From CourtTV.com:
"..Hilton claims the site invades her privacy, violates her "common law right of publicity" and infringes her copyright, among other charges.Does Paris Hilton have a legitimate case? We spoke with David J. Porter, a litigation attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Pittsburgh, PA, to find out.
Q: What rights does Paris Hilton have on the items and documents that were auctioned off?
A: Assuming the Hanisses purchased the items at a legal foreclosure auction, they would have the right to dispose of the items largely as they wish. That includes re-selling the items to a third party, such as Persa. The fact that some of those items may be copyrighted does not prohibit the re-sale.
[However] if Ms. Hilton holds the copyright on some of those items, then the fact that the items were purchased in good faith at a legal foreclosure auction is not a defense to her copyright infringement claim.
[That] claim applies only to the three poems that she registered last week for copyright protection, and as to those, the new owner, even if he is a bona fide purchaser, may not do certain things, such as reproduce and sell them or publish them on the Internet for commercial gain.
Q: Are there laws protecting private documents such as medical records, licenses and passports?
A: There are statutes protecting medical records and other confidential documents, but they mostly apply to government agencies, financial institutions, schools, health care providers and the like. Most privacy statutes would not be applicable to individuals such as the defendants in Ms. Hilton's lawsuit. However, certain privacy laws may prohibit the disclosure or publication of personal records, and Ms. Hilton has invoked those in her complaint.
Another aspect of the common law of privacy prohibits the public disclosure of private facts about an individual. But the rental agreement that Ms. Hilton, or her moving company, had with Public Storage may have provided (I have not seen the rental agreement) that upon failure to pay rent, all of the property in the rental unit could be removed and sold, auctioned off, thrown away or otherwise disposed of. If that is true, then the defendants may be able to argue that the materials were not as "private" and "confidential" as Ms. Hilton now alleges in her complaint. Merely because the items are commercially valuable (because they were Paris Hilton's) does not automatically make them "private." Q: Has the site's owner invaded her privacy?
A: It depends upon which invasion of privacy claim is at issue. The right of publicity is one type of privacy that is protected by law, and the Web site owners may have invaded that element of Ms. Hilton's privacy notwithstanding, or one might say, especially because she is a celebrity whose name and image are commercially valuable.
It is possible to violate even a celebrity's right of privacy by disclosing embarrassing private facts. But the question in this case is whether the materials that were acquired through the foreclosure auction were truly private facts. Some of the facts that were disclosed on the Website were of a nature that many people would deem private and embarrassing. But the circumstances under which the materials came into the defendants' possession (apparently legal, even if inadvertent), the fact that Ms. Hilton may have compromised her own expectation of privacy by agreeing to provisions in the Public Storage rental contract and the mere fact of Ms. Hilton's celebrity may all work together to weaken her claim for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts.
By definition, celebrities have given up many aspects of their privacy. However, it would be incorrect to say that celebrities do not have a private life. There is a sense in which a celebrity establishes through her behavior and statements the boundaries of her private life, and the specific facts about a celebrity's life may determine whether it is more or less difficult to disclose embarassing private facts about her. That is particularly important in this case, because some would say that Ms. Hilton is a celebrity precisely because she initially sought and continues to cultivate celebrity status. Also, she became a celebrity in part because of the public disclosure of facts and images that many people would deem private. Ms. Hilton's disclosure of her personal life for public consumption in exchange for the benefits of celebrity may make it more difficult for her to argue that certain aspects of her life that most people would consider private are off-limits. Q: What about her copyright infringement claim?
A: Ms. Hilton's complaint does not allege that she has registered, or applied to register, the copyrights on any of the photographs or videos at issue in this case, or even that she holds the copyrights on those items. That is apparently why her copyright infringement claim is so narrow: it only applies to the three poems.
Once the copyrights on those poems are registered, Ms. Hilton may recover actual damages, which in this instance probably means the profits that the defendants obtained by posting the copyrighted works on the Internet and inviting people to access the Website for a fee of $39.97.
[But] how many visitors to www.parisexposed.com were drawn to that Website because they wanted to read her poetry rather than because they wanted to view the other salacious items on the Website?
Q: Do you think Paris will win this case?
A: Of course it is difficult to predict the outcome of a lawsuit based on nothing more than a complaint. But Ms. Hilton appears to have some strong claims (copyright infringement as to the poems; common law and statutory right of publicity), while some of her other claims do not appear on their face to be as strong. Most civil cases filed in the United States are settled out of court. But if it does not settle, then I would say that Ms. Hilton is likely to prevail on some (but not all) of her claims.
Spicy
CourtTV
Thanks Rina
