Singer, songwriter, and producer R. Kelly was recently evicted from two properties in the Atlanta suburbs for failing to pay more than $30,000 in back rent and fees.
The two properties, situated in the tree-lined Johns Creek neighborhood of Duluth, GA, have had a shadow cast on them by the scandals surrounding Kelly. There’s a large mansion and a smaller home, both of which Kelly had been renting. The homes have taken center stage in sex abuse allegations against the entertainer, in addition to dual burglaries committed in December.
The larger home on Old Homestead Trail was used as a primary residence by Kelly, according to BuzzFeed, which published a bombshell report in October accusing the popular R&B crooner of running a “sex cult” involving brainwashing, with a stable of young women kept in guesthouses near his Johns Creek home.
The singer rented the large mansion for $11,542.45 per month. Built in 2000, the 9,000-square-foot estate is situated on 2.5 acres and has its own batting cage and a tennis court that Kelly turned into a basketball court. Indoors, the home boasts luxe amenities, including a home theater and cigar bar.
Who really owns the CG characters in blockbuster films like ‘Avengers’ and ‘Night at the Museum’? On Monday, a judge was told it’s not the studios.
Are some of Hollywood’s biggest movies from the past decade — Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Deadpool and Night at the Museum, among others — all copyright infringements because they were allegedly created with stolen technology? The question seems outlandish, and yet, that’s exactly what a California federal judge was told on Monday in a case that can’t be shrugged off as a crank even if it is now treading on some fantastic territory including a scholar’s search for hidden codes in the Hebrew Bible.
Rearden LLC is the plaintiff. The firm was founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Perlman, who claims to own software called MOVA, which captures facial expressions to create photorealistic computer graphic effects. Rearden also alleges its technology was stolen by a former colleague before eventually landing in the hands of a Chinese firm. After the FBI investigated economic espionage, Rearden sued this Chinese company and won an injunction. Now, Rearden is suing the customers of the stolen technology — Disney, Fox and Paramount — who find their blockbusters the subject of bold intellectual property claims.
In response to the lawsuit, the studios have contended that that the copyright, trademark and patent claims fail as a matter of law. This story will focus on the mind-blowing copyright arguments.
At this stage of the dispute, the studios can’t dispute the truth of the allegations — not only did they use stolen technology, they did so knowingly. But Disney, Fox and Paramount ask, so what? Whatever shows up onscreen is primarily the product of human input, namely film direction and an actor’s performance. The technology company simply can’t own the output.
“Indeed, if Rearden’s authorship-ownership theory were law, then Adobe or Microsoft would be deemed to be the author-owner of whatever expressive works the users of Photoshop or Word generate by using those programs,” wrote Kelly Klaus, attorney for the defendants, who also nodded to an 1884 Supreme Court opinion, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony.
The actress tells The New York Times about her post-Brad life.
by Personal Space Staff
September 13, 2017 • 12:16 PM ET
Angelina Jolie opened up about her split from Brad Pitt in a new interview with The New York Times, saying: ”None of it’s easy. It’s very, very difficult, a very painful situation, and I just want my family healthy.”
The actress, 42, added of the kids, ”They’re getting better.”
The two announced their shock split in September 2016 after 12 years together, two of those married. A custody battle involving their six children — Maddox, 16; Pax, 13; Zahara, 12; Shiloh, 11; Vivienne, 9, and Knox, 9, followed.
Now, Angelina lives in an L.A. mansion which used to be owned by filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille, and says she had a hard time accepting she would really be moving out of Brad’s house.
“It took me a few months to realize that I was really going to have to do it. That there was going to have to be a home. Another home….That there was going to have to be another base regardless of everything,” she says, adding that “It’s like living in a fraternity.”
The kids are home schooled, nd spend much of the day under Angelina’s watch.
“They really help me so much. We’re really such a unit,” she says. “They’re the best friends I’ve ever had. Nobody in my life has ever stood by me more.”
As for life after Brad, she explains, “It has a lot of moments.”
“It’s happy. Happy and light, and we needed that,” she says. “None of it’s easy. It’s very, very difficult, a very painful situation, and I just want my family healthy.”
She was promoting First They Killed My Father, which received a standing ovation at the Telluride Film Festival, where it had its premiere. Netflix will begin streaming it Sept. 15.
“The real will to survive, and the strength of the human spirit, and the love of the human family becomes so present, and that’s how we should all be living,” she says.
“When you’re around it, it’s quite contagious, and you know to learn from it.”
Tiger Woods and Lindsey Vonn are the most recent victims of a private photo leak to threaten legal action. However countless celebrities have fallen victim to their most private moments being made public and lately one website seems to be doing a lot of the sharing: Celeb Jihad.
“Websites like Celebjihad.com try to skirt the laws of the U.S. by being hosted offshore,” explained Kevin Blatt, celebrity crisis expert with the VIP cyber security company Faction.One. “By being located offshore, some sites think they don’t need to adhere to the laws of many countries or that it’s simply another layer of protection against the lawyers that represent these A -list clients.”
Yet Carrie Goldberg, Internet and sexual privacy lawyer at C. A. Goldberg, PLLC, said once a website is caught breaking the law, legal action can be taken.
“Now that we have revenge porn laws in two out of three of states, no legitimate company would want to take the risk of exhibiting naked pictures of nonconsenting people,” she noted.
Full Read – http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/24/how-does-celeb-jihad-continue-to-share-hacked-celebrity-nude-pics.html
Whether or not you’re attuned to the ongoing dramas of the Kardashian krew, you’ve likely heard by now that Rob Kardashian (brother to Kim; sock entrepreneur) spent much of his Wednesday posting a series of nude photos, presumably sent to him privately, by his ex-fiancée and mother of his child, Blac Chyna (formerly Angela Renee White; model; makeup entrepreneur). Because the social media spree took place after he’d discovered that Chyna had apparently cheated on him, Kardashian’s act has been roundly deemed by celebrity gossip mongers like TMZ as “revenge.”
Indeed, celebrity attorney Lisa Bloom (daughter of famed civil rights lawyer Gloria Allred) confirmed this reading of the events when she announced Friday morning that she’d be representing Chyna in court as she pursues a restraining order against her raging ex. Bloom — who helped actress Mischa Barton get a restraining order against an ex-boyfriend who was threatening to sell her sex tape — told The New York Daily News that what Kardashian did constituted “revenge porn,” stating: “Revenge porn is illegal in CA and it certainly appears to me that Rob has violated this criminal law.”
California passed its revenge porn law in 2013. Today, more than half of U.S. states have similar laws. The very language with which we use to talk about “revenge porn” reveals a lot about how we approach the issue, casting it in terms of personal drama rather than as a violation of personhood. Iowa-based Drake University law professor Shontavia Johnson says the popular phrase is misleading. “Revenge porn is really about privacy, about protecting our personal information and having a right to do that,” she says. “We use the term ‘revenge porn,’ which makes it sound like it’s about the perpetrator, but it’s really about the privacy of the individual victim, and whether or not an unsuspecting victim can in some way stop this picture or video from being placed online.”