Aniston Warns Over Topless Photos

CherryDarling · December 5th, 2005, 09:06 PM

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...1aniston1.html

Actress says paparazzo photographed her from more than a mile away

DECEMBER 5--Lawyers for Jennifer Aniston have warned publications that they will face an invasion of privacy lawsuit if they print topless photos of the actress taken recently while she was apparently sunbathing at her Los Angeles home. In a blistering letter sent to celebrity magazines, attorney John Lavely wrote that the publication of photographs "showing [Aniston] topless or in the act of taking off or putting on her top" would expose those titles to "substantial monetary damages." In his December 3 letter, Lavely wrote that the topless photos were taken by paparazzo Peter Brandt, who allegedly used a "powerful telephoto lens" from a perch more than a mile away from Aniston's home (though the images, TSG has learned, appear to have been snapped from a closer range). Aniston's counsel pounced two days after Brandt e-mailed the topless photos to magazine editors with the request, "PLEASE KEEP THESE PICTURES TO YOUR SELF...THEY MUST NOT FIND THERE WAY TO THE INTERNET!!!!" In a TSG interview, Brandt denied Lavely's trespassing allegation, saying that he snapped the topless photos from a "public street." Brandt, who said he has yet to see Aniston's lawsuit, added that the images were not shot from a mile away, since that would be "impossible...unless you have something from NASA." Below you'll find a copy of the Lavely letter, which includes a few redactions requested by TSG's source. Lavely, of the powerhouse L.A. litigation firm Lavely & Singer, noted that Aniston has just filed a lawsuit against Brandt in Los Angeles Superior Court and that the star's London lawyers had obtained a restraining order barring publication of the topless photos in the U.K. Click here for a key excerpt from the December 2 lawsuit filed by Aniston, who claims to have suffered "shame, mortification, hurt feelings, emotional distress, anger, embarrassment, humiliation, feeling of being violated, and injury to her privacy and peace of mind" as a result of Brandt's "despicable conduct."

moocow · December 5th, 2005, 09:57 PM

You would think she'd know better, since her ex-husband's wang was in playgirl, from pictures taken through a sliding glass door.

Lobelia · December 5th, 2005, 10:10 PM

Her boobs, big deal.

muchlove · December 5th, 2005, 10:10 PM

If you're outside, famous, and naked, you're kinda asking for it. It's not like you have to sunbathe nude.

Supposedly these are some of the pictures... supposedly: http://www.gorillamask.net/aniston.shtml

moocow · December 5th, 2005, 10:46 PM

I know I've seen the one with the candy bar before, so that one at least isn't new, unless she eats candy every time she sunbathes topless.

She should watch the sunbathing anyway, she's already showing some aging.

olivia720 · December 5th, 2005, 10:55 PM

she WISHES those were her boobs! and being topless outdoors when you're a massive star isnt a bright thing to do, unless you want to get more exposure. life's a bitch, hon. guess you'll just have to keep em covered.

butterbean · December 6th, 2005, 08:55 AM

I think she should be allowed to do what she wants in her own home without powerful lenses from paparazzi peering through her bushes. She is not out in a public forum where anything goes. Crap - let the woman do what she wants in her own home!

muchlove · December 6th, 2005, 04:49 PM

If anyone thinks those picture aren't of her, look at her breasts in these pics to compare:

MrsMarsters · December 6th, 2005, 04:51 PM

ok so its okay to see her tits..if its in a magazine....but not if shes sunbathing?

WickedHo · December 6th, 2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

U would think she would be smart enough not to be caught sunbathing nude anywhere...that's just the downside of being a star. But if I had her millions and millions of $$$ I think I could deal with a few cons.

Anyone think she just wants to see her name in the paper more than the Brad adopts Angelina's kids stories? A show of hands please.

Get ready folks. Sit back and strap on your seatbelts. Here comes a rant.

JENNIFER ANISTON AND ANY OTHER GODDAMN CELEBRITY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT IN THEIR OWN GODDAMN HOMES!

She was NOT on a public beach sunbathing. Therefore, back the fuck off, paps, and recognize this as an invasion of privacy. So, what's next, photos of Aniston's visit to the gyno for her annual pap smear?

The fact remains: the pap needed a fuckin' telephoto lens to get the shot, and that's just wrong.

Oh, and here's my question: How far away does a pap need to be before they admit to an invasion of privacy? The moon?

muchlove · December 6th, 2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WickedHo

Get ready folks. Sit back and strap on your seatbelts. Here comes a rant.

