Posted on 12/05/2005 11:54:32 AM PST by new cruelty
DECEMBER 5--Lawyers for Jennifer Aniston have warned publications that they will face an invasion of privacy lawsuit if they print topless photos of the actress taken recently while she was apparently sunbathing at her Los Angeles home. In a blistering letter sent to celebrity magazines, attorney John Lavely wrote that the publication of photographs "showing [Aniston] topless or in the act of taking off or putting on her top" would expose those titles to "substantial monetary damages." In his letter, Lavely wrote that the topless photos were taken by paparazzo Peter Brandt, who allegedly used a "powerful telephoto lens" from a perch more than a mile away from Aniston's home. Below you'll find a copy of the Lavely letter, which includes a few redactions requested by TSG's source. Lavely, of the powerhouse L.A. litigation firm Lavely & Singer, noted that Aniston has just filed a lawsuit against Brandt in Los Angeles Superior Court and that the star's London lawyers had obtained a restraining order barring publication of the topless photos in the U.K. (3 pages)
I like 3, one in the middle of the back. Not much to look at but great to dance with.
add me please! Man's best list.
I have no problem with the pics either, when they are on OFST, genchat thread, etc. To each his/her own. However, when they are posted just as a payback, or "because you posted boobage, so I can post beef" that's childish.
But my magic, mirror on the wall screamed and ran.
Even topless ones?
But is the case law of privacy constitutional interpretation (e.g.:Roe v. Wade as a constitutional right to privacy), or is it statutory interpretation?
You may be jumping to conclusions there.
If you get a clear concept of the word.
hack latin: carpe boob?
carpe mamma would be more exact.
ahhh, my bad, I guess a guy does learn something new everyday. Sorry about that.
By implicit reasoning, privacy may be inferred from Amendments IV and V, but the right is not mentioned explicitly. Vance Packard wrote several popular books on the subject in the sixties, in particular about the invasion of private property by firms [corporations]. That is the Big Brother of orwellian fame. However, case contains a truckload of decisions of invasion of privacy under Peeping Tom statutes. Is it tort or criminal? Could be both.
*VOMITS*
Who the HELL wants to see her topless???
Title says it all: Jennifer Aniston warns of topless photos....
IT depends. :) Topless and good looking is allowed. Topless and a Helen Thomas/Cindy Sheehan look-a-like is not only not allowed but punishable by serious time in a penal colony.
This must be an "after" photo....I notice the bedsheets are pulled off!
Different in what way? You can freepmail me a spoiler - I don't mind.
I thought the subjects of published photos had to sign release forms before the pictures could be published.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.