I have a bunch of Kim Kardashian stories and assorted photos for you today. Aren’t we lucky? Ugh. First of all, North West was finally allowed to leave the Paris hotel today. Kim brought North out for some kind of outing in Paris. I hope she’s not bringing North to any runway shows, because Anna Wintour pretty much had babies and toddlers banned.

I’ve actually been wondering for a while if North understands that her mommy is a Botox monster, and if North is even capable of recognizing Kim with her newly blonde hair. Turns out, I wasn’t the only one wondering. Judgy moms at Yahoo Parenting spoke to says Dr. Tovah Klein, Director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development, and Dr. Klein basically says North was and probably still is very confused by mommy’s new look, saying toddlers “like things to stay the same as this is where they gain a sense of control and predictability. Change is frightening and they don’t know what it means, so a change to mommy can be a sudden jolt.”

Next story: a few days ago, Kim posed with Katy Perry at the Givenchy show. The photos were funny because Katy looked particularly stone-faced, like she really didn’t want to pose with Kimye. Hollywood Life says :

“Katy Perry looked mortified when she ran into Kim at Givenchy and people wanted to take pictures of them together. Kim was in one of her boob exposing outfits and you could tell Katy wanted to get away. Katy has worn revealing outfits in the past but even she thinks that Kim is not dressing appropriately for Paris Fashion Week.”

That’s not all! Our source dished that Katy is not the only star who doesn’t like her style. “She’s not alone either, celebs like Salma Hayek, Kristen Stewart and others thought Kim looked totally out-of-place at the sophisticated shows.”

[From Hollywood Life]

Katy and Kanye are sort of friends, aren’t they? And at this point, Katy could use all the friends she can get, because Taylor Swift is trying to out-maneuver Katy at every turn.

Final Kardashian thing – this was one of Kim’s costume changes yesterday. Huh. So she did pack at least one bra. So why hasn’t she been wearing it with any other outfits?!?

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, WENN.

Like many of you, I was waiting all week for this. Some of you wondered about the Gwyneth question, whether or not Howard would go there. As I told my friend (and top Madonna scholar) Iain, Howard didn’t ask G about M, so there was no way he was going to ask M about G. M is way bigger than …      

View image | gettyimages.com

We heard earlier this week that the family of the late Marvin Gaye had prevailed in court against defendants Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, the co-writers of 2013?s massive hit “Blurred Lines.” Gaye’s family claimed that the song violated copyright for their father’s 1977 song, “Got to Give It Up.” A jury agreed and awarded them $7.3 million in damages. Another claim in that same suit, that Thicke’s song “Love After War” violated the copyright for Gaye’s “After The Dance” was also found for the plaintiff (note that we incorrectly reported this yesterday) however the Gayes were only awarded $9,375 for that.

The thing is, the jury was merely comparing song snippets and sheet music for “Got to Give it Up” to “Blurred Lines.” That was due to the fact that only the sheet music for the original song was copyrighted. They weren’t allowed to actually hear the entire Marvin Gaye song to compare it to “Blurred Lines.” The NY Times has a very good editorial on how this ruling both sets a bad precedent in copyright law, and reveals the flaws in the current law. Modern musicians are unable, using current copyright law, to protect key aspects of their original songs. That leaves the door open for mimics to rip off a musician’s work and unique sound. Copywritten sheet music, typically used for older songs, is given precedence while the actual sound and techniques used are not as important, despite the fact they’re more integral to the music.

Anyway Entertainment Tonight has a new interview with Gaye’s family in light of this ruling. They’re thrilled of course, but they’re probably not going to see that money for a long time, if ever. The lawyer for Williams and Thicke has said that “We are going to exercise every post-trial remedy we have to make sure this verdict does not stand” and that “We owe it to songwriters around the world to make sure this verdict doesn’t stand.” I have to say, now that I’ve had time to learn more about the verdict and the issues involved, I agree.

