Rihanna has been a very, very bad woman, and she’s going to payÃ¢â‚¬Â¦an undisclosed amount in an out-of-court settlement! Rihanna’s S&M lawsuit settled today after the singer agreed to pay photographer David LaChapelle rather than battle him in court. LaChapelle filed the suit back in February after noticing what he perceived to be similarities between RiRi’s “S&M” video and eight of his previous photo shoots. The photographer’s publicist Jaret Keller says LaChapelle is “happy with the settlement,” while the teenage boys of the world remain “happy the ‘S&M’ video exists at all.”
Rihanna still faces a copyright lawsuit from photographer Philip Paulus over the images used in the vid, but that doesn’t mean she’s not getting a lot of love. As LaChapelle said when he filed his suit, “I like RiRi. This is not personal, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s strictly business. Musicians commonly pay to sample music or use someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s beats and there should be no difference when sampling an artistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s visuals.” Let’s hope no one owns the rights to mud-smeared American flag vests and denim bras, or Rihanna’s “We Found Love” video is about to make someone a billionaire
Lady Gaga’s lawsuit against Chicago company Excite Worldwide, filed this week in New York, claims that by naming their jewelry and cosmetics “Lady Gaga by Design,” rational human beings might assume the company has anything to do with Lady Gaga. Which they do not. Which is why Mother Monster filed for control of her stage name. We guess the bigger question is, would you ever buy Excite’s line ofÃ‚Â “candles, key chains, bags, towels, lanyards, tattoos, wigs and ornaments” just because you thought they were Lady Gaga-approved? Okay, us too! What we look like, buying off-brand lanyards?
In addition to causing confusion, Gaga is claiming the company’s “frivolous applications” to trademark her moniker are preventing the singer from marketing things through her company Ate My Heart Inc. We just hope Gags figures this out soon; we got this month’s wig allowance on hand and it is just burning a hole in our pocket.
We hope you didn’t think that just because you hadn’t heard about Mel Gibson’s lawsuits in a while that they had all disappeared into the annals of time. Mel’s legal trouble is like gravity: you can’t see it with your eyes, but the world would be a virtually unrecognizable place without it.
According to TMZ, Mel Gibson paid Oksana Grigorieva’s son Alexander Dalton $100,000 as part of a new settlement, which would allegedly guarantee the 14-year-old will not sue Gibson over “trauma” he sustain as a witness to Mel’s domestic disputes with Oksana. Grigorieva initially asked for $500,000, in addition to alleging Gibson pushed Alexander into a table, before taking the reduced sum. So, in retrospect, we guess Mel is like gravity, if gravity was something that made you deeply, deeply depressed about the state of the world as it is today.
Why does it feel that Lauryn Hill‘s only in the news these days because of controversy? The last we heard was that her baby wasn’t partner Rohan Marley‘s; a rumor which Ms.Hill strongly denied to the press and public. Ã‚Â Unfortunately, this round is a lot more serious because she could be in trouble with the law. A fashion stylist is suing Lauryn because of allegedly making off with her clothes without paying the full price. This, BTW, went down in 2007 when Lauryn was on tour!
The lawsuit relates that fashion consultantÃ‚Â Via Davia VintageÃ‚Â fitted Lauryn “with an entire wardrobe of high fashion items.” The deal that was made apparently stated that Hill was to pay fixed weekly installments for the clothes for a month. It further claims that the singer not only kept all the clothes for three months, but ended up returning only 30% of the items. To add insult to injury, the suit states that Hill paid only paid a tiny amount of what was due. Considering there’s silence coming from Hill’s camp, we’ll just have to see how this story plays out in court.
Take this as a reminder, kids, that Twitter is, in fact, real life, not some private repository for all your spare Jonah Hill jokes. The Hollywood Reporter writes today that Courtney Love’s Twitter defamation case has gotten the okay to move forward to trial. In case you’re asking yourself, “Now wait a minute, didn’t Courtney Love already have a defamation lawsuit?,” the answers to that question would be: yes, that one was brought by designer Dawn Simorangkir after Love called her a “aÃ¢â‚¬â€œwipe nasty lying nosebag thief” among other names online, and ugh.
As for this case, apparently Rhonda Holmes of Gordon & Holmes stumbled in front of Love’s Twitter blasts after her lawfirm declined to continue representing Love in a fraud case. “I was f—ing devastated (sic) when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off [Ã¢â‚¬Â¦],” Love allegedly tweeted. It turns out, publicly claiming your lawyer accepted bribes for any reason is frowned upon. Now that the judge has given the case’s main defamation claim the okay, Courtney is probably going to be back in court before you know it. Once she’s there, with any luck, someone will snatch that phone right out of her hand before she ends up tweeting down the rabbit hole again.
