Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
Jake Jake Jake!
Sophia:
--- Quote from: southendmd on April 28, 2011, 06:50:37 pm ---Here's a flashback: Jake gets buzzed for "Jarhead":
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTD3f0dEeiA&feature=feedrec_grec_index[/youtube]
--- End quote ---
Who care about the hair!! :o :o DID you see the chest, I am paralyzed, I need to watch it again.
Sophia:
trekfan:
he is slowly growing his hair back. But I think by the time he gets any serious hair it will be time for him to shave it off again (they start filming EOW in July)
Here is is leaving Urth Caffe May 18th
Sophia:
--- Quote from: trekfan on May 19, 2011, 01:37:52 pm ---he is slowly growing his hair back. But I think by the time he gets any serious hair it will be time for him to shave it off again (they start filming EOW in July)
Here is is leaving Urth Caffe May 18th
--- End quote ---
lovely!!!
Mandy21:
Jake Gyllenhaal sues over underwear photo
Reuters - 48 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Jake Gyllenhaal's lawyers are scouring the Internet, attempting to eradicate a picture of the actor that shows him stretching in his tighty-whitey underwear.
The letter was sent to a few websites, including Queerty.com and Buzzfeed.com. Gyllenhaal's lawyers claim that "as anybody could tell from a cursory examination, this is a fake picture, in which our client's head has been pasted on the body of another person."
Gyllenhaal's pose in the photo is said to resemble an album cover pose of singer Grace Jones. The photo might be a nuisance to Gyllenhaal, but the legal campaign seems to have backfired. "We're keeping the photo up, since it hasn't been proven fake and because their letter bumped it from 'funny and cute' to 'actually newsworthy,'" reports Queerty.com.
Indeed. Gyllenhaal's lawyers allege the photo violates the actor's legal rights by "portraying him in a false light, violating his right of publicity and constituting a false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act."
At least one photo expert believes the image is a fake, so perhaps Gyllenhaal isn't stretching. No, maybe just his lawyers.
First, does the picture really damage Gyllenhaal's reputation? Jake isn't the first actor to allege defamation by photoshop -- see Demi Moore vs. W Magazine -- but this is a pretty unique situation. Maybe Gyllenhaal believes he won't earn big bucks as a leading man if people think he prances around in his underwear (and allow himself to be filmed as such).
As for the publicity and Lanham Act claims, Gyllenhaal might have to trot out experts testifying to the value of a market in Gyllenhaal underwear photos being damaged by the appearance of this image. Who knows? Maybe Gyllenhaal really could be the paid spokesperson for Fruit of the Loom. We'd love to see the briefs. The legal ones, that is.
(Editing by Zorianna Kit)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version