Pamela Anderson And Brett Michaels

Bret Michael Sychak who is more popular as Bret Michaels was born on 15th March 1963 in Butler in Pennsylvania. He is a well known, as prominent vocalist of Poison, the hair metal band, while Pamela Anderson, born on 1st July 1967, is a Canadian TV actress, sensational model. Few people know that she also happens to be a producer and an author more popular as Pamela Anderson. She has come into public attention largely for her gorgeous looks and acting on TV.

During the time Michaels and Pamela Anderson were involved in a temporary relationship, a video recording of the two celebrities indulged in sex was seen on the web. Featuring the two stars in the most intimate & private moments, the video is scheduled for release, in the form of DVD, by the Metro Studios on 7th September 2005.

Internet Entertainment Group or IEG alleged that it has legal permission for the display of the videotape on their website and also claimed that it has bought a public license from an acquaintance of the plaintiff, for displaying the videotape online. Revilla, plaintiff’s friend, had allegedly sold the license to IEC for about $17, 000. On the other hand, Revilla claimed the video was received from an anonymous person who in turn informed Revilla that Michaels had gifted the video to him, without any distribution license.

Michaels & Lee had constantly denied having sold the distribution license of the video to anyone. The very fact that Revilla had, in vain, attempted to buy the distribution license, from Michaels, for $1 million, further supported their denials. Similar was the fate of all the attempts done by IEG for obtaining the license from Michaels.

The Plaintiff couple, Pamela and Brett, had voluntarily captured themselves in a video while engaged in sex. The defendant IEG by any means managed to obtain a copy of the controversial videotape, and desired to show it on its adult subscription on its website.

In the presence of this proof, the Court dismissed the claim of IEG and announced that distribution of this video would amount to copyright infringement. Notwithstanding, the court conveyed an initial injunction, preventing defendant from disseminating the video online in any form.