With Jennifer Aniston and photographer Peter Brandt having reached a settlement last month over Brandt’s alleged invasion of privacy when he snapped a topless, sunbathing Aniston with a one Vince Vaughn (and a topless, sunbathing Aniston allegedly smoking a joint), we thought the matter of the topless, sunbathing Aniston would end there: with no money (supposedly) changing hands and Brandt agreeing to hand over the photos.
And then our fax machine beeped and booped alive today with an exciting new development: A series of court documents – sealed by the Honorable Rolf Treu – from Aniston’s legal team at Lavey & Singer began spitting out, with intimate details of the agreement reached between Aniston’s counsel and Brandt’s attorney Martin Kaufman. Naturally, given the documents are under seal, we can’t very well talk about their contents.
But how did they arrive at Jossip Headquarters anyhow? We can see how it might’ve happened: The name of the intended recipient, David H. Dicker, does bare a resemblence to Jossip’s publisher, David Hauslaib (minus the Dick). Meanwhile, we’ve communicated with Lavely & Singer on the Jennifer Aniston matter in the past — and had the pleasure of being on the receiving end of a smattering of cease and desists when we published photos of a topless Aniston. Photos, of course, that are at the center of this case. So perhaps it was just a misguided Outlook contacts query? Whatever it was, Aniston deserves at least two or three credited billable hours.
(As you can probably infer: No, the original document faxed to us did not have a photo of Aniston eating a candybar. While topless. And sunbathing. But how else to grab your attention?)
Jennifer Aniston’s long-running battle with photog Peter Brandt over the topless photos (which showed her allegedly smoking a joint) he took of her has, at last, come to an end. The two parties have settled the matter out of court, which means no fun documents to look over. (And given that we’ve already seen the photos already, what fun is there to be had, anyhow?) But, as a door prize, we do have the email Brandt’s camp been sending around announcing “the ink is now dry.”
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 1:17 PM
The ink is dry! Just to let everone know. Peter Brandt and Jennifer Aniston have both mutually agreed on their differences of the topless photographs she was upset about…….Even thought they were legally obtained by Peter (no trees were climbed or trespassing done), Peter pulled the photos from publication…..Any questions, please call Peter or I.
Thanks, Francine
And one last goodie: We’re told exclusively that no money changed hands in the settlement.
The fight continues between Jennifer Aniston and paparazzo Peter Brandt, and somehow Jossip finds itself in the middle of things. Before we get into the latest court filings (and law firm lobbying), let’s catch you up to speed.
Back in December, we heard from Jennifer Aniston’s attorneys over at Lavely & Singer (who we’ve been in touch with repeatedly regarding Colin Farrell’s sex tape, but that’s a whole other matter), who asked us to take down photos supposedly depicting her topless in her backyard. Now whether those photos are the ones at the center of lawsuit Aniston filed against Peter Brandt (for details, go here) or the pics that circulated back in 1999 isn’t of much concern to us ???????? details, schmetails ???????? but her legal representation took issue.
So, fine, we took them down.
In the ensuing weeks, we were tipped off to defendant Peter Brandt’s Los Angeles Superior Court Notice of Demurrer filings (which we exclusively posted here and analyzed here), where he defended the photos he took of Aniston for reasons including, among others, that she had no reasonable expectation of privacy (sitting on the hill in her backyard in plain view of passersby) and that her exposed breasts were part of the public domain (GQ redubbed Woman of the Year issue, anyone?).
Oh, and it was also in that Demurrer filing Brandt claimed his photos depicted Aniston and boyfriend Vince Vaughn smoking pot. As you can imagine, Lavely & Singer (which rep Aniston as well as Vaugh) weren’t too pleased. They fired off this note to Jossip:
By posting an excerpt from certain documents filed by Peter Brandt with the Los Angeles Superior Court in the lawsuit by Jennifer Aniston against Peter Brandt, you have libeled Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn by republishing false and defamatory statements about them, namely, the false claim that the photos of Ms. Aniston and Mr. Vaughn taken by Peter Brandt showed them smoking marijuana. This is a lie and the photos filed with the court clearly show the statement is a lie. Moreover, in response to a demand from Ms. Aniston and Mr. Vaughn that Mr. Brandt withdraw the false and defamatory statement about smoking marijuana, Mr. Brandt immediately filed a document with the court (i.e., Notice of Errata) in which Mr. Brandt withdrew the false claim he had made about Ms. Aniston and Mr. Vaughn smoking marijuana.
…
We demand that you immediately withdraw and delete all of these defamatory statements about Ms. Aniston and Mr. Vaughn and we further demand that you retract and apologize for repeating the false and defamatory statements about the smoking of marijuana, which statements are provably false and had been previously withdrawn by Mr. Brandt.
As it so happens, these lawyers were telling the truth! Well, sort of. Hit us after the jump and we’ll explain the rest ???????? as well as treat you to previously unreported court filings.
CONTINUED »
Yesterday, Jossip showed you exclusive court documents filed by Peter Brandt to counter claims made by Jennifer Aniston, who filed suit against the paparazzo early last month over his allegedly invading her privacy by peering into her backyard and snap, snap, snapping away at her bare breasts. (You know all this already, right?)
Brandt, out to protect his reputation and the millions of dollars Aniston’s legal team is looking for in damages, is firing back.
In a Notice of Demrurer, not only does he claim the former Mrs. Brad Pitt had no expectation of privacy in her backyard, sitting on a hill in plain sight and all, but – more salaciously – some of the photos he took depict Aniston and current beau Vince Vaughn smoking pot together (see this page of the document).