ET asked the Gayes about the similarity between Pharrell’s “Happy” and their dad’s 1966 hit “Ain’t That Peculiar.” Gaye’s family said the songs do sound alike but that they’re “not in that space right now” to sue yet again.

While the family was just awarded $7.4 million — and is currently seeking an injunction against the song — that doesn’t mean their legal battle is over. According to at least one user on YouTube, Williams’ 2014 mega-hit “Happy” bears a similar sound to Gaye’s “Ain’t That Peculiar.”

“I’m not going to lie. I do think they sound alike,” Nona Gaye, Marvin’s 40-year-old daughter, said. However, she added that she wasn’t thinking about the legal implications right now. “We’re not in that space…

“I heard the mash-ups — but I didn’t really need to hear them,” said Janis Gaye. [Marvin’s widow] “I know ‘Ain’t That Peculiar’ and I’ve heard ‘Happy.’”

“Ain’t that peculiar,” quipped Marvin Gaye III.

Still, the family said they weren’t thinking about further legal action right now. “We’re not in that space. We’re just in the moment today and we’re satisfied,” Janis added.

So how does the family respond to critics who say that, even though “Blurred Line” and “Got to Give It Up” have a similar feel, that doesn’t mean the elements were stolen knowingly? Where is the line between theft and simply finding inspiration in music that came before your own?

“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being inspired,” Nona explained. “I’ve been inspired when I made music before. Inspiration’s fine, but the line is when you decide to take the complete and utter essence out of the song. When you take all the meat, and leave the bones.”

Add to it the fact that Williams reportedly wrote “Blurred Lines” in under an hour, the Gayes feel like Williams cheated his way to the finished product.

“When I first heard that he had said he did it in an hour, my first thought was, ‘That’s because it was already done in 1977.’” Janis said. ” So why would it take you any longer than 20 minutes… to redo something that had already been done 40 years earlier?”

[From Entertainment Tonight]

The editorial in the NY Times I mentioned earlier also points out that Prince’s “Kiss” sounds very similar to “Got to Give It Up” too. Where does it end?

In the ET interview, they said that the turning point in the trial came when they played back an interview with Pharrell (for Despicable Me 2/Happy) in which he admitted that Marvin Gaye was a huge inspiration for him.

Let’s compare “Happy” and “Ain’t That Peculiar,” but I’d rather put both videos here instead of posting a mashup.

Here’s “Ain’t That Peculiar”:

“Happy,” which you probably don’t even need to hear.

Yes the two songs are similar but Pharrell’s is different enough to make his own, and he’s admitted that Marvin Gaye was a huge influence. I don’t think he ripped Gaye off at all, I think he took a style of music he loved and made it his own with creativity and flair, acknowledging the influence of a great artist. Pharrell is similarly an incredible artist who has worked hard to reach the astronomical success he’s achieved. Now Robin Thicke, that’s debatable.

View image | gettyimages.com

Photo credit: WENN.com and Getty images

The @KensingtonRoyal Twitter account has been posting photos of Duchess Kate’s visit to the Downton Abbey set all morning. I’ve been enjoying the photos, but it seems like only a limited number of photographers were allowed to photograph Kate upon her arrival. You can see some additional photos of Kate on the set here, at the Daily Mail. KP is trying to make #DuchessAtDownton into a thing, just FYI.

Kate went for a new look for this appearance, but she actually went for something affordable: this £69 coat by High Street brand Jojo Maman Bebe. It’s actually a maternity coat, not a regular coat that Kate had tailored for her figure. It’s actually called the Princess Line coat. Oh, duchess. Kate was greeted first by the young child actor who plays George Crawley, the son of Lady Mary and the (spoiler) late Matthew Crawley. The young actor gave Kate a wooden toy to give to Prince George.

