The brilliant graphic illustration above is a very scientific illustration of just how to turn watchable televison programming into fast-food shilling drivel. Here's the technical explanation of just what's going on above:

In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, a conventional advertisement 10 shown during televisin program's commercial break promotes a new product 12 of, for example, a fast-food establishment. The advertisement 10 is attempting to sell the particular product 12. A program-advancing element 16, such as the knife in this particular example, is introduced into the advertisement 10 to form a program-integrated advertisement 14. The program-advancing element relates to the television program and can be a program-promoting element, i.e., a viewer associates the knife with the program. Additionally, the two characters dealing with the knife in the program-integrated advertisement 14 may themseves be program-advancing elements, if they are characters in the program.

We came across this technological marvel via The Hollywood Reporter's legal blog, THR, esq which wrote about what must be one of the most amazing lawsuits of all time. This legalistic rabbit hole's silliness is so profound that it makes us think that it might be time to throw the entire judicial system out the window and muddle by on mob rule for a few decades.

THR writes:

Delaware-based ad agency Denizen is suing media agency Mindshare for stealing an idea to integrate a brand of Vaseline into a Lifetime miniseries called "Maneater."

In the complaint, Denizen says that TV networks face the problem of viewers not paying attention to ads in between segments of a show and claims to have "created the concept of 'program integrated advertisement' in order to entice viewers to pay attention to advertisements in various media, including, but not limited to, television, radio, and the Internet.

Denizen isn't actually suing for stealing the idea of product placement, but they are accusing Mindshare of making off with trade secrets about how to implement world class product placement that the Denizen folks supposedly let them in on during a meeting between the two companies.

But Denizen isn't just claiming spuriously, "yeah, we thought of that first"; they actually filed a patent on product placement, which they call "Program Integrated Commercials." Denizen's patent must rank as one of the most amazing legal documents ever produced, demonstrating the legal system's ability to absorb any level of ridiculousness and turn it into mind-numbing deadly serious jargon.

The patent starts out bemoaning the desperate state of advertising, noting the wreckage TiVo has wrecked and the failures of basically every attempt to get people excited about watching ads, what with these ungrateful viewers changing channels and fast forwarding and all.

The patent then claims, "The present invention comprises a method and system for incorporating thematic content from a particular television program into product or service advertisements (commercials) for a sponsor or the program or network."

Actually, when one gets into it the invention is far more sinister than merely sticking some products into a TV show wrapped around cockamamie plot points, but involves an attempt to take the characters out of the show and stick them into the actual ads based on cockamamie plot points, making the audience have to watch the ads themselves to be able to follow the plot of the show.

The verbal contortions in which the patent goes to explain this are fairly breathtaking. The following graph, for instance, attempts to codify this breakthrough in the science of forcing products into people's brains: "The program-advancing element is specific to a program or is associated with a program element such that it is capable of being recognized by a viewer. This includes, but is not limited to, character actions, setting descriptions, objects, sound recognition, and character dialogue, etc."

That's right, Denizen thunk that up! Take that Sterling Cooper!

You can browse this entire historic document by clicking one of the thumbnails below.

An army of record companies filed a lawsuit against Ellen's eponymous talk show for using their beloved, popular and oh-so-profitable songs without paying the price. Motown, Atlantic, Virgin and a host of other companies claim Ellen and her producers used their products in the talk show host's "dance over" segment, which involves the comedienne dancing toward her daily guest. It's all very fun, but, according to the record companies, also illegal. And Ellen knew that!

As sophisticated consumers of music, Defendants knew full well that, regardless of the way they rolled, under the Copyright Act, and under state law for the pre-1972 recordings, they needed a license to use the sound recordings lawfully.

Humph. Here we thought the music industry was about bringing happiness into an otherwise dismal existence. Now we learn they're only about profits. The horror!

For their part, Ellen's producers apparently responded to the lawsuit by claiming they don't look into licenses because they don't "roll that way." Fair enough.