Don’t Clevelanders already have enough to deal with without B-list celebrities showing up and punching their party bus operators? Come on, people. A few weeks after the Lost actor was detained by police for the brawl, looks like Matthew Fox’s party bus fight is about to get Matthew Fox sued. Bus driver Heather Bormann has filed a lawsuit against Fox for allegedly drunkenly assaulting her after she refused to drive him from the bar where she was parked to the Cleveland Ritz-Carlton. Oh, see, Matthew must have thought she was a regular bus driverÃ¢â‚¬Â¦that he was punching like a crazy person.
According to TMZ Bormann is allegedly asking for more than $25,000. For that amount of money, Matthew Fox could buy his own party bus, get drunk and punch himself. And if these allegations are true…he probably should.
See guys, it was all just a misunderstanding: it turns out that Pitbull’s Lindsay Lohan lyrics were actually an homage the actress, not a joke about how’s she’s spent more time behind bars than a parakeet. So if Lindsay could call off her lawsuit, that’d be great. “I was very surprised when I found out about the lawsuit … at first I read it and I thought, ”his has got to be a joke,'” the rapper explained in a video for his official fan site. “For me mentioning it … on the number one record in the world … I thought it would be helping someone’s career and keeping them relevant.” It might have made Lindsay more relevant to give a shout-out to her excellent acting abilities or impressive sobriety, but maybe he was saving that for the next album.
Lindsay Lohan’s Pitbull lawsuit focuses on the rapper’s lyric, “I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan” in the song “Give Me Everything,” which, to be fair, seems more like a factual statement than an insult. The suit also cites the song’s writers Ne-Yo and Afrojack, citing New York civil rights law that prevents people’s names from being exploited for commercial gain. Maybe Pitbull can pen an apology song titled “That Lindsay Lohan Sure Has Had A Legal Trouble A Lot, Am I Right?” just so Lilo can know how relevant he thinks she is.
Our Conan lawsuit over the emotional damage caused by Rose McGown‘s gigantic forehead just looks frivolous now. The Hollywood Reporter writes that the Stan Lee Media Inc.’s Conan The Barbarian lawsuit is based on the claim that the company, started by comic book legend Stan Lee, still technically owns the rights to the sword-wielding character. As part of the suit, Conan filmmakers, among others, are “ordered to turn over any money or property derived from the success of the character, including the newest film.” Luckily, Jason Momoa‘s torso still belongs to the people.
In the suit, SLMI claims that an allegedly squirrelly lawyer named Arthur Lieberman kind of, sort of, signed away the rights to the Conan character in 2002, a move that should be considered illegal since the company was in bankruptcy at the time. So far, the newly released Conan The Barbarian movie has only raked in $10 million at the box office, a disappointing figure considering the film’s budget was at least $70 million and Jason Momoa’s torso looks like that. Seriously, look at it. That’s worth $16.50 to see in 3D, right?
Hey guys, Lady Gaga isn’t being accused of ripping off Madonna for once! On the other hand…Lady Gaga’s “Judas” lawsuit claims it was neither Alexander McQueen nor the Lord Almighty who whispered the blasphemous jam into Mother Monster’s ear, as she’s has claimed. Instead, the music was allegedly lifted in part from Rebecca Francescatti‘s 1999 song “Juda.” But at least no one can say Gaga didn’t come up with the phrase “ear condom.” So at least she…at least she has that.
According to Francescatti’s lawyer Chris Niro, “Though the songs are different styles, the composition is the same and the chorus is the same melody … [Rebecca] is seeking recognition for what she created.” The suit also draws attention to the fact that Rebecca’s former bass player Brian Gaynor now works for the company that wrote several songs for Gaga’s recently-released album Born This Way. TMZ currently has the two songs side-by-side for comparison, and we have to say…we’re not impressed. Is Francescatti sure she didn’t mean to accuse Alanis Morissette of ripping her off? Not that we’d believe that either; Alanis still gets all her songs from those transparent dangling carrots.
Yabba dabba doesn’t Weezy get a few months off without someone coming at him with a lawsuit. Looks like it’s Lil Wayne’s “BedRock” that is currently getting the rapper sued for copyright infringement. Sadly, the plaintiffs are not the concerned citizens of Fred Flintstone’s hometown, but instead Georgia production company Done Deal Enterprises. They’re accusing Weezy of stealing their song, also entitled “BedRock,” and violating their copyright by using elements of it in his version. As part of their suit, Done Deal is seeking $15 million, plus any and all baby wooly mammoths Wayne might be using as a vacuum cleaner.
This isn’t the first time Weezy has had legal troubles; Lil Wayne’s unpaid taxes and hit song “Lollipop” have been the focus of two previous lawsuits against the rapper, in the past two years alone. Lil Wayne must appear in court October 12 to respond to the suit, but considering the man can afford the world’s finest pelicans to be his washing machine, we doubt it’ll be his last time Weezy will be standing before a judge.