Kate to meet pretty much everyone in the Downton world, except for Maggie Smith (who was ill) and… I didn’t see any photos of Hugh Bonneville or Elizabeth McGovern. Oh, Lady Edith wasn’t there either. It seems like the focus was on the “downstairs” actors, plus Michelle Dockery (Lady Mary). Kate seemed pretty happy here. Let’s be honest, I would be thrilled to hang out with some of those actors too – the Downton people seem to have a lot of fun.

View image | gettyimages.com

View image | gettyimages.com

Photos courtesy of Getty, Kensington Royal Twitter.

My feet look red lol- had to take that out. Only real red is my hair. ????

A photo posted by Lindsay Lohan (@lindsaylohan) on Mar 11, 2015 at 4:18pm PDT

Lindsay Lohan’s hustle has been particularly sad and budget lately. I think she’s entered into the new phase of her career/criminal life, which is where no one even cares about her enough to make fun of her. Like, she can’t even get arrested anymore. She’s trying to imitate Kim Kardashian, or act like she’s part of the Kardashian-Jenner clan. Anyway, Lindsay posted the above photo yesterday and everyone is making fun of the really, really obvious Photoshop job around Lindsay’s leg and butt. You guys, that’s just how doors look in Paris!! Obviously, they are curved perfectly around a perfectly fit leg and bum.

Before that Photoshop controversy (so stupid), Lindsay got in trouble a few days ago for posting a photo of herself, Kris Jenner and Joyce Bonelli (a Kardashian stylist). It wasn’t the photo that got Lindsay in trouble, it was her first caption, which included “alldayni—a$” only she put the Gs in there. Because Lindsay is down, y’all. She can drop the n-word, totally. She realized that she just stepped in it, because she quickly deleted the Instagram and tweet containing the N-word and replaced both with captions excluding the N-word. Her rep told the Daily Mail: “She is a friend of his, it is his new song, her intention was not to offend anyone and she apologizes!” You know who had a surprisingly similar problem? Gwyneth Paltrow! She tweeted the N-word back in 2012 when she was referencing Jay-Z and Kanye’s “N—s in Paris.”

Family Time with @krisjenner @joycebonelli #midnightinparis @garage_magazine

A photo posted by Lindsay Lohan (@lindsaylohan) on Mar 8, 2015 at 4:55pm PDT

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and Instagram.

Dear Gossips,

HBO has my anticipation on lockdown. Game Of Thrones, Going Clear (the Scientology documentary), and Montage Of Heck are all due in the next couple of months.

I’ve written a couple of times already about Montage Of Heck, Brett Morgen’s highly anticipated film abo…      

I doubt this news will shock anyone, but it’s always interesting when Hollywood people fight about money in public. The Hollywood Reporter have some information that Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson are – gasp! – asking for a significant pay raise to do the sequel to Fifty Shades of Grey, which will be Fifty Shades Darker. Keep in mind that Universal still hasn’t officially greenlit the sequel, perhaps because E.L. James is a pill and perhaps now because Jamie and Dakota want what can only be described as “hazard pay” to work with E.L. James again. THR has all the numbers:

With Fifty Shades of Grey looking to top out at more than $550 million worldwide, it should come as no surprise that stars Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan will be seeking a big payday for a second outing in the red room of pain. Sources say the pair received $250,000 each (plus tiered box-office bonuses) to star in Universal’s erotic hit based on the first of EL James’ trilogy of novels, and both signed three-picture deals. But like most stars of franchise films, they will try to renegotiate for seven-figure raises for Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed. Neither Johnson, 25, nor Dornan, 32, received any backend compensation on the first film, according to sources.

Though the two leads probably are six months away from any renegotiations, insiders say they’ll take a page from the Twilight stars and Jennifer Lawrence’s Hunger Games deal as a jumping-off point (Lawrence landed a $10 million payday for Catching Fire — a significant bump from her $500,000 Hunger Games salary).

“It was a very basic franchise starter deal,” says an insider of the terms of Johnson’s and Dornan’s contracts. “Look at Twilight and Hunger Games, and that’s where it is heading.”