Back in March fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir sued Love for libel, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and intentional interference with Simorangkir's business—the fashion label Boudoir Queen—as a result of Love's misspelled and unpunctuated rants on the social networking sites—namely saying that Simorgank stole a bunch of clothes from her.

Love and her lawyer have filed a motion to strike the suit. [Note: Page Six reported on her brief on Saturday, which we missed because we were fighting through the hordes at the Barneys Warehouse Sale.] Why? Not anything have to do with free speech, but because Simorgankir is racist, homophobic drug fiend who used to be a prostitute. Oh, well, that makes it OK then. Say anything you'd like, Courtney.

The juiciest excerpts are below, but here is our favorite part:

Simorangkir repeatedly asked me both to partake in and to procure cocaine, Percoset, and other illegal and perscription drugs for herself and her husband. I told Simorangir that my "hard-partying" days were in the past and I declined to use any of her and her husband's drugs.

Screw what she said on Twitter, this is the real defamation. We still don't know what this has to do with the shit she talked on the web, but it does make for a fascinating read. Just wait for the countersuit the Love legal team has in the works.

Plenty of people will be paying attention to this suit, not only because Love is crazier than a meth addict in a fun house, but because it will have an impact on future lawsuits about what people can and can't say about others over the internet. In England, they're already throwing kids in jail for cyberbullying. Damn, Courtney, maybe that move to London isn't such a good idea after all.

Oh, Courtney, you haven't put out a record in five years, but you still manage to provide us with endless entertainment.

The aforementioned lawsuit, no doubt timed to coincide with Heaton's Who Wants to be a Millionaire appearance, was filed by former Heaton personal assistant Jennifer Lee, who claims she was fired because her child was interfering with her work and then stiffed her on $7,425 in back wages.

And then ABC aired her appearance on Millionaire!

Heaton, an unabashed anti-abortion conservative, started off her appearance on the show by having a little exchange with Regis Philbin in which she mentioned how "people who live in the middle of America, which is where I come from," are "nicer" and "smarter" than people who live on the East and West coasts. Then, prior to being presented with the one question she came on the show to answer, Heaton took a shot at her alma mater, Ohio State, by basically saying her education there did little to help her escape the throes of dumbassery (No real surprise there, right?). Then came the one question she appeared on the show to answer along with the four multiple choice answers from which she was to choose one:

If a euro is worth $1.50, five euros is worth what?

A. Thirty quarters
B. Fifty dimes
C. Seventy nickels
D. Ninety pennies

Heaton then had an unlimited amount of time to use simple arithmetic figure it out, not to mention the standard issue "lifelines" the show's famous for. What followed is both hilarious and cringeworthy.

In Heaton's defense, she was playing to raise money for charity, nor is she the first celebrity to shame themselves by appearing on a game show, but still!

In Brüno, Cohen arranged a sit-down with Ayman Abu Aita, whom he identified as the leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, an honest-to-goodness suicide-bombing Palestinian terrorist group that's responsible for dozens of murders. It was funny because he made fun of Osama bin Laden and pretended to be gay.

But Aita, who claims he's no longer affiliated with the Brigades and doesn't like the idea of being seen paling around with an Austrian gay man in a feature film, is threatening a lawsuit:

Mr Abu Aita's lawyer, Hatem Abu Ahmad, said that he is preparing a legal action against Baron Cohen and Universal Studios alleging that the Martyrs' Brigade reference could get his client in trouble with the Israelis and the homosexual association could get him killed by the Palestinians.

Of course, one way to avoid getting mixed up with gags like this is to not affiliate yourself with groups that launch suicide bombings in the first place, so—wait, that didn't work for Ron Paul, did it?

What's worse, the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is making its own threats against Cohen—bafflingly enough, via the "Jerusalem bureau" of WorldNetDaily, the birther outfit that's rapidly overtaking Lyndon LaRouche's place in the taxonomy of American political paranoiacs. WND's Aaron Klein, whom we last saw engineering a fake Wikipedia scandal designed to promote his noxious and fanatical beliefs about Obama's birthplace, obtained a statement from the group:

We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man. This movie was part of a conspiracy against the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Islamist nutjobs complaining to right-wing nutjobs about a Jewish comedian.

