I'm trying to figure this out.
1.) Paris Hilton abandons her property in a storage unit.
2.) Someone buys that stuff at auction.
3.) They put pictures, captures, MPEG encodings, etc., of their property (they bought it perfectly legitimately through the abandoned-property process) up on the web.
Where, exactly, is the "problem"? Certainly, I can understand that Ms. Hilton may be embarrassed by the content (admitting that you take it up the butt in exchange for some drugs, for instance, may be considered awkward if that gets out, an example I am told is in the collection). However, I'm hard-pressed to figure out what legal standing Paris has over the use of stuff that is no longer her property.
Maybe she can pitch a legitimate fit over the use of her name in the domain name, for example, but what other legal leg does she have to stand on, and why has a court, temporarily at least, sided with her?
The "in the butt for coke" thing was her singing a little racist song about black people. I can't decide if that's worse than her admitting to taking it up the butt for coke.
It's also sad how much I know about this topic.
Ah Derek, don't you know that rules and laws exist solely to be enforced on people with less money and power?
Regardless of whether the physical property has changed hands, Paris owns the copyright as to the use of her "image", same as any TV or screen actor. Just because someone else now has photos and vids of her, does not given then the right to publish them.