…The last thing Universal chair Donna Langley wants is two unhappy stars — or even one willing to ask out of his or her contract. The studio already must find a new director (Sam Taylor-Johnson is not expected to return after clashing with James) and writer (original scribe Kelly Marcel will not return). Because there is no script or director yet, Johnson and Dornan have been told to plan on an early 2016 shoot for a 2017 release, possibly around Valentine’s Day again.

[From THR]

There are more quotes in there from one of the producers, basically saying that he’s worried about “skyrocketing costs” for the sequel. Eh. The first film was made for $40 million (and you better believe Sam Taylor Johnson brought it in on-budget), and the film has already made $550 million, and that’s before DVD sales. Jamie and Dakota are going to get their raises. They might not get a bump up to $10 million each, but I bet they’ll be able to get a sizable raise.

Meanwhile, some of you have mentioned what Kim Cattrall recently said about Jamie. She told The Independent: “Maybe it’s my age, but he doesn’t look like a man to me. He looks like a young boy. I like men to look like men.” Kim then name-checked Brendan Gleeson as a guy she finds attractive. While I think Jamie’s hotness is very beard-dependent (he’s only really sexy with the beard and he’s utterly boring without it), I also think it IS Kim’s age. I find myself looking at some of the younger guys that are supposed to be “hot” these days and they just look like babies to me. I’m not even THAT old! But I look at those One Direction guys or those baby-faced Glee guys and I just feel nothing. The other day, I got lost in Tom Hiddleston’s glorious eye crinkles too. So maybe it is just my age. Sigh…name one guy in their early to mid-20s who has some kind of dirty-hot vibe that I might enjoy. Can you? Because I can’t think of anyone. (Oh I just thought of one: Liam Hemsworth. But he’s beard-dependent too!)

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Kathy Griffin broke her silence on the Fashion Police controversy in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times. I still have trouble seeing Kathy as the host of the show, which deserves a cancellation. No one can ever replace Joan Rivers, and the show is floundering. They probably received a decent ratings boost from the post-Oscars controversy, but that shouldn’t last long.

In this interview, Kathy discusses the fallout after Giuliana Rancic told a tasteless joke about Zendaya Coleman’s dreadlocks. Giuliana did issue a seemingly geniuine apology, and Zendaya handled the situation with class. Only Kelly Osbourne failed to recover her composure and left the show. Here’s what Kathy had to say about the controversy:

Her role as host: “My approach to Fashion Police is consistent with my approach to my decades of being a professional comic. My approach is ALWAYS to go for the laugh, be as inappropriate as possible, but also change with the times. Comedy requires evolution as much as any business. My goal would be to bring the comedic sensibility of any show I enter or take over into a more modern way of thinking … and laughing. The show wanted to do a running segment called “Wh*re Score.” Um, no thanks. I think we can do better. Look, God knows my repertoire over all these years on TV and live touring has used some language I wouldn’t use today, but people just aren’t into that stuff anymore and I get it. Name-calling and alliteration with no comedic context is simply the lowest hanging fruit. If I’m making fun of Oprah, I don’t just scream, ‘She’s fat. G’night everybody.’ I do an impression of her hilarious voice, I quote episodes of ‘Favorite Things,’ I even tell a story of my personal experience about being on her show. I do NOT say she’s a terrible talk show host or actress. I do not say she isn’t beautiful. She BEHAVES in a way that my audiences have found amusing for years. And, God willing, Stedman and Gayle will come around.”

Would Kathy have received heat for the dreadlocks joke? “Probably not. But I wouldn’t have said the joke in the first place. Some dude wrote it for her.”

Her advice to Giuliana: “Don’t have anyone write you jokes or even suggest jokes for you on Fashion Police. You have enough great insider gossip from actually being ON the red carpet. That’s what fans want to hear the next day. Just talk and be yourself.”