[Via Intelligencer.]

Christian bingo enthusiast Richelle Olson filed a lawsuit against Cohen and the studio last month, claiming that a Brüno-caused ruckus at a supposed Christian bingo tournament (organized as a trap by the filmmakers) resulted in a head injury that caused brain damage, leaving her confined to a wheelchair or walker.

The producers of the film have since countered with a tape showing that Ms. Olson was not injured as a direct result of the cameras or the character (the scene was cut from the movie, so we wouldn't have ever seen it either way). But Olson and her dogged lawyer persist! Even if Dr. Fashion didn't push her down himself, it's his fault that she fainted and hurt herself. In a letter sent to Universal (and, we guess, to the Hollywood Reporter), Olson's lawyer says her case still has merit:

Click images for larger

Ohh, so it happened after. Hm. So the lawsuit is bullshit, but still the lady has a right to be angry. Sure a bunch of Christian idiots getting fussed about some gay dude is lame on them, but said gay dude really going to every extreme length possible to rile and upset people isn't really comedy in the same way a big fat bully slapping a kid over and over again and saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself" isn't comedy.

Brüno had his moments in the sun during the long-ago run of Da Ali G Show, sure, but his big feature length movie just felt way too forced and booby-trapped. The laughs are supposed to come from the hideously unprovoked things Americans are capable of saying and doing. But haranguing three unwitting hunters for a few hours, then showing up naked, condoms in hand, at one of their tents? Totally understandable to get yelled at for that one.

So Brüno is dead. There you have it.

Hilton (né Mario Lavandeira) is being sued for breaching a legal settlement that prevented him from mentioning Jonathan Lewandowski (a/k/a Jonathan Jaxson), the young blogger from whom Hilton allegedly solicited sex tapes in exchange for promoting Lewandowski's blog. When Lewandowski's name cropped up in a post on February 3, he claimed Hilton had violated the agreement. But Hilton was shocked — shocked! — that someone assumed he wrote PerezHilton.com. You see, it was really his sister, Barbara, who wrote the item.

A tipster forwarded us the lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court and you can find in full here.

His lawyer wrote in a letter to Lewandowski's counsel that Hilton's sister wrote the post:

Hilton has hinted at his sister's involvement; he told Time that he worked on the site with his "sister, who's my assistant and helps a little bit." But this is the first time he's confirmed that he has a full-on ghost writer.

Guanabee, meanwhile, has reported that Hilton has had other ghostwriters going back to 2006.

Which wouldn't be a scandal, if Hilton were to only acknowledge the help he gets. Yet he continues to hide the making of his gossip sausage, as though his readers are deeply invested in his oh-so-elegant image as an articulate man of letters and glamorous Hollywood gentleman. Hilarious.

[Lavandeira vs. Lewandowski — court filing]

The Hollywood Reporter's THR, Esq. blog obtained a copy of a letter sent by Bruno production attorney Russell Smith to Richelle Olson's attorney. Here are a couple of the highlights:

Mr. Baron Cohen never touched Ms. Olson, much less assaulted her. To the contrary, Ms. Olson assaulted Mr. Baron Cohen, grabbing his arms from behind and attempting to pull him out of a chair.

Your clients also allege that Mr. Baron Cohen used 'vulgar and offensive language over the loud speakers of the bingo hall,' that 'the bingo players are predominantly elderly,' and that they 'felt violated.' ... The footage shows that most of the bingo players were relatively young (like the plaintiffs), and that Mr. Cohen offered only light-hearted comments that were met with general laughter from the audience, and even applause.

Obviously anticipating a slew of legal proceedings coming at them with the film's release, Bruno lawyers seem to be drawing a line in the sand and are daring potential litigants to cross it. We wonder how much the film has to gross to cover the cost of the legal team they're forced to employ to defend it?

THR, Esq. has a PDF of the complete letter if you're interested in those sort of things.

