Celebrity Archive

Metallica Drummer Accused of Stiffing P.A. Settles Lawsuit

November 17th, 2011. By AbiK

Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich recently settled a wage and hour lawsuit that had been filed by a former personal assistant, Steven Wiig. Wiig claimed a whole bunch of labor law violations: years of unpaid overtime (years!) along with alleged state and federal labor violations, breach of oral contract and continuing wages.

Yep, your run-of-the-mill California overtime lawsuit… NOT! We’re talking METALLICA!

Now, “Metallica” tends to conjure up headbanging images—think Beavis and Butthead (heh-heh)—and a lot of what some folks would call noise. Case in point, their live “Enter Sandman” video showcases some of those whiplash-inducing moves the band is famous for—and famous they are with that video alone having over 52,000,000 views on youtube. They’re the stuff of (hard) rock legend…off to never-never land! (In fairness, they’ve got some memorable ballads in their repertoire as well—like “Nothing Else Matters” (see video above)).

Ok. So they’re rock stars. And unless much has changed in the last oh, fifty plus years, rock stars tend to be magnets when it comes to wannabes wanting coveted jobs like “personal assistant”. Hell, it’s a twenty year old’s fantasy…screw getting a desk job after 4 years of hitting the books. Hit drop/add with the emphasis on “drop” and hit the road. Yeah, you’re down with the roadies, groupies, parties and perks. The all-access pass to backstage glam and prestige…you’re with the band now, man…(& you can advertise that fact with the t-shirt at right, at zazzle.com).

Oh wait—you expected to be paid on an hourly basis as well? And given a bonus each year? Ahh, but see—as with any situation where supply exceeds demand, prices get driven down. Lots of available labor? Labor gets cheap, right? And maybe that’s when labor starts to get—or at least feel—abused.

Hey, you wanted to be with the band…

So here we are with Lars Ulrich getting sued by his personal assistant. It’s an interesting case—similar to the PR hacks complaining not long ago about their compensation—because clearly this guy, Wiig, put up with the deal for “years” (2001-2009). A decade. Why hang so long in a gig that you think is screwing you over?

According to the Marin Independent Journal, Wiig acted as Ulrich’s chauffeur, managed his art collection, handled his scheduling and “other tasks and errands” upon request. That translated to around 70 hours a week, which was upped to 80 hours a week when Metallica was on tour.

Wiig claimed he performed those duties for $45,000 a year. He also claims to have had a verbal agreement (red flag!) for annual bonuses. Of course, according to marinij.com, Ulrich’s side claims Wiig received $110,000 a year before bonuses, free rent and a free car. I suppose only the tax man knows for sure (wink-wink).

At any rate, the two sides have settled (terms not disclosed). My guess is that Wiig came out ahead on this one—but what to do now? Oh yeah, write a memoir “Snared: My Life with Lars Ulrich and Metallica”.

Tags: California labor law, Lars Ulrich, Metallica, Metallica Drummer, overtime lawsuit, Overtime Pay, Unpaid Overtime, Wage and Hour
Posted in Celebrity, Emerging Issues, Employment, lawsuits | 9069No Comments »2011-11-17+18%3A13%3A42AbiK

Does Kim Kardashian have a Case v. Old Navy? You be the Judge

October 17th, 2011. By AbiK

Ok folks. The lookalike lawsuit filed by Kim Kardashian against Old Navy (owned by The Gap, Inc.) has not just faded away like rinse on your fave Old Navy Skinny Mini-Flare jeans—Color: Cottonwood, that is. Nope. Now The Gap is bringing in the big guns by hiring attorney Louis Petrich of Leopold, Petrich & Smith. The firm specializes in entertainment and intellectual property law.

So the big question is not what Kardashian will next be touting after her product line launch at Sears and—hush-hush—that failed Kardashian Kard debit card—but whether Old Navy in their classic tongue-in-cheek (and usually humorous) ads stepped over the line by using an attractive brunette to emulate a rather self-absorbed, high-maintenance, reality tv-type actress. Oh wait—I mean to allegedly channel the very likeness of Kim Kardashian to push their product line.

