Paris Hilton threatens to sue over 'vacant' billboard
I am quite in sympathy with Ms Hilton over this. Anybody who makes money at the rate she does is pretty smart in my opinion. On some accounts, she has been making around $30 million a year. She charges huge fees for her appearances and has lots of business interests.
"You can call her pretty but if you call her "vacant" expect to wind up in court. Heirhead Paris Hilton is threatening to sue a New Zealand company which advertised an unused billboard by using her picture with the word "vacant" written across it.
Hilton's manager Jamie Freed said from Los Angeles that Wellington-based Media5 had not gained permission to use the image and could expect to hear from her lawyers. Media5's Adam McGregor said the company was just having a "bit of fun" with the billboard, for which a gaffe-prone former Kiwi foreign affairs minister was also a candidate.
Source
18 comments:
Well, I like Paris Hilton and I know that in America it's illegal to use someone's photo without their consent. Outside America I'm not sure, I've seen Argentinean ads using George W. Bush, I doubt he signed up for that.
Politicians and celebrities are a bit different. Ms. Hilton can probably successfully argue that her image, etc, is a trademark, and using her image without compensation reduces her brand appeal. Basically, “If you’re going to use my picture to peddle your wares, you better pay me for it.” I severely doubt that she is offended by poking fun at her (which she has done herself), and more offended they haven’t paid her.
That's odd. I didn't think there was any part of Paris-ite Hilton that was vacant, other than her head of course. In her case, making $30 Million a year is no big deal, since it was all willed to her. She didn't earn a penny of it. The only thing she knows about hotels, is to find a room for a "quickie" with every guy she runs into.
Besides, unless she has world-wide copyright infringement protection of her image, this is nothing more than yet another grab for attention by a know-nothing, talentless, skank.
Anonymous 3:35 AM, Not really. She was cut off from the will to encourage her to make her own money. Sure she got lots of money to get started, but she does make her own money on appearances, a clothing line, and several other things.
She is not just the brainless rich girl she pretends to be. She is smart and has some business savvy. Using an image without permission is probably a bad idea.
Now I am confused? Why was I defending Paris Hilton?
The use of a celebrity's image in an advertisement without the permission of that celebrity is illegal in the United States, although I don't know the rules of New Zealand. The Company is hoping to make a profit by selling the "empty space," therefor it's not a "fair use" of her image.
We'll have to see how New Zealand deals with this....
Am I the only one that laughed at this?
"In her case, making $30 Million a year is no big deal, since it was all willed to her. "
---You're wrong, she has a fashion line, a perfume line, movies, tv apperances, a show on MTV and another show, "The Simple Life," a song that became a top 20 plus who knows how many deals and investments under the radar.
I agree with 4:15 AM, she's not the airhead she pretends to be. When the paparazzi walk away and the interview is over, she's a very shrewd woman who calculates her every move.
I give her credit, like Donald Trump, she knows how to profit from her image.
How easily American minds are so impressed by nothing.
I'd hit that.
"How easily American minds are so impressed by nothing."
---No, we are impressed with people who make money, it doesn't matter how they make it as long as its legal. Unlike the commie europeans, we admire success.
Paris made $30 million last year and she gets paid to party, what makes you better than her?
America (USA) claims to be a Christian country or at least a very religious one, but in reality is obsessed with materialism and consumerism, where status is how much one earns and what one can afford to buy - not what Jesus was about at all!
And that materialism has led to greed and avarice that has so recently resulted in financial scandals and a near collapse of the whole world's economy. Not to mention the rape of the world's natural resources and pollution of our planet. Jesus would be so proud of his "followers"!
"America (USA) claims to be a Christian country or at least a very religious one, but in reality is obsessed with materialism and consumerism, where status is how much one earns and what one can afford to buy - not what Jesus was about at all!"
---Jesus wasn't a communist or socialist, while he did say "blessed are the poor" he never said "cursed are the rich." Besides, this country has a rich calvinist tradition, the calvinists believed that the richer you are the more blessed you are, that's why they work hard instead of expecting the government to do everything for them.
"And that materialism has led to greed and avarice that has so recently resulted in financial scandals and a near collapse of the whole world's economy."
---Yes, I guess the alternative is standing in line for toilet paper like they do in Cuba, or pay extremely high taxes like they do in europe. While in America we all have equal opportunity to succeed, in Europe you have two kinds of people, the rich who can afford extremely high taxes and still have enough money left over, and the poor.
"Not to mention the rape of the world's natural resources and pollution of our planet."
---That's bullshit, America has more environmental laws than any country on earth, our gasoline is lead free, visit latin america and see if you like the horrid smell cars emit, visit China and the former USSR, you'll see real eco damager there. In America you can't even develop a land if the EPA finds a rare mouse.
But I understand your point of view, you care more for rare rats and endangered roaches than for real human beings.
"Jesus would be so proud of his "followers"!
---I doubt Jesus is proud of the secular europeans who don't have the guts to stand up to radical Islam.
Jesus challenged a rich man to give up his wealth to follow him but the rich man was too attached to his material possessions. A casual look at the life of Jesus would suggest he was more "socialist" than "capitalist", but obviously people interpret the words of Jesus to justify any opinion or prejudice they have, as history has demonstrated all too disturbingly!
Bobby - Jesus may not have cursed the rich, but he said (according to Mark 10, 24&25) "how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!" So not really a blessing on riches as you say Calvinists believe.
Biblical interpretation is a matter of debate, that's why a catholic is allowed his whiskey while a baptist may think it's the devil's brew.
Jesus however was friendly with a tax collector, and back in the day tax collectors tended to be wealthier than other citizens.
Besides, I doubt Jesus believed in socialism when he said "render to Caesar what is of Caesar and render to God what is of God." In other words, while humans are free to help each other, it should never be done through obscene taxation.
Remember that the Old Testament limits taxes at 10%. A farmer for example isn't required to donate more than 10% of his harvest to the poor, and that is smart, 10% is small enough to make a difference without bankrupting the charitable individual.
You seem to be saying that because Jesus was friendly with a tax-collector he approved of his relative wealth or way of earning it? Jesus also befriended prostitutes and other sinners, so does that mean he approved of prostitution and sin? Your weak argument would suggest it.
Jesus' view on riches was made quite clear in the "eye of a needle" comment. Why do Christians evade or ignore passages whose wording is very clear when it doesn't suit their personal views, yet they will home in and endlessly quote passages which do seem to coincide with their opinions, most famously the references to homosexuality in ancient Hebrew law and the views of St Paul. The Bible is just a pick-and-choose-and-manipulate reference book.
Post a Comment