Bruno Attorneys Threaten Olson and Her Lawyers [THR, Esq.]

Richelle Olson claims that an incident at a Palmdale, California bingo tournament two years ago left her disabled in a wheelchair. She is seeking unspecified damages of at least $25,000.

Reports the AP:

Olson's lawsuit contends Cohen has 30 sham companies that help him pull off his ruses and that is how the comedian and his camera crew gained entry into the Desert Valley Charities' bingo tournament in May 2007.

Cohen was invited to the event because his handlers identified him as a "celebrity" who was filming a documentary on bingo, the suit states. The event was to raise money for nursing students.

According to the lawsuit, Cohen - in character as Bruno - started using vulgarities while calling the second bingo game in front of a mostly elderly audience.

A struggle ensued after Olson tried to grab the microphone away from Cohen. She claims he then called his camera crew over, who attacked her for at least a minute, hoping to "create a dramatic emotional response."

Olson's suit states she ran from the stage and was found moments later by a co-worker, sobbing uncontrollably. She then fell to the floor, hitting her head on a concrete slab.

The suit states she suffered brain bleeding as a result.

We would hope that if this lady genuinely suffered brain bleeding that left her in a wheelchair that she's a asking for much more than $25,000 in damages, but why she waited two years to file the suit is anyone's guess—-Some would say probably because it's all a bunch of BS.

Woman Sues Comedian Over Bruno Skirmish [Google/AP]

Lavandeira has won a case against PerezRevenge, a gossip site which styles itself as an antidote to Hilton's "meanness." U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess has ordered the blog's owners, Margie Rogers and Elizabeth Silver-Fagan, to stop using the PerezRevenge name, turn over the site to Hilton, and desist from "using the term 'Perez' to designate any platform, medium, and/or website that contains entertainment or celebrity news or gossip."

Which is laughable, when you think about how Hilton got his start. He first blogged on a site called PageSixSixSix, until he got a nastygram from the New York Post, which objected to his free-riding on the name of its famous gossip column. Lavandeira then came up with his play on the name of the famous hotel heiress, and became Perez Hilton. He also routinely doctors celebrity photos, arguing that sprinkling cocaine dots on them is a transformative use, entitling him to publish them. A couple years ago, several photo agencies disagreed and slapped him with lawsuits. Still, it's all fun and fair. It seems like he's just upset that someone else has joined in on the game.

Ellison, a legend in the world of science fiction—or is it syence fyction now?—wrote a Star Trek episode called "City on the Edge of Forever" in 1967 that starred Joan Collins and won a Hugo Award. CBS paid him for writing it and accounted residuals to him per the Writers Guild contract. But it didn't, according to Ellison, pay him for or even notify him about a whole bunch of other ancillary ways the network made money off the episode, including a three-book series based on it and a "talking Christmas ornament" that many a lonely Trekkie purchased for companionship during Earth Winter.

"[CBS's] Paramount has earned millions exploiting the 'City' teleplay since it was aired in 1967," the suit says. "Yet Paramount has not accounted to Ellison or paid him for such exploitations as it is required to do...."

In a press release, Ellison explained as clearly as he could that he really wants his damn money, adding, "I'm doing it for the 35-year-long disrespect and the money!"

Ellison is also suing the Writers Guild for allegedly dragging its feet in representing him; Ellison says the Guild: "falsely suggesed that Ellison had verbally withdrawn his claim."

THR provided an exhaustive analysis today of exactly how and when financier toes were stepped upon and moguls were made to cry like five-year-old girls, which we've broken down into a handy Get Your Hands of My Push Baby Timeline.

