Her vagina is constantly occupied.

What may be going inside her head:

what an available billboard may look like

Well, there ARE truth in advertising laws...

What an idiot. If she'd just laughed it off, she might have scored some "cool" points. Instead, she has to seek legal action?

So why do we still see articles about pictures with no pictures in them?

Nogale: What an idiot. If she'd just laughed it off, she might have scored some "cool" points. Instead, she has to seek legal action?

Way to prove the sign's point, Paris.

her lawyer had to explain to her why she should sue

I am in no way suggesting that this isn't hilarious.

But if NZ's laws are like any other country's, shouldn't this pretty much be a slam dunk? You do have to get your celebrity endorsers' permission, right?

Then again, maybe they know that and they just figure she won't want the sheep that she'd win in the lawsuit.

semiotix: I am in no way suggesting that this isn't hilarious.

But if NZ's laws are like any other country's, shouldn't this pretty much be a slam dunk? You do have to get your celebrity endorsers' permission, right?

Not always.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Stuff your cheap comments. 'Cause she knows what she feels.

As amusing or accurate as the billboard may be, the billboard company is in the wrong. Celebrities have the right to control and profit from the commercial use of their names, likenesses and personas.

She can dish it out, but she can't take it, can she?

lasercannon: semiotix: I am in no way suggesting that this isn't hilarious.

But if NZ's laws are like any other country's, shouldn't this pretty much be a slam dunk? You do have to get your celebrity endorsers' permission, right?

Not always.

I have no idea what the NZ law might be, but there is a difference here in ye olde United States between a parody ad published by Hustler, which is what that Campari "advetisement" is; and something of a more commercial nature like this billboard. This will sound really, really stupid but Paris Hilton does have her "brand image" to protect and etc. I think the billboard is very funny.

She's pissed because they spelled it wrong. She prefers V-Acoont.

So instead of a handful of New Zealanders laughing at her she nows has promoted it to worldwide.

/true genuis
//truth in advertising
///finally

baltimoreblonde: Well, there ARE truth in advertising laws...

Done in 4.

I think she's offended because she doesn't know what it means.

ParadisePornoTheater: She can dish it out, but she can't take it, can she?

What is she dishing out exactly? Did I miss something?

I love that it says "available now" next to it.

Would she have been angry if they put "attention whore" on the billboard? Both that and "vacant" are accurate.

hahaha. paris hilton is dumb. that's what i'm getting from this thread, right?

lasercannon

One of my all time favorites.

Hey, if the Bruno Magli fits...

Lord Snoopy's G.P.E.H.: Stuff your cheap comments. 'Cause she knows what she feels.

Is it long and hard and contains gonorrhea?

titwrench: ParadisePornoTheater: She can dish it out, but she can't take it, can she?

What is she dishing out exactly? Did I miss something?

Did you miss her TV series where where spent months...

...no, you know what? I'm going to let your world stay an optimistic and sunny place. Paris Hilton has never been on television or any other medium, and doesn't say anything to the press, either. She's been a nice, low-profile celeb unfairly pursued by paparazzi with no provocation on her part, and she's certainly not made any attempts to cash in on her undeserved and unrequested notoriety... especially not by taking a part in a horror movie where her primary role was to stand around in a thong. In fact, no visual media of Paris Hilton exists save a few still shots you've seen on the internet.

In fact, she's actually mute, and doesn't know sign language or how to write, either. And she's never had a pet in her life, much less a retarded, annoying one she pampered near the point of abuse for 'cute' value.

//Wow, that kind of is bliss. Who knew?

Hey, I am no fan of the woman and her stupid act, and consider her the ugly sister as well, but from the article, it's not the "vacant" tag she's suing over, just that they used the photo without permission.

I have seen some small evidence that she's not as dumb as she pretends to be, but that only makes the act more obnoxious. And she really is ugly.

/yeah, yeah, sharp knees, etc.

Jim_Callahan: titwrench: ParadisePornoTheater: She can dish it out, but she can't take it, can she?

What is she dishing out exactly? Did I miss something?

Did you miss her TV series where where spent months...

...no, you know what? I'm going to let your world stay an optimistic and sunny place. Paris Hilton has never been on television or any other medium, and doesn't say anything to the press, either. She's been a nice, low-profile celeb unfairly pursued by paparazzi with no provocation on her part, and she's certainly not made any attempts to cash in on her undeserved and unrequested notoriety... especially not by taking a part in a horror movie where her primary role was to stand around in a thong. In fact, no visual media of Paris Hilton exists save a few still shots you've seen on the internet.

In fact, she's actually mute, and doesn't know sign language or how to write, either. And she's never had a pet in her life, much less a retarded, annoying one she pampered near the point of abuse for 'cute' value.

//Wow, that kind of is bliss. Who knew?

My point was at what point did she use someones image other than hers without permission to profit or promote her "business". I am not trying to say she isn't a waste of the attention people give her. It was a legitimate question so why don't you lighten up you piece of shiat.

titwrench:
My point was at what point did she use someones image other than hers without permission to profit or promote her "business". I am not trying to say she isn't a waste of the attention people give her. It was a legitimate question so why don't you lighten up you piece of shiat.

And my point was that you apparently missed her TV show, which was entirely based on taking peoples' images (in a more figurative sense of 'image') in a manner deliberately intended to expose them to ridicule for her own profit. Her legal i's were dotted and her t's crossed, but she's made a lot of money doing more or less the same thing that's going on here.

Jim_Callahan: titwrench:
My point was at what point did she use someones image other than hers without permission to profit or promote her "business". I am not trying to say she isn't a waste of the attention people give her. It was a legitimate question so why don't you lighten up you piece of shiat.

And my point was that you apparently missed her TV show, which was entirely based on taking peoples' images (in a more figurative sense of 'image') in a manner deliberately intended to expose them to ridicule for her own profit. Her legal i's were dotted and her t's crossed, but she's made a lot of money doing more or less the same thing that's going on here.

They all signed releases and agreed to participate on the show because they are just as much the attention whore as Paris. These people took her image without her permission or input and used it. Her image is her job and is her property and this company stole it. If this were a new technology that say Sony developed and Toshiba walked in, stole it and sold it as their own you wouldn't defend Toshiba. If Sony sold them the technology that would be different.

Dubai Vol: Hey, I am no fan of the woman and her stupid act, and consider her the ugly sister as well, but from the article, it's not the "vacant" tag she's suing over, just that they used the photo without permission.

I have seen some small evidence that she's not as dumb as she pretends to be, but that only makes the act more obnoxious. And she really is ugly.

/yeah, yeah, sharp knees, etc.

I think she's dumb as bricks, but she went on Supernatural and basically made fun of herself, and then they cut off her head with an ax so she probably has some kind of self-awareness.

/She is ugly. No sharp knees comment required.

C'mon, subby. The "Amusing" tag? What, the Obvious tag has the weekend off?

Johnny thinks she's pretty

Here's the space for rent.

If someone did that to me I would be laughing but pissed off at the same time. Most of you would be the same way. Sure she may be a lightly talented person, but she does have a right not to be used in advertising without her permission. If people were trying to make money on my image without my permission you are damn right I would sue.

Just think how mad she'd be if the advertising company,
Walter Horton Outdoor Retail Engagements had put their initials up...