[IMG]http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20071003/102.hilton.perez.100307.jpg[/IMG]
When he accused X17online of mistreating its workers, Perez Hilton forgot just one thing—he doesn't work for X17.
A Los Angeles judge on Wednesday dismissed the blogger's unfair competition lawsuit against the celebrity photo agency, ruling that Hilton has no standing to intervene on behalf of the shutterbugs who do work for the company.
"It's definitely clear there is no love fest between the two parties," L.A. Superior Court Judge Teresa Sanchez-Gordon said, also denying Hilton attorney Gregory Doll's last-minute request to amend the complaint.
Right she would be. X17 is currently suing Hilton in federal court for copyright infringement over his use of the company's pictures on his Website, which depends largely on photos, with snippy commentary to match.
Hilton, who in his defense has said that "he believes at the core of my being that I'm not doing anything illegal or unethical," fired back in a lawsuit filed June 17 in which he alleged that X17 is running what amounts to a paparazzi sweatshop, which in turn gives it an unfair advantage over its competitors, such as perezhilton.com.
The gossip pusher alleged that the agency was violating wage and labor laws by making its photogs toil for long hours with minimal pay, a claim that has been duly denied.
X17's legal camp maintains that Hilton manufactured the unfair competition suit to muddy the settlement waters between the two parties as the copyright case heats up.
"This is the first step in the legal clarification that Websites need to license their content that they use on their sites, just as the rest of the media have been doing forever," X17online.com VP Brandy Navarre told E! Online. "This battle was tied to our lawsuit against him…I think the judge pretty well identified this as completely retaliatory and not much more than that."
Hilton, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
His attorney, Bryan J. Freedman, told reporters outside the courthouse Wednesday that they are planning to appeal the dismissal.
"The judge was obviously biased against Perez Hilton," Freedman said. "She's basically sanctioned the ability of X17 to abuse its employees."
The lawyer also says that they're planning to move to dismiss the copyright suit, which X17 filed in November 2006.
And, according to Navarre, they're ready and waiting to hear what Hilton, who has not yet been deposed in the case, has to say for himself.
"We're sure that he's all too excited to speak to our lawyers and explain how he's been using and profiting from our content," she said.
Hilton has argued that his First Amendment right to free speech and fair use privileges entitle him to post others' photographs for purposes of commentary and satire.
Universal Media Studios sued him in February after he posted a topless pic of Jennifer Aniston that had been taken on the set of The Break-Up (in the context of the film) by someone affiliated with the production. Similarly, Britney Spears' label, Sony BMG-owned Zomba Recording LLC, filed suit against him last month for posting 10 new tracks from Gimme More months before the album's debut, calling his actions "grossly unfair to the artist and misleading to the public."
Meanwhile, Hilton's attorneys said in court Wednesday that their client has changed his business practices over the past year, and now is licensing photos for perezhilton.com.
"Despite Hilton's vocal defense of his purported First Amendment and fair use rights to exploit the copyrighted photographs of others commercially and without permission, it appears that his actions speak louder than words," X17 attorney John Tehranian said in a statement.
"He has apparently realized what copyright law has unequivocally stated all along: his unauthorized reproduction of copyright photographs constitutes an infringement with serious consequences."
While some walls may be closing in, Hilton did have some good legal luck a few weeks ago.
On Nov. 1, a judge dismissed the defamation suit filed against him by Lindsay Lohan pal Samantha Ronson, agreeing with Hilton's argument that the complaint was frivolous and an attack on his right to free speech.
Because Ronson, who in addition to being a frequent fixture on the Hollywood party scene is also a singer and deejay, is at least a limited public figure, the judge said, Hilton's commentary on her involvement with Lohan—particularly the starlet's DUI bust in May—was a matter of public interest.
Source: [url=http://feeds.eonline.com/~r/eonline/topstories/~3/188552931/index.jsp]EW[/url]