At least two statements in the complaint do confound me a bit:

1. The Infringing Ads are likely to cause confusion, and have caused actual confusion, in the minds of the consuming public as to an association of Kim Kardashian with Defendants’ products and services.

and

2. Defendants have created a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the consuming public as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement, or association of Kim Kardashian with Defendants, and with their goods, services and performances.

Ok, it’s the bit about “confusion”. I don’t watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians. It’s a painful reminder of Bruce Jenner circa 1976 and leads me to ask the unanswerable question “what happened?” Regardless, I don’t have a razor-sharp recollection of what the heck Kim Kardashian looks like. But, I do know that every tabloid I see when I’m checking out at the grocery store does show her in a much less-complimentary light than what Old Navy could possibly have mustered up with these ads (hello hip measurements anyone?).

Not to be catty—but, ok, I am—I’d be quite happy if someone used model Melissa Molinaro to allegedly represent me. My point though, is that there isn’t anyway, anyhow that I’d have “confused” Melissa with Kim. Are they a similar “look” in general? Yes—but I got that it was a spoof…a mockery. It’s a caricature of our times. And doesn’t the First Amendment provide for such artistic interpretation of very public theater?

While I certainly don’t agree that anyone has a right to use a celebrity without his/her express consent in the capacity of an endorsement or otherwise, Old Navy did not either a) use images of Kim Kardashian herself; or b) have her name splattered across the ads as an official endorsement.

We’ll have to see where this nets out—and feel free to chime in with your comments. The ad is shown in the video above—and by now, I presume you already know what Ms. Kardashian looks like.

Tags: intellectual property, Kardashian lookalike lawsuit, Kim Kardashian, Louis Petrich, Old Navy, The Gap
Posted in Celebrity, Emerging Issues, Intellectual Property, lawsuits | 89122 Comments »2011-10-17+16%3A26%3A41AbiK

Hollywood Lawsuit #1: Black Swan Interns Name Wrong Defendant?

October 4th, 2011. By AbiK

It’s a long-standing reality that the words ”glamour and prestige” don’t find themselves in the same sentence with “unpaid intern” in just about any industry. But, when it comes to movie production gigs or landing a plum internship at a fashion mag, they never do.

And there’s a reason for that.

The reason is, you’re there as low-cost help—ok, exceedingly low-cost help—for which in return you get to learn, potentially come within 50 feet of the talent or score some swag—and—and here’s the biggie—you get to pay your dues. Why? Because if you’re going for an unpaid internship you’re most likely trying to rack up resume bullet points (or, nowadays, LinkedIn blurbs) and, btw, you most likely don’t have enough of those bullets and blurbs to actually land a paying gig.

Ahh, but that harsh reality has not stopped Alex Footman and Eric Glatt from filing a labor lawsuit against Black Swan movie production company, Fox Searchlight. Indeed, they’re seeking class action status. And back pay. And an injunction prohibiting Fox Searchlight from improper use of unpaid interns.

It seems both Footman and Glatt were given the opportunity to work as unpaid interns on the flick. But they were treated badly—badly as in having to get coffees and lunches. I don’t know what they expected, beyond what the FLSA outlines as criteria for an internship at a for-profit, but I’m sort of glad after seeing the movie that no one at the helm offered them an internship manning the camera, making final edits—or doing Natalie Portman’s makeup.

The FLSA internship guidelines include the following six criteria:

The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

It’s probable, or at least highly arguable, that Footman and Glatt got training & experience, got an incredible credit on their resumes, didn’t displace anyone, were supervised, probably got more out of the deal than the production company did, did not have any promise of a job ex post facto and weren’t paid.

