police Chief William Bratton, who doesn't think new laws requiring buffer zones around paparazzi is a good idea:

"If celebrities behave themselves, that solves about 90 percent of the problem," Bratton said. "Britney, the last couple of days, has started wearing clothes again. The paparazzi are leaving town because she's not as interesting when she's not running around without her underwear on."

Poor Britney and Paris.

Between being spotlighted in negative political advertisements and subjected to US Weekly-like scrutiny from Bratton, it hasn't been a good week for the new (or old?) brat pack. Bratton says actress Lindsay Lohan "evidently found a new love life, so she's probably in New York hanging out" and that "God knows" where billionaire heiress Paris Hilton had been. "She's thankfully disappeared from the scene," Bratton said.

Ok, ok, we get it. Celebrities are to blame for paparazzi and no new laws are required.

That's Hot: Greeting Card Case May Put Paris Hilton's Name on Legal Precedent

Posted by Matthew Heller

Could this be the end of the legal world as we know it? A case involving Paris Hilton is now before the 9th Circuit and may generate a decision with significant precedent value in the world of publicity rights.

As we have previously posted here and here, the hotel heiress and frequent litigator sued Hallmark Cards in September, claiming a card that depicts her as a waitress misappropriates her name and likeness and violates her trademark in the phrase "That's hot." And she avoided an early dismissal of the case as a Los Angeles judge found that Hallmark cannot invoke the free-speech protections of California's anti-SLAPP law.

"[T]he Court is unable to conclude, at this stage of the proceedings, that the card is significantly transformative" under the fair use defense, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson said in a minute order. "Put another way, the potential exists that the card is sufficiently evocative of an image Hilton has presented of herself that Hallmark is capitalizing on her notoriety."

A "more fact-intensive analysis of the card's context and Hilton's public image" is required to determine whether the card is protected as a parody, he said.

Hallmark filed a notice of appeal at the 9th Circuit last week. "This is not a company selling soda pop, but one that's in the business of conveying messages," says its attorney, Lincoln Bandlow of Spillane Shaeffer Aronoff Bandlow in Century City. "If you can't poke fun at a celebrity because of the threat of a right of publicity action, we will lose some potentially important speech."

According to Bandlow, no further facts are necessary to determine that the card is a transformative use of an episode of the reality show "The Simple Life" in which Hilton works as a waitress. A tape of the episode was in evidence, he notes, and "you can see that the card shows her in a very different way than she looks in 'The Simple Life.'"

Paris Hilton 'That's Hot' Case Is Heating Up

Posted by Matthew Heller

A federal judge in Los Angeles may be forced to watch an episode of the reality show "The Simple Life" before he decides whether a Paris Hilton greeting card is entitled to the free-speech protections of California's anti-SLAPP statute.

As we previously posted, the hotel heiress and frequent litigator sued Hallmark Cards in September, claiming a card that depicts her as a waitress misappropriates her name and likeness and violates her trademark in the phrase "That's hot." Hallmark contends Hilton is trying to squelch a parody that constitutes a "transformative" fair use.

Documents filed in connection with Hallmark's motion to dismiss the case -- which U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson is due to hear Dec. 17 -- feature radically different comparisons of the card and an episode of "The Simple Life" in which Hilton works as a waitress. "[T]here is nothing 'transformative' about Hallmark’s greeting card," Hilton attorney Brent Blakely of the Blakely Law Group in Hollywood insists in an opposition brief. "... Indeed, the card is a rip-off of the episode Sonic Burger Shenanigans."

Blakely cites the publicity rights precedent of Comedy III Productions v. Sarderup, 25 Cal.4th 387 (2001), for the proposition that

when, as here, “artistic expression takes the form of a literal depiction of a celebrity for commercial gain, directly trespassing on the right of publicity without adding significant expression beyond that trespass, the state law interest in protecting the fruits of artistic labor outweighs the expressive interests of the imitative artist.”

Hallmark attorney Lincoln Bandlow of Spillane Shaeffer Aronoff Bandlow in Century City counters in a reply brief that the card adds "significant creative elements." While the TV segment features Hilton in red shirt, yellow baseball hat and "acting as a car hop at a fast food restaurant,"

the Card shows a hatless Hilton in a light blue shirt, white apron and oven mitt serving a plate of food to a customer seated at a counter in a sit-down restaurant.

Regrettably perhaps, neither lawyer discusses whether the phrase "fruits of artistic labor" should be applied to an episode of "The Simple Life."

Hallmark Says Paris Hilton's 'That's Hot' Suit Not So Hot

Posted by Matthew Heller

It didn't take long for this blog to feature Paris Hilton. The hotel heiress's right-of-publicity lawsuit against Hallmark Cards for depicting her as a waitress (image left, click to enlarge) is getting interesting. The defense has filed a scathing response in the form of a motion to dismiss that accuses the well-known socialite and frequent litigator of attempting to squelch a First Amendment-protected parody.

"Paris Whitney Hilton is the stereotypical ubiquitous 'household name' public figure," says the anti-SLAPP motion written by attorney Lincoln Bandlow of Spillane Shaeffer Aronoff Bandlow in Century City, and "the subject of numerous parodies, commentaries, editorials and discussions. It is exactly one such parody that Hilton seeks to suppress."

The Hallmark card in question depicts Hilton as a waitress serving a male customer with a plate of food. "Don't touch that, it's hot," she warns him. When he asks, "What's hot?" she replies with her catchphrase, "That's hot." According to Hilton's complaint, the card misappropriates her name and likeness and violates her trademark in the phrase "That's hot."

The card, according to the motion, is "not only entertainment and parody, but also social commentary and criticism of Hilton's lifestyle and belief system."

A hearing on the motion is set Dec. 3 before U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson in Los Angeles.