[From Chicago Sun-Times – Splash]

I think Kathy’s wrong — people would have come down on her for mocking the ‘locks. She throws Giuliana to the wolves here, right? First Kathy implies that Giuliana isn’t witty enough to write her own jokes. Then Kathy says she’d never tell that joke but totally could have gotten away with it. And she offers some unsolicited (public) advice to G, who probably feels bad enough right now. People reveals that E! edited the original joke to add an “out of context” flair. Giuliana’s also fending off a fresh set of rude remarks about her weight, and I think she’s genuinely stressed over the dreadlocks fallout.

So … not cool, Kathy Griffin. (Is she serious about E! wanting to start a “wh*re score” segment for Fashion Police? Good god.)

FYI, Kelly Osbourne told Entertainment Weekly that she’s “excited” to try new things after leaving the show. The door is still open for her replacement. They could go with Khloe Kardashian, but several other names have been floated as possibilities. Chrissy Teigen, Amber Rose, NeNe Leakes are all in the mix. Amber would be an absolute mess, and she has no fashion clout. Teigen can do better (yep, I said it).

Photos courtesy of WENN

I’ve always wondered about Guy Ritchie and Madonna’s marriage. How did it work for so many years, and what was the final straw that led to divorce? Does it hurt Madonna to see Guy move on with such a fertile new partner (Jacqui Ainsley)? Well, as Madonna’s surprisingly interesting publicity tour for Rebel Heart continues, she’s talking more about her marriage to Guy. Some assorted quotes:

Her marriage to Guy: “I did sometimes find myself in a state of conflict. There were times when I wanted to express myself as an artist in ways that I don’t think my ex-husband was comfortable with. There were times I felt incarcerated. I wasn’t really allowed to be myself.”

She’s not anti-marriage: “It doesn’t mean marriage is a bad thing. But if you’re an artist, you’ve got to find someone who accepts who you are and is comfortable with that.” Asked if she would ever marry again, the singer simply replied, “Never say never”.

Willing to compromise: “I think when you get married you have to be willing to make a lot of compromises and that’s fair enough. I think that’s the way it goes in relationships.”

Sexism & dating: “It’s OK if Mick Jagger dates a 25-year-old girl but if I date a 25-year-old man I’m, you know… it’s ridiculous. It’s so unfair, I mean, I don’t get it.”

[From Hello Magazine]

Well, actually, we DO think Mick Jagger is ridiculous for dating a 25 year old. Just like we think Madonna is ridiculous for her baby-faced dancer boyfriends. I roll my eyes at those kinds of age differences in every couple, regardless of whether the woman is older or the man is older. As for what she says about Guy… I don’t know. Was he making her feel “incarcerated” or was she trying to become a different person to please him? I remember during their marriage, Madonna adopted the “Lady of the Manor” shtick and tried to be more demure and conservative. Did she do that on her own or because Guy expected it from her? Eh.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

View image | gettyimages.com

Here are some photos of Renee Zellweger in Paris yesterday. She unexpectedly came out for the MiuMiu runway show. This was her first big public outing since everyone went crazy about her new face last October. To be fair, Renee had her plastic surgery (alleged!) done months before and some of us were already aware of her eye work (alleged!), but for whatever reason, when she stepped onto the red carpet in October, everyone lost their minds. Renee even had to issue a statement about her new look, claiming that she lost her squint because of a “fulfilling life.”

What I find interesting is that Renee introduced some new bangs in Paris. That’s one way to explain your surgical work (ask Kim Kardashian): make a hair change and just claim that your new hairstyle is why you look so different. As you can imagine, I do not care for the bangs. I feel like they’re an attempt to “re-squint” her eyes, you know? To make her features look smaller?

Sigh… Renee in Paris. I remember, years ago, when Vogue selected Renee as their cover girl and they sent her to Paris to hang out with all of the Paris designers. I think it was 2001? That was a great issue, that’s why it’s stuck in my mind. She was such a baby back then and she didn’t know anything about fashion!

View image | gettyimages.com

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and Getty.