Paris Hilton 'Directed' Sex Video - Court Filing

By Michael Kardos
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Reality TV star Paris Hilton directed and helped shoot the notorious sex video starring her and an ex-boyfriend that has surfaced on at least two Internet porn sites, according to documents filed for a Los Angeles court hearing on Monday.

The documents were filed by Seattle-based Marvad Corp. asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by Hilton's ex-boyfriend, Rick Salomon, on the basis that Hilton, best known as the star of the Fox reality TV show "The Simple Life," also held rights to the video.

Hilton's manager had no comment. The attorney for the 23-year-old socialite and member of the family that founded the Hilton hotels chain.

Salomon, 35, claims Marvad violated his copyright by distributing clips of the video on its Web site, sexbrat.com.

The lawsuit, filed in November in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, also accuses Salomon's former roommate, Don Thrasher, of stealing, copying and selling the videotape to Marvad without Salomon's permission.

Thrasher has said publicly that Salomon agreed to sell the tape, and actually received half of the $50,000 proceeds.

About a week ago, Salomon posted the 38-minute video on his own Web site, www.trustfundgirls.com, where it sells for $50, his publicist said on Monday. Parts of the night-vision video, recorded in May 2001, turned up on the Internet in November.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson heard arguments on Monday and said he would rule at a later date on Marvad's motion to dismiss Salomon's lawsuit.

In court papers, Marvad's lawyers argued that the case should be thrown out because Salomon was not the sole copyright holder as he apparently had claimed in registration documents.

"Unfortunately for Salomon, the video also depicts Ms. Hilton participating fully in the creation of the video," the motion said. "Ms. Hilton offered directorial comments and physically controlled and directed the camera."

Salomon's failure to identify Ms. Hilton as a co-author on the application for copyright registration renders the certificate of registration invalid and fraudulent," the document said.
Other court papers claim that Hilton was aware that Salomon was showing the video to friends.

Salomon's attorney, Martin Singer, dismissed the argument as "great for the media, bad for the law."

"My client owns the video," Singer said. "When an actor appears in a motion picture and may help direct scenes ... that doesn't change ownership."

Hilton has not sued Salomon over the video, Singer said.

She has, however, sued Panama-based Internet company Kahatani Ltd. for $30 million, claiming it illegally distributed the notorious video.

Hilton said in her lawsuit that she intended the videotape for "personal use and never intended or consented that it be shown to anyone else or distributed to the public."

Salomon, a video entrepreneur, in November sued Hilton and her family for $10 million, claiming they slandered him by suggesting that he took advantage of her.


At one point in the video, Hilton even pushed Salomon out of the frame so as to not block the shot, the document said.

So, can we assume she has not signed a model release?

only thing I like about this ugly skanky of a whore is her nice puffies.

only thing i like about her is all the money ive's made off her good name

Muhahahaha I called this on gfy several days ago in one of the solomon threads.

I said it shows her starting the camera and scene, ect. Copyright almost always default to the photographer so she has at least some interest in this.

all that money just to be a slut

so crazy, had to read part of it 3 times to get it right

See sig

bout time there was an affiliate program for it

lol
what a dumb bitcht

She actually looks like she's got a decent rack in that pic.

There's pimps then there's hoez. Sometimes the hoez wanna step up and act like they're part pimp. This is when you use the bitch slap to show the hoez their place.

Children, can we say Wonder Bra?

There is NO basis for his exclusive copyright on the thing..

And we are paying 50% to webmasters

... fuck that's an awesome statement, what movie ??

They can fight about the copyright of the video but as long as there is not model released and ID it doesn't comply with title 18 2257 and his illegal to diftribute ...

... sobe wouldn't give a fuck and I guess solomon doesn't either.

I have to agree!

I believe his website is located in the Czech Republik or Poland so the 2257 info is totally irrelevant. As both Paris Hilton and lawyers already stated that it is her you simply don't need an ID as it is 100% clear who is in it and that she is over 18.

So the only one able to fight this one would be Paris but I guess the publicity is much more valuable to her.

so if someone wants to have a site with underage girls they can just host it in the czeh and be perfectly safe. I think theres gonna be a big upswing of those sites then.

Why would there be a big upswing in CP because of the Paris Hilton video? Scum who run CP sites already know where to host.

lawyers are fuckign so smart i am jealous

Thats not what I said. I said you don't need to have 2257 info as this is US law only. Paris Hilton is over the age of 18 as anyone can lookup on the net. An unknown model cannot be looked up like this so it is a whole different issue.

It doesn't take a genius to realize she's probably just as behind the making AND the release of this tape as Saloman (sic). All the phoney embarassment and fake protests and just part of the act. Pamela Anderson benefited from her sex tape in much the same way as Paris is now. I think it's almost cool now to have a sex tape out on the internet - just as long as you swear you never intended for it to get out.

Lawyers can't rap.

My 2257 doesn't have the part about..

You must have a model release and id UNLESS they are famous and well known. It says you have to have it if they are sexualaly explicit. When did they change that?

And it doesn't matter where the site is hosted. If the money goes to an american bank or can be traced to an american company or person as owner or distributor, then that person is subject to US law.

whaty i want to know is I saw Rick on CSPAN2 this past weekend, he said he was suing the Hilton Family for blastign his name....

"He drugged and took advantage of an underage girl and filmed it"

That is what the family claimed aganist him, so by the sounds of that is this tape from before she was 18? Or was that just slams from the Hilton family on Rick?


-Loki-

Nice cocksucking lips also