TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Lindsay Lohan

Unpaid Hotel Bill

Not My Problem

8/29/2012 11:26 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE

0829_lindsay_chateau_01Lindsay Lohan's passing the buck -- telling friends she thought the producers behind her recent Liz Taylor movie were going to pay her $46,350 hotel bill ... which is why she never offered to cover the tab.

Sources close to the actress tell TMZ, Lindsay claims producers agreed to cover her stay at L.A.'s Chateau Marmont while she filmed "Liz & Dick" earlier this summer -- so she was shocked to learn there was an outstanding 5-figure bill in her name ... and even more shocked when she was banned from the hotel when the bill went unpaid.

0829_lindsay_subasset_launchWe're told Lindsay is currently trying to sort the problem out with producers -- and if they refuse to pay, Lindsay will happily cover the tab.

We reached out to Lifetime for comment -- so far, no word back.

669 COMMENTS

No Avatar
331.

Rachel    

Why would they put her up in a hotel....doesn't she live in LA? Anyone who let's this loser into their lives get what they deserve.

595 days ago
332.

microfiche     

Wow, she was really hitting up the mini bar. Why should the production company be on the hook for her cigarettes, magazines, and booze? I can't stand her. She did, what, a few Disney movies a decade ago? Why is she still here?

595 days ago
333.

peacepenny22    

Lohan's bill in detail. lol. http://hollywoodleek.com/2012/08/lohans-unpaid-chateau-marmont-hotel-bill-released/

595 days ago
334.

Vorlon    

Who ELSE does this sound like? Just sayin'

MADISYN, LIAISON TO THE H8TURDS!!
. Why must this man insinuate himself in every situation and attempt to come off as 'important'

595 days ago
335.

ted    

Lying skank.

595 days ago
336.

Barbara    

They might have agreed to pay the room fee...but I doubt that included her family, friends, parties, etc etc

595 days ago
337.

Vorlon    

Like you have any to spare. Lying delusion-AL idiot.

Marvin

So here's a few thoughts on this subject.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/29/lindsay-lohan-chateau-marmont-bill-lifetime-liz-dick-movie/#ixzz2507bhY2i

595 days ago
338.

magmax    

This has been the best comeback ever, although Charles Manson could have done it better.
.
And don't forget, Lindsay now also accepts PayPal and Shell Oil credit cards for your sexual needs.

595 days ago
339.

Woody725    

What are we going to do for light entertainment when this idiot finally kills herself?

595 days ago
340.

help this young woman    

"For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

595 days ago
341.

Who the Hell is Khloe    

Can this beech go one day without screwing up?

595 days ago
342.

help this young woman    

The Hollywood Reporter
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an important decision that will be welcomed by celebrities and cause news organizations some anxiety.


our editor recommends

Dr. Oz: A Surefire Way to Sell Magazines

Conde Nast Vs. Carine Roitfeld: Ex-Employer Bans Staffers From Working on Her New Glossy Magazine (Report)

In Monge v. Maya Magazines, the appellate circuit dealt with whether a tabloid had the "fair use" right to publish stolen copyrighted photographs of a secret wedding between two Latino stars. And in addressing the case, the appellate judges dealt with one of the thorniest issues in copyright law and handed down a decision that, among other things, could nearly put a halt to the release of celebrity sex tapes without consequence.

The appellate circuit sets up the case by comparing it to a "telenovela," and it does so without exaggeration.

The case involved pop singer/model Noelia Lorenzo Monge, who secretly married her manager and music producer Jorge Reynoso. The two wed in a Las Vegas chapel in 2007 and managed to keep their nuptials secret for two years -- even from their parents!

To ensure privacy, Monge and Reynoso brought their own camera and had chapel employees take pictures. These photos were kept private until Oscar Viqueira, a paparazzo who also worked as a bodyguard and driver, discovered a memory chip in the ashtray of his vehicle lent to Reynoso. Viqueira then tried to extort money from the couple that he claimed Reynoso owed him. When that didn't work, he sold the photos for $1,500 to Maya, which publishes TV Notas, a Latino tabloid that published them to the shock of many, including Reynoso's mother.

