Paris Hilton 'Directed' Sex Video

Does the Gaiman v. McFarlane decision (Posner, 7th Cir., 2004) affect our thinking on Marvad's legal argument? Joe Gratz (via IPTAblog) has this on the decision:

Even if the contribution is not itself copyrightable, the contributor is a co-author if the joint work would lose its copyrightability absent the contribution in question. This makes the present case come out the right way (Count Cogliostro ends up being jointly owned by Gaiman and McFarlaine), and makes the important co-authorship precedents come out the right way too.

February 24, 2004: Marvad: "Salomon's failure to identify [Paris] Hilton as a co-author on the application for copyright registration renders the certificate of registration invalid and fraudulent," ... said the documents filed by Marvad Corp., which asked District Judge Dean Pregerson to dismiss Rick Salomon'S lawsuit, alleging that Marvad violated his copyright by distributing clips of the video on its Web site, sexbrat.comon, on the basis that Hilton also held rights to the video.

Paris Hilton Sues Over Internet Sex Tape [via Legal Reader / Fleshbot / AVN]

Tongue-in-Chic: Paris Hilton's Confessions of an Heiress

Confessions of an Heiress: A Tongue-in-Chic Peek Behind the Pose

P2P and Pornography: Cheap is More Convenient

Gaiman: Last Legal Post for a long time

Source: Reuters