Cameron's S&M C+D

The triplets of Gawker-ville are feeling the heat from Cameron Diaz's Hollywood attorneys over their

"unauthorized exploitation of any video footage, pictures or photographs of Cameron Diaz which were taken at a photo shoot in or about 1992 on the Internet or elsewhere. Specifically, we have learned that each of Your websites, www.gawker.com, www.fleshbot.com, and www.defamer.com, are posting a link to [WEBSITE], the owners of which are unlawfully selling the Video and Photos to its subscribers for a fee."

Gawker asks "shouldn't non-published copyrighted works [] be registered prior to infringement?" If I remember correctly a work is copyrightable if it is original, eligible and fixed. Fixed means that you can read it -- i.e. the letter is potentiallly subject to copyright.

The c&d letter requests that the Denton-pire "provide [] a detailed accounting of any and all monies that You and any affiliated websites have received from the use, publishing, distribution and any other exploitation of the Photos and/or Video...." As luck would have it, Nick was quick to discuss recent Gawker's stats: "We don't give out financial details, but all the Gawker traffic numbers are public.... There's a big surge right now, because of the Cameron Diaz S&M porn movie."

The most ridiculous part, I think, is that these lawyers believe that the sites will be able to provide a list of "e-mail addresses, and other contact information of those persons and other entities who copied or downloaded the Photos and/or Video from Your websites...."

I believe the answer to be none since Gawker et al simply reported and linked to the site and did not in fact host or serve the video for download. Cameron, how much are you paying these guys and where can I apply for a position.
 
Update: Wired News correspondent Daniel Terdiman reports that "Diaz's claim against Gawker Media is based on the language in the November injunction. In it, Haber wrote that not only was Rutter Productions enjoined from "disseminating, distributing, publishing, broadcasting or otherwise displaying the photos and/or video," but so, too, were "all others having knowledge or notice of this order." (Actress Tries to Slap Gawkers, July 16, 2004) [via waxy]

For the record, Wired also reports that Diaz's legal team is headed by Los Angeles lawyer John Laverly.

Julie Hilden's Should Linking be Immune from Lawsuits? The Case In Favor of a Federal Statutory Immunity For Linkers

Curmudgeonly Clerk's The Law of Linking: DVD Copy Control Ass'n v. Bunner, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 338, (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (discussing trial court's refusal "to enjoin the defendants from linking to other web sites that contained protected information, because the links were indispensable to Internet access and a web-site owner could not be held responsible for the content of other web sites" in trade secret case), superceded, 41 P.3d 2 (Cal. 2002) (an order prohibiting linking to websites with prohibited information is not necessary since the Court has enjoined the posting of the information in the first instance).