Photos of the Universal lot on fire by Jonathan Alcorn.

Here's the video from my appearance on "Reliable Sources" on CNN.

The Association of Art Museum Directors, the group that represents most major museums in the United States, is finally coming around to adopt the accepted international guidelines for acquiring antiquities. As my former colleague Randy Kennedy reports in today's Times, the group will announce today its new policy recommending that museums not acquire objects that have no known provenance after 1970, or without proof that the object was outside its country of origin before that date. (And yes, it is often difficult to pinpoint a country of origin.) That year, 1970, is the date of a UNESCO convention governing acquisitions, its attempt -- now dating back some 40 years -- to stem the tide of illegal antiquities smuggling. In the absence of clear international laws on the issue, the UNESCO convention has served as the benchmark for institutions and collectors internationally. But many American museums have been slow to sign on. The Getty recently adopted this policy, but other major museums, such as the Metropolitan Museum of New York, still have not. The fact that the old school AAMD has come around to this is a sign of the times, and an indication of the reigning fear among museum directors that they will continue to be targetted by foreign lawsuits and pressure campaigns.

Has Justin Timberlake lost his mind? His handlers at Spyglass Entertainment had journalists at the "Love Guru" junket signing one of those Tom Cruise-ian ("do not stare at the star") contracts that demands, among other things, that the journalist not mention anything personal or private, destroy all materials not approved in advance, and make the freelancers personally liable for anything they might write about the guy.

Here it is from the contract, in legal chapter and verse: "All Material which Journalist intends to use first must be submitted to Company and Artist for approval. The print, negative, or other material embodying disapproved Material will be promptly destroyed by the Journalist." And this: "Journalist agrees not to disclose to anyone any confidential, personal, or private information about Artist, Artist’s family, or Artist’s personal relationships at any time." and this: "Journalist will be solely responsible for any and all other individual authorizations, releases, consents, clearances, licenses, and payments as may be necessary with respect to the use of the Material."

Paramount and Spyglass and Mike de Luca -- what's up with you guys? Why not just hand out pre-written publicity copy and make it easier on everyone involved? (Note to journalists: none of you should agree to sign such a ridiculous document. Hollywood will push you as far as it can. If you sign this, you can expect to see more of such nonsense.)

Read the full agreement here.

contract is no longer.  Ladies and gentlemen, the power of the Internet.

1. Single Issue License. The article, excerpts or other literary material to be written or created concerning Artist (or Artist and any third parties) (the "Material") are to be published once in the inside of the ______________ [date] issue of _____________________ magazine (the "Publication").

2. Artist Approvals. All Material which Journalist intends to use first must be submitted to Company and Artist for approval. The print, negative, or other material embodying disapproved Material will be promptly destroyed by the Journalist. This license will automatically expire without further notice if the article containing the approved Material is not published by the issue date above.

3. Additional Licenses. Journalist will not make any further license or use of the Material for any other use whatsoever, including, without limitation, retrospective or additional use by the Publication, advertising, promotional, publicity, commercial tie-in, merchandising, or other use and may not sell, assign, auction, transfer, give away or otherwise dispose of the Material without first obtaining the written consent of Company or Artist (or Artist's representatives) in each instance. [Artist and Company pre-approve the reproduction or display of a cover of the Publication bearing an Artist approved Photo in connection with the normal and customary consumer subscription marketing activities of the Publication (e.g., pre-addressed postage paid subscription order cards inserted in copies of the Publication), provided such use does not occur more than 12 months from the initial publication date of the Publication bearing the Material.]

4. Portfolio Use. Journalist may use approved Material for non-commercial, non-publication purposes to promote Journalist's work to persons other than the general public, including promotional cards and portfolios, provided the Material are not displayed or transferred over the Internet.

5. Copyright. Copyright in the Material will be retained by Journalist, subject to the restrictions and Artist's approval rights in this Agreement. Journalist agrees that no publication, distribution, reproduction, display, or other right under copyright will be exploited by Journalist other than in strict conformity with this Agreement. Journalist grants Company and Artist a perpetual, royalty-free license, without restriction, to use the Material in connection with any of Artist's activities, including, without limitation, in connection with any commercial or non-commercial enterprise involving Artist. Journalist shall deliver Material to Company and/or Artist in print form and by transmittal of a Microsoft Word file. At Artist's request, Journalist will assign its enforcement rights to Artist and/or Company so that Artist and/or Company may enjoin or otherwise remedy a third parties' violation of the terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Agreement.

6. Third Party Clearances. Journalist will be solely responsible for any and all other individual authorizations, releases, consents, clearances, licenses, and payments as may be necessary with respect to the use of the Material.

7. Reserved Rights. Any use of the Material not expressly licensed to Journalist hereunder is reserved by Artist, and Journalist acknowledges and agrees that Company and Artist reserves all right, title and interest in Artist's name, voice, likeness, merchandising, commercial tie-in, publicity rights, privacy rights, trademark rights, and other rights under applicable law.