Public sentiment (as in comments I’ve been reading across the web on this story) seems to support the notion that perhaps Footman and Glatt have been living in some self-entitlement fairyland in which they’ve interpreted an unpaid internship to equate something akin to an actual new hire program. You know—where the red carpet (no pun) is rolled out for that honeymoon phase of employment…the company’s vision statement handed over in colorful PowerPoint…the new hire welcome luncheon…the mentor program…the benefits enrollment…

I’m usually all for the down-trodden workers—those who are really being ‘used and abused’—like the alleged abuse going on over at that Amazon warehouse. But somehow, this Black Swan intern lawsuit just doesn’t seem to have enough going for it for me. Maybe I feel this way even more so as a result of Fox Searchlight’s official response to the lawsuit—a key excerpt of which is here:

“These interns were not even retained by Fox Searchlight and, in fact, were working for the production company that made Black Swan well before Fox Searchlight even acquired its rights in the film. These individuals were never employed as interns or retained in any capacity by Fox Searchlight, which has a proud history of supporting and fostering productive internships.”

If indeed true, it just makes a mockery out of things here even more—and may make plaintiffs Footman and Glatt black sheep of the film industry (ok, couldn’t resist that one). It sort of helps your cause when you sue the right defendant, right? And, I can only postulate that well, let’s face it, if you want your lawsuit to grab headlines, better to go with a bigger name defendant like Fox Searchlight, right? (ps, Fox Searchlight’s official response also stated that it was an attempt to grab media attention; it was reportedly director Darren Aronofsky’s production company who had initially brought Footman and Glatt on as unpaid interns).

We’ll have to monitor this one, but in the meantime, it’s been announced that Darren Aronofsky is set to direct the new film, Noah. Word to the unwise (and unpaid) interns who are chomping at the bit to be a part of this one: don’t forget your wellies.

Tags: Black Swan, Black Swan Intern Class Action, FLSA, Fox Searchlight, Internship, Unpaid Intern
Posted in Celebrity, Class Action, Employment | 8819No Comments »2011-10-04+18%3A54%3A23AbiK

Paris Hilton’s Bad Hair Day Could Cost Her $3.5 Million

August 19th, 2010. By LucyC

Photo: Hairtech

We’ve all had bad hair days—but Paris Hilton, in her usual fashion, has managed to take it to a whole new level. She is reportedly being sued (yes, hard to believe, I know) for wearing the wrong hair extensions. In fact, she’s being sued for breach of contract. And the company wants damages 10 times the amount of the contract…ummm

The suit, and I have not read it personally so caveat emptor, claims that Paris wore a competitor’s hair extensions in 2008, presumably out to an event, instead of those made by Hairtech International Inc. They apparently manufacture a line of hair extensions called “DreamCatchers,” (‘bad dream’-catchers might have been more appropriate) that Paris agreed to front beginning in 2007. The suit also claims that Paris missed a launch party for a new product in 2007 because she was in jail.

FYI, you can see Paris and the—er, her—DreamCatcher hair extensions on the DreamCatcher website. Yes, hard feelings aside, according to the website, it’s not just Paris lending her face to DreamCatchers—it’s “DreamCatchers by Paris Hilton”—which begs the question, Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Breach of Contract, Dreamcatchers, Hair Extensions, Paris Hilton
Posted in Celebrity | 47412 Comments »2010-08-19+16%3A56%3A27LucyC

So Where are those Lilo Strip Search Pics?

July 27th, 2010. By LucyC

If it’s Tuesday, it must be time for a Lilo update! For those of you who do not follow TMZ on a regular basis—that would include me—Lilo is shorthand for Lindsay Lohan—God forbid we should use full names. (I wonder what birth certificates will read like in 10 years time or less). I digress.

So Lilo (which could read as Lie Low—a cryptic source of good advice that has clearly not met with success) is, as predicted in my blog last week, remaining front and center in mainstream media during her incarceration at the infamous Lynwood Correctional Facility.

The Lynwood facility has a couple of claims to fame, as it turns out, the first being that it’s housed celebutantes Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and others, for similar convictions that basically involve too much alcohol, reckless driving, skipping rehab, blah, blah, blah…we all know the script.

But the jail’s second claim to fame is that it is involved in a class action lawsuit over allegations that prison staff illegally strip searched female inmates, strip and body cavity searches actually. Interestingly, a similar lawsuit was recently settled in favor of the plaintiffs, in Franklin County, MA.

According to TMZ, the Lynwood suit alleges that the “female inmates are strip searched in Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Lindsay Lohan
Posted in Celebrity | 45121 Comment »2010-07-27+21%3A01%3A51LucyC