· January 16 — Push debuts in Park City. It built steady buzz over the week, wooing suitors, but accepting no official bites.
· January 24 — Sundance's closing day. In a few hours, Push would win both U.S. grand jury and audience prizes. Weinstein execs land in Park City to negotiate for a buy.
· January 25-27 — A series of meetings and conference calls between Push producer-financier Smokewood Entertainment Group, TWC, and Cinetic, a film financing advisory assigned with brokering the deal.
· TWC also explored two other options: one that would pair them with a private investor, another that would see them going halfsies with Lionsgate—a partnership that proved successful in the past with Fahrenheit 9/11.
· Lionsgate was interested, especially since their Chief Drag Officer and one-man money-making -machine Tyler Perry loved Push.
· January 27 — That morning, TWC and Cinetic reach a detailed agreement. A phone call with the Push financiers that day and one e-mail that evening later, TWC had made an official bid, accepting the filmmakers' terms and requesting paperwork from Cinetic. A Cinetic rep replied in an e-mail that he was "explaining every detail" to his client. The paperwork never came.
· January 28 — TWC tell Lionsgate the deal has closed. Lionsgate approached Cinetic and were assured Push was still theirs for the taking.
· February 2 — Lionsgate seals their own deal, with Perry and Oprah Winfrey's involvement secured.
· February 4 — TWC files complaints in New York Supreme Court against Cinetic, Lionsgate and Smokewood.
· Lionsgate fights back, filing a pre-emptive lawsuit asking a judge to declare Lionsgate the film's legal owner.

The crux of the case, then, lies in Cinetic's e-mails and the intention behind them. According to TWC's Scary Hollywood Lawyer Bert Fields, "The critical thing is that (TWC) sent an e-mail saying we've accepted your terms and we've reached an agreement, and when (Cinetic) writes back and says we're explaining the deal to the clients, that's an adoptive admission that a deal exists." A lawyer for Lionsgate retorts, "The material deal terms were not agreed to, and I think it's apparent on the face of their complaint. Some of those e-mails are deliberately authored in ways to suggest that there was a contract where indeed there wasn't."

• How 'Push' came to shove [THR]

Never mind that the parties co-own a network together and have managed a smooth, lucrative relationship since well before Men became a hit six years ago — what's due is due, per a suit filed Tuesday in LA Superior Court:

The suit [...] alleges that as part of CBS' renegotiated license agreement to air Men for a fifth and sixth season, it agreed to pay WBTV a premium above the initial license fee schedule and reimburse the studio for costs associated with the production of TV's top-rated comedy. This "deficit recoupment," as the term is commonly known, required CBS to pony up if the show reached specific ratings milestones in its fourth season.

"CBS has reaped the benefits of the tremendous success of Two and a Half Men but wants to deny Warner Bros. the right to its agreed-upon share," the complaint argues.

True, Men did enjoy its current season's highest ratings last week, and true, Charlie Sheen's lavish $800,000-per-episode salary doesn't pay itself. But buried in the THR report is the more glaring reality that WBTV won't any time soon see a cent of the $23 million that the bankrupt Tribune Company owes it for syndicating Men and Friends, leaving Warners' the unusual but necessary option of Les Moonves unwrapping different kind of briefs than he's used to this season. And if you're going to accept responsibility for Men, you might as well get your money's worth. You can't really blame the guys.

• WBTV sues CBS over 'Men' [THR]

Devlin says Shemarya forced her to use the doorless bathroom and used it himself, exposing his genitals in the process. She says he made her take dictation while he urinated. She claims he "paraded naked at TSA's offices and exposed himself to her while he urinated or defecated at work.

"[Devlin says] Shemarya frequently pulled out the August 1997 edition of 'Playgirl' magazine," which features nude photos of Brad Pitt, the complaint states. Devlin says Shemarya called Pitt, an agency client, his "golden goose," while ridiculing the size of his penis.

Shemarya allegedly called Jewish clients "Chizlers," routinely referred to women as "cunts" and called the agency's black clients "Niggers." Shemarya called Jennifer Aniston's yoga instructor her "lesbian girlfriend," called Salma Hayek a "twat," and suggested that Hayek "should go back to Mexico" after she ended her business relationship with the agency, according to the lawsuit.

Devlin says Shemarya instructed agency employees to use the company's petty cash to buy drugs. He intercepted expensive gifts that designers sent for agency clients Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, gave DiCaprio and Pitt the gifts as if Shemarya had bought them, and then sent fake thank you notes to the designers, according to the complaint.

