Paparazzi photo agency, X17, sued celebrity gossip blogger Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton) for allegedly posting its photographic images without permission. The complaint included claims for copyright infringement and unfair competition under the "hot news" misappropriation theory recognized by the Supreme Court in Int'l News Serv. v. Assoc. Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).

In its complaint filed on NOvembe 30, 2007, X17 claims that Hilton unlawfully used at least fifty-one of the agency's photos.  Among the photos at issue were shots labeled "Pregnant Katie Holmes," "Kevin Federline Pumping Gas," and "Britney Spears Exposes Her Derriere."  According to X17, Hilton displayed the photos on his advertising-supported blog without paying the agency, providing credit, or seeking its permission.

Hilton responded that he copied the photographs from public sources on the Internet and that his use of the photos was a "fair use" under copyright law.  The photos were a fair use, he contended, because he only used portions of the photos to report celebrity news and routinely added his own commentary and sometimes even handwrote comments on the photos themselves.  

He moved to dismiss the "hot news" claim, but the court denied his motion in February 2007, holding that claims for hot news misappropriation may apply to photographs as well as text, and that the hot news claim was not preempted by federal copyright law.

X17 moved for a preliminary injunction barring Lavandeira from copying, reproducing, displaying, or distributing its photographic works. In March 20o7, the court denied the motion because of evidentiary deficiencies in X17's submissions to the court. X17, Inc. v. Lavandeira, No. CV06-7608-VBF(JCX), 2007 WL 790061 (C.D. Cal. March 08, 2007).

On December 17, 2007, Hilton filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that X17 was not the owner of the copyrights to the photos at issue and had not registered the copyrights prior to filing the lawsuit.

In January 2008, the parties reached a settlement and on April 21, 2008, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The photos appear to have been removed because they are no longer available on Hilton's site. The terms of the settlement are not known.

In April 2007, five paparazzi photography agencies sued Mario Lavandeira, operator of popular celebrity gossip blog, perezhilton.com, in federal district court in California for allegedly posting their photographic images on his blog without permission. The complaint alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition under the "hot news" misappropriation theory recognized by the Supreme Court in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), and civil conpsiracy under California law. In May 2007, Lavandeira filed an answer without moving to dismiss.

Update:

4/24/2008 - Court granted Lavandeira's motion to amend answer.

12/12/2008 - Action appears to have settled.  Parties filed a stipulation of dismissal.

Paul McMann, a Massachusetts real estate developer, sued the anonymous operator of an Internet "gripe site" about him. The website contained a photograph of Mr. McMann, the statement that he “turned lives upside down,” and a suggestion to "be afraid, be very afraid." The website also announced that it would soon be updated with specific evidence of McMann's alleged misdealings.

After a nearly identical action was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, McMann sued the anonymous operator of the site in Arizona state court, claiming defamation (the publicity and privacy claims in his previous complaint were apparently abandoned). McMann sought to subpoena ISPs to discover the website operator's identity. In January 2007, the court quashed the subpoena and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court relied on Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), an important case from the Delaware Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's protection for anonymous speech requires plaintiffs in defamation actions to make a heightened factual showing (meeting a summary judgment standard) before issuance of a subpoena to discover the identity of an anonymous defendant.