8. Confidentiality. Journalist acknowledges that the privacy of Company and Artist are highly valued and that all efforts are made to maintain confidentiality. Accordingly, Journalist agrees not to disclose to anyone any confidential, personal, or private information about Artist, Artist's family, or Artist's personal relationships at any time, or to write or assist in the writing or preparation of articles, news stories, books, or other productions or materials of any nature whatsoever about or referring to Artist.

9. Indemnity. Journalist shall indemnify and hold harmless Company and Artist from any and all damages, costs, and expenses (including legal fees) arising out of or in connection with any unauthorized use of the Material by Journalist, or any party acting under the authority of Journalist, or any breach of Journalist's warranties, representations, or obligations hereunder.

10. Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of California applicable to agreements made and to be fully performed therein, and where applicable, under U.S. Copyright Law. Journalist consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of the applicable state or Federal court located in Los Angeles County, California. Journalist acknowledges and agree that the damages caused Company and Artist from a violation of this Agreement are irreparable, and that Company and Artist may seek appropriate equitable or injunctive relief to prevent or remedy a violation of the terms hereof, in addition to damages. In any controversy respecting this Agreement, the prevailing party will recover its attorneys fees and costs. The license hereunder shall not become effective and Journalist may not use the Material unless and until a signed copy of this Agreement signed by Journalist is received by Company.

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

JOURNALIST

You'd have thought that Paramount might not want me on their marketing team for the "Love Guru," considering my previous revelation of the studio's absurd demands of journalists on the promotional press junket. But you would be wrong! Paramount has reached out to me - me, personally - to help spread the word about their summer blockbuster. They are offering me the most wonderful tools that I can embed in my site to help drive audiences to their movie, in exchange for which I might be granted ... a visit to my site by Mike Myers himself! Here's the note from Paramount's new "online marketing manager.":

"Here's what we have: Love Guru E-Cards (perfect for Father's Day), Pitka's Book Club (very similar to another famous book club), Just for Pubes (a must for your aging father) and this ridiculous bobblehead." The note goes on to mention that "Mike is checking out every site that posts something about the movie and we'd love to send him over to your site."

Now, if I do sign on to help virally market Paramount's movie - because I am the milk of movie kindness  - how do I know for sure that Mike himself has visited my site? Do I get an email? Is there a follow-up call? I need to know before I sign on. Folks, if you were wondering where the $50,000 ads in the New York Times were disappearing to - here's the answer.

It turns out that Hollywood couldn’t kill Joe Eszterhas. But it did send him running to Jesus.  The writer whose movies defined an era – “Flashdance,” “Basic Instinct,” “Sliver," and (unfortunately) “Showgirls”  -- and whose personal battles with Mike Ovitz and extramarital exploits made modern Hollywood legends, has gotten religion. The old-fashioned kind. Eszterhas has just finished a book about himself and his relationship with Jesus, called “Cross-Bearer.” The title refers to himself, not to Jesus; Eszterhas now carries the cross at Sunday services in his Catholic church. I went to see him at his home in the countryside east of Cleveland, where he lives with his second wife Naomi and their four sons. His voice is a fainter version of the old grizzled rasp, but his hair is still a thick, Hungarian mane and his face still looks like a Harley biker’s after a bar brawl. Eszterhas came close to dying from his addiction to drinking and smoking. He contracted cancer, struggled with a tracheotomy – and, finally, he had an epiphany. Faith descended. Or ascended. It is this transformation that he describes in his book (out in the fall), even while he insists on differing with some central aspects of Catholicism. He takes issue with the church’s “wimpification” of Jesus, for example. Does Eszterhas see irony in his spiritual flip-flop? The man who defined carnal pulp for more than a decade, who religious conservatives blamed for dragging American culture into the gutter, has now joined the Jesus brigade? Eszterhas laughs, a carburetor turning in someone’s garage. Strange, indeed are the ways of the Almighty. He suggests I might better ask his old partner, Paul Verhoeven. The director too has gotten religion, and written a book about the Virgin Mary, scheduled to appear in bookstores next year. Hmmm. The maker of “Showgirls” takes on the Blessed Virgin? What’s next? Elizabeth Berkeley joins a convent?

Will anyone notice Ian Austen's story today, buried in the NYT's Foreign section, about Canada formally apologizing to the country's Native Americans, for forcing them into residential schools where they were physically and sexually abused? This is major news. Canada has apologized, and agreed to pay nearly $2 billion in reparations. It will establish a truth and reconciliation commission so that the true suffering inflicted on Native Americans can be aired and acknowledged. Where are we in America on this issue? Absolutely nowhere. But know this: the very same abuse by members of the clergy, priests, nuns, teachers in Canada was inflicted on Native Americans on this side of the border. Does this occur to no one at the New York Times or elsewhere? To members of Congress? Why is there no interest in this huge story of racial injustice? I wrote an investigative piece on this topic in 2003 at the Washington Post, which resulted in the removal of one of the priests interviewed in the story. But the tales of abuse that I heard, and that I guard closely in my archives, were among the most chilling things I have ever heard in 25 years as a journalist. Here is that old story. Shame on all of us.

Especially all you from Page Six!

Rest in Peace, Tim Russert.