At least that’s what his court filings, filed Jan. 3, claim. Further, Brandt makes the standard claim that Aniston is a celebrity/public figure, is of public interest (and feeds it through voluntary press participation), and that her December (topless) appearance in GQ’s Man of the Year issue represents Aniston’s topless depiction is in the public domain — though even we’re a little iffy as to that reasoning, as her bare breasts were never shown.
Meanwhile, the topless photos of Aniston circulated worldwide (by U.S. publishers, no less) in 1999 – allegedly taken over her fence – were never proven to be snapped unlawfully.
While we’ve secured exclusive scans of the court documents, we hear the Associated Press will be all over this later today. Surely they won’t leave out Jossip’s own dealings with Aniston’s lawyers, right?
Earlier: The top is off Jennifer Aniston’s paparazzi case
Earlier: So, about those Jennifer Aniston photos
Related: Aniston Warns Over Topless Photos [TSG]
How many times do we have to go over this? When you take your bikini off in public, and someone takes a picture, your privacy is not violated. See, some celebrities just think they own everything.
Peter Brandt, the paparazzi being sued by Jennifer Aniston for capturing those topless photos of her, claims that the actress has no cause of action to bring forward her Violation of Right of Privacy complaint.
Brandt claims that Aniston’s complaint doesn’t really make sense. He also claims that it isn’t very valid, because they’ve been over this already:
“The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible.”
Additionally this claim has already been decided in another case … which held Aniston did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to a topless photo of herself because it was in the public domain.”
What surprised us most about this complaint, is that it’s coming from the girl who totally nipped out on every episode of Friends. Why do celebrities need to walk around their properties and lay on their lawn chairs naked anyway? Isn’t that why we have magazines like Playboy and GQ?
All the documents and a bunch of court mumbo jumbo, after the jump.
Related: Jennifer Aniston fights for her photos
CONTINUED »
Last week we had asked about those topless Jennifer Aniston photos that she was suing paparazzo Peter Brandt over — and thretening the likes of Bonnie Fuller with lawsuits if they bought them. Actually, we did more than ask: we published them.
Aniston’s legal team at Lavely & Singer in L.A., quite frankly, weren’t too pleased, sending us an early Christmas gift: a cease and desist letter requesting we not show Jennifer’s bare breasts, even though they may not be Jennifer and the boobies may not even be hers. Well, at least they know it was a Photoshop job. Or want to believe as much.
This letter will provide you with written notice that the photograph on the URL referred to above (the ???????Fake Photograph???????) does not depict Ms. Aniston topless but, rather the Fake Photograph is of someone else that resembles Ms. Aniston or through a process of computer imaging, digital alteration, Photoshop, or other technologies applied to photographic images, these photographs or images of Ms. Aniston have been altered, for example her face and head have been stripped onto someone else????????s body. Under the second scenario, the technological fabrication or manipulation of images falsely makes it appear that Ms. Aniston has been photographed topless in various poses.
The full cease and desist letter, after the jump. Though it was marked “Not for Publication,” so could you please not publish it?
CONTINUED »
What was that about topless photos of Jennifer Aniston being shopped around by Peter Brandt that her lawyer is trying to keep the tabloids from buying?
Yeah, what about them? The rest of the early Christmas presents Santa dumped in our inbox (fakes or otherwise), after the jump.
UPDATE: Aww, they’re fakes as we suspected? Way to ruin Christmas. [Bare Knuckle Politics]
UPDATE 2: After hearing from Jennifer’s legal team and deciding we’d rather go Christmas shopping with our money than engage in a legal battle with her attorneys, we’ve since pulled the nudie photos.
Earlier: Jossip Juxtaposition: Jennifer Aniston goes on booby patrol
• Jessica Simpson might be the one paying her assistant CaCee Cobb, but the glorified gopher’s loyalty remains with Nick Lachey. She’s been running her mouth about Jessica’s infidelity and general mistreatment of poor Nick, and even a new BMW and Rolex haven’t stopped her free flow of gossip. [Lowdown]
• Can’t a girl take her top off in her backyard anymore these days? Jennifer Aniston should know that’s not an option, and paparazzo Peter Brandt so kindly reminded her with his telephoto lens. Now Jen’s lawyers are warning the tabloids against purchasing any of those photos, especially since you can get the Photoshopped fakes for free. [R&M]
• Robbie Williams won apologies and libel damages from a trio of tabloids over claims he’s a closet homosexual. Says his lawyer: “Mr. Williams is not, and has never been, homosexual.” Though he might be tomorrow. [BBC]
• The real reason Kevin Federline and Britney Spears are having problems? Brit’s mother Lynne hates her son-in-law. But Kevin is taking the loss hard. Of his Ferrari, that is. [Page Six]
• Justin Timberlake, tired of being turned down for acting roles for sounding like a girl, enlisted a voice coach to give him the vocals to match his Trousersnake reputation. [The Scoop]
• Sweet Charity star Christina Applegate is splitting from husband Johnathon Schaech — and it’s his call. His residual checks from That Thing You Do must really be kicking in. [TMZ]
http://tmz.aol.com/article1?id=20051205222209990011
• Gisele Bundchen will not have anyone looking at her bare ass as she glides down the runway. [Page Six]
• Eminem is ready to remarry ex-wife and lyrical focal point Kim Mathers, or at least Star would like you to believe they have an exclusive saying so. [Star]
• Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are said to be expecting a boy, not a thetan. [The Scoop]