The couple registered a copyright on the photos and sued the publication for copyright infringement and misappropriation of likeness. A district court tossed the case based on fair use -- the exception to copyright law that allows limited use under certain cir***stances.

On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit reversed the decision by a 2-1 vote and remanded the case back to the district court.

In getting there, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown deals with the fair use doctrine, which she notes has been called "the most troublesome in the whole law of copyright."

The problem of fair use -- or chief attribute, depending on how one looks at it -- has long been that there are no bright red lines that guide this exception to copyright authority, codified by Congress in 1976. Courts determine fair use on a case-by-case basis, analyzing four key factors, including the purpose and character of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of copyrighted material used in relation to the work as a whole and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

In general, news reporting has been given ample fair use by courts.

"We have little doubt that the gossip magazine’s sensational coverage of the wedding qualifies as news reporting," writes McKeown. "Our role in this regard is not as a literary critic."

However, the judge notes that being newsworthy is just one factor in the overall analysis. "In other words, fair use has bounds even in news reporting, and no per se 'public interest' exception exists," she writes.

So the judge examines the other factors, including the degree of transformation occasioned by Maya’s use and its commercial nature. There, she notes that the photographs were reproduced essentially in their entirety. She says that "neither minor cropping nor the inclusion of headlines or captions transformed the copyrighted works."

Next, turning to the issue of the amount of copyrighted material used, McKeown says the magazine copied 100 percent of the photos.

"While we do not discredit Maya’s legitimate role as a news gatherer, its reporting purpose could have been served through publication of the couple’s marriage certificate or other sources rather than copyrighted photos," she writes. "Even absent official do***entation, one clear portrait depicting the newly married couple in wedding garb with the priest would certainly have sufficed to verify the clandestine wedding. Maya used far more than was necessary to corroborate its story."

Finally, the analysis centers on the effect of the use upon the potential market. Monge and Reynoso were not out to make money on their photographs. Nevertheless, the photos were valuable, and they could have sold them, had they wished. "Recognizing that fair use focuses on potential, not just actual, market harm, we note there is little doubt that an actual market exists for the photos," she writes.

The judge concludes that, "Waving the news-reporting flag is not a get-out-of-jail-free card in the copyright arena."

The decision is a huge victory for celebrities. Longtime readers of this column will remember how Hollywood attorney Marty Singer dealt with the leak of a sex tape involving clients Rebecca Gayheart and Eric Dane. Because Dane was holding the camera, the lawyer argued, he had a copyright interest in the video. Had a lawsuit against Gawker continued instead of settling, Dane might have been able to enjoy the same kind of victory just given to Monge and Reynoso.

"The majority’s fair use analysis in this case is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and thwarts the public interests of copyright by allowing newsworthy public figures to control their images in the press," he writes.

"The majority contends that the public interest in a free press cannot trump a celebrity’s right to control his image and works in the media -- even if that celebrity has publicly controverted the very subject matter of the works at issue," Smith continues. "Under the majority’s analysis, public figures could invoke copyright protection to prevent the media’s disclosure of any embarrassing or incriminating works by claiming that such images were intended only for private use.

595 days ago
343.

help this young woman    

"Monday's evidence revealed long-standing illegal payments to police and public officials by journalists working for two of Murdoch's tabloids, the News of the World and the Sun."

595 days ago
344.

help this young woman    

On Monday, Charlotte Church, the singer whose audiences have included Pope John Paul II and former President Clinton, was awarded over $950,000 in damages from News Corp. in connection with illegal phone taps and surveillance by tabloid journalists.

High Court Judge Geoffrey Vos told a hearing that Church and her parents had been pursued by reporters and photographers since 2002, when the singer was 16. Illegal phone-hacking and constant surveillance resulted in 33 articles on the singer and her family in the now-defunct News of the World, he said.

In an angry statement after the hearing, the 26-year-old singer, who had been present in court, told a crowd of reporters that she was "sickened and disgusted" by what she had learned about the practices of those "who pursued me and my family just to make money for a multinational news corporation."

Her parents had "been harassed," she said, and her mother "bullied into revealing her own private medical condition."

595 days ago
345.

Tracy    

Blame Blame Blame!!!!!!excuses when is this trick going to take responsibilities.Do this girl parents talk to her because she is self destructing.

595 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web