Well, there goes the last drops of faith we placed in sniveling Hollywood middle-men to dispense free luxury goods to their intended movie star recipients with any sense of scrupulousness or honor. It's getting so we don't know what to believe in anymore. Excuse us while we ponder this lapse of decency seated upon our Commode of Solitude with the door wide open.

• Complaint Against Talent Agent Shemarya Replete With Lurid Hollywood Gossip [courthousenews.com]
• Today's forecast: Todd Shemarya gets more attention than he ever deserved [Variety]

Back in July, Paul Barressi, a private investigator who works for Tom Cruise, gave the Daily News court papers of Letterese's allegations, including this:

[ex-Scientologist Peter] Letterese claims a member of the church phoned his lawyer at home, and when the lawyer's wife answered, said he was her husband's homosexual lover.

So you can see why he holds a grudge. [FBLA, Previously]

According to multiple sources at the Times, new publisher Eddy Hartenstein has been calling it "treason" for employees to share information with LA Observed...

And yet, solid sources have let me know that current Times leadership is unhappy enough (or paranoid enough) about stuff getting out to consider action against staffers.

Yes, they can sue all the employees that aren't already suing them! It's just common sense, people. As Lee Abrams said, "Are these amazing ideas? Not really." [LAO]

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Los Angeles, CA-A class action complaint CV08-06040 was filed today against Samuel Zell, the Tribune Company, and others in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, by Joseph Cotchett and Philip Gregory of the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on behalf of Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times Pulitzer Prize winning auto critic; Corie Brown, former Los Angeles Times wine and food writer; Henry Weinstein, founding faculty member of UC Irvine School of Law and former Los Angeles Times legal affairs writer; Myron Levin, former Los Angeles Times consumer affairs writer; Walter Roche Jr., former Los Angeles Times writer; and Jack Nelson former Los Angeles Times Washington, D.C. bureau chief on behalf of themselves and other members of a class consisting of current and former employees of the Tribune Company who have rights under the Tribune Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) or various Tribune retirement plans.

The complaint alleges that since completing his takeover of the Tribune Company in December 2007, Sam Zell's illegal and irresponsible actions and public statements have damaged the reputation and business of the company he purports to want to preserve. According to the filed complaint, through both the structure of his takeover and his subsequent conduct, Zell and his accessories have diminished the value of the employee-owned company to benefit himself and his fellow board members. It alleges further that through their destructive management and self-dealings at the expense of employees, Zell and his co-fiduciaries have repeatedly breached their fiduciary duties to beneficiaries of the Tribune Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).

Plaintiffs seek to recover all losses to the Tribune ESOP and the company caused by Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties. As well, Plaintiffs seek the removal of Defendants from their fiduciary positions and removal of the Tribune Board in its entirety for their ongoing dereliction of duties.

[via Romenesko]

The two broke up. Then Martinez allegedly emailed Mullens over and over and over, moaning about his lost love and his bad mental state, and promising to stop contacting her (which she told him to do). But it just kept on, and got worse:

Soon Mullens started receiving emails from a mysterious (fake) "Hugh Frederick":

Martinez eventually acknowledged that he was Hugh Frederick. But his unwanted emails to Mullen got even more disturbing:

Here's a PDF of the entire complaint. If it's at all accurate, Martinez should probably 1. Stop that, and 2. Seek help.

[THR]

Viacom wanted to carve out the records of YouTube employees' video views to show that they knowingly viewed copyrighted content — and in some cases, uploaded it. But Google could easily use its records to show Viacom employees doing exactly the same thing. It would hardly be a shocker: Viacom's Ifilm site is rife with pirated videos, but the site's traffic is too insignificant for copyright holders to get fussed.

Showing Viacom's double standards is an obvious move. What Google's lawyers are probably too naive to contemplate: Scouring YouTube's video logs for truly embarrassing videos viewed by Viacom employees, and leaking them to gossip blogs. That would be a dreadful invasion of privacy, of course — exactly what Viacom was asking for, before it finally backed down.