JENNIFER ANISTON AND ANY OTHER GODDAMN CELEBRITY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT IN THEIR OWN GODDAMN HOMES!

She was NOT on a public beach sunbathing. Therefore, back the fuck off, paps, and recognize this as an invasion of privacy. So, what's next, photos of Aniston's visit to the gyno for her annual pap smear?

The fact remains: the pap needed a fuckin' telephoto lens to get the shot, and that's just wrong.

Oh, and here's my question: How far away does a pap need to be before they admit to an invasion of privacy? The moon?

I agree that it's an invasion of privacy and it's wrong... I don't like the paparazzi at all and think they should all be out of a job. BUT... if I were famous, I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting around outside naked, even in my own back yard. She knows they're going to try to take pictures of her. She knows she has no privacy. She lives it every day! She knows they watch her house constantly. So she made a choice to take that chance. And that's fine... but it's still a fact.

And this is just my opinion, but she should just deal with it. They're just breasts and as I showed with the other pictures, she doesn't mind showing them off to further her career or in the name of "art", so why would it upset her if they show up on the internet? I think it must just be the principle of the thing, the privacy issue, since he had to go to some trouble to get the photos. She's punishing him (and that's fine! I'm not criticizing her for it).

MrsMarsters · December 6th, 2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muchlove

I agree that it's an invasion of privacy and it's wrong... I don't like the paparazzi at all and think they should all be out of a job. BUT... if I were famous, I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting around outside naked, even in my own back yard. She knows they're going to try to take pictures of her. She knows she has no privacy. She lives it every day! She knows they watch her house constantly. So she made a choice to take that chance. And that's fine... but it's still a fact.

And this is just my opinion, but she should just deal with it. They're just breasts and as I showed with the other pictures, she doesn't mind showing them off to further her career or in the name of "art", so why would it upset her if they show up on the internet? I think it must just be the principle of the thing, the privacy issue, since he had to go to some trouble to get the photos. She's punishing him (and that's fine! I'm not criticizing her for it).

WickedHo · December 6th, 2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muchlove

I agree that it's an invasion of privacy and it's wrong... I don't like the paparazzi at all and think they should all be out of a job. BUT... if I were famous, I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting around outside naked, even in my own back yard. She knows they're going to try to take pictures of her. She knows she has no privacy. She lives it every day! She knows they watch her house constantly. So she made a choice to take that chance. And that's fine... but it's still a fact.

And this is just my opinion, but she should just deal with it. They're just breasts and as I showed with the other pictures, she doesn't mind showing them off to further her career or in the name of "art", so why would it upset her if they show up on the internet? I think it must just be the principle of the thing, the privacy issue, since he had to go to some trouble to get the photos. She's punishing him (and that's fine! I'm not criticizing her for it).

I agree with all of this, MuchLove! Personally, I don't care who sees my tits. PLEEEEENTY of people have, and not all of them paid for the privilege!

But I still say: celebs shouldn't have to change their behavior in their own home. Yes, they're taking a chance, and, no, they shouldn't be surprised when something like this happens. However...

OK... lemme collect my thoughts here... Let's pretend I'm the celebrity in the article. Now, although I don't give a shit who sees my breasts because they're just breasts, they are mine and I get to choose what to do with them! And, although I don't care who sees 'em, I know that the tabloids will be making money off of my image. So, if I'm in my backyard, OFF THE CLOCK (ie., not using my naked boobies to make money), then I damn sure better get a cut of the profits the tabs make by publishing photos. Otherwise, you damn sure better get ready for a lawsuit barring the sale/use of any of those photos without my consent!

Because, you're right, MuchLove, it's the principal of the matter that's the issue.

You say "she should just deal with it." I say: she IS dealing with it-- by taking the paps and tabs to court!

miss_perfect · December 6th, 2005, 05:44 PM

The only reason people even want to look at her tits is because they sure as hell don't want to look at her lantern-jawed freak face

WickedHo · December 6th, 2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_perfect

The only reason people even want to look at her tits is because they sure as hell don't want to look at her lantern-jawed freak face

Y'know, I used to think to myself (during the Friends hype) "Jennifer Aniston sure isn't one of those standard pretty types, yet she's a sex symbol and popular as hell. Good for her! And that nose... I'm so glad she hasn't had it fixed. Good for her for being flawed! We need more of that!"

Now, after spending time on this board and reading all the comments about being lantern-jawed and fugly, I kinda feel bad for the girl. Sorta. Because she strikes me as a genuinely nice person. So, come on, bitches! Let's hear it for fugly people getting ahead in showbizness!

At least she's not a raging fugly jackass like Paris!