I think that this deserves a sticky. There is a wealth of knowledge shared on many subjects that we all ought to be aware of. Great job mont!
Legal IM Questions -Round 4
- Thread starter mont7071
- Start date
Great thread, thank you very much for sharing this knowledge
Here's in interesting one that my friend's struggling with
An article directory's FAQ states: "all articles belongs to individual writers, we just host them".
Can they:
- Send DMCA complaints to your hosting registrar etc.
- Sue you for copyright infringement
or is it up to individual writers to do that?
Thank you
P.S: Checked all other threads you created. Btw you mention that you don't practice much anymore. Does that mean you don't provide paid consultation at all?
Here's in interesting one that my friend's struggling with
An article directory's FAQ states: "all articles belongs to individual writers, we just host them".
Can they:
- Send DMCA complaints to your hosting registrar etc.
- Sue you for copyright infringement
or is it up to individual writers to do that?
Thank you
P.S: Checked all other threads you created. Btw you mention that you don't practice much anymore. Does that mean you don't provide paid consultation at all?
thanks for the answer.
so if you avoid using cure in your copy and have some type of disclaimer are you generally safe, or safer? are there any other super sensitive words?
Usually that would be up to the individual author to do, if they so desired. Since the directory doesn't have an exclusive right to publish other writer's work (most article directories would never try to reserve this right, they'd lose a lot of writers) then they don't have "standing" to enforce copyright rights on behalf of the original author.
thank you very much
even trickier:
to verify ownership of an article, the user is asked to post a snippet of text on that article directory (from which the article was copied).
is there a law against that.
Seems I am getting several variations of this question, so I'll just address it once under this scenario
- Yes, Site B can sue site A. The better/cheaper method would be for Site B to simply send a DMCA takedown request to Site A. I discussed DMCA in greater detail in an earlier post, but basically Site A would be protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of DMCA if they simply took down the allegedly offending article in response, and had (presumably) not acted in bad faith by allowing it to be published in the first place. Way cheaper, faster and easier than "joining" Site A into a lawsuit that would be filed against the person who actually posted the copyrighted material, which could still happen if Site A still refused to take it down after being notified.
If Site A acted in Bad Faith by , say, purposely copying the article from Site B, that is not within the bounds of permissible use (presumably Site B has some sort of Terms that say how articles can be used, reprinted with permission if left complete, etc etc) and they'd probably not do well in an actual court case. In most cases, the "Site A" person is an innocent victim, and they are protected by the DMCA rules so long as they act quickly to take down allegedly infringing copy as soon as the copyright holder notifies them. This DMCA Safe Harbor approach protects web hosts, ISPs, forum owners, etc when a user posts stolen copy.
Hey Monte, kool thread. Had a question I wanted to ask you.
So if I had a bad experience with a company (let's say an affiliate network), can I create a thread on a forum and run an adwords ad linking to that forum post and bid on the name of the affiliate network in google, without having to take it down (due to copyright/DMCA, etc) ?
I know a lot of times copyright notices are misused in order to threaten/bully with legal action to suppress legitimate "free speech."
So I guess my question is - can I post criticism of a company via Google Adwords without having to take it down legally?
So if I had a bad experience with a company (let's say an affiliate network), can I create a thread on a forum and run an adwords ad linking to that forum post and bid on the name of the affiliate network in google, without having to take it down (due to copyright/DMCA, etc) ?
I know a lot of times copyright notices are misused in order to threaten/bully with legal action to suppress legitimate "free speech."
So I guess my question is - can I post criticism of a company via Google Adwords without having to take it down legally?
Mont, question for you. What if you have a brand name (yours) that's a .com, been operating on the internet for a few years, bringing in some money. Not trademarked but trading under that name for a while. Then, since you were too stupid to do it, someone registered the .net name. Given the domain has a unique keyword + another word, it makes it pretty hard to do anything but the same exact niche. And it would seem they would be trying to do the same thing.
There's nothing on the page right now but a standard holding page from the registrar. Is it possible to get that domain from the person? Or do they have to put something up similar to your site before you can file a complaint?
Hope that makes sense!
There's nothing on the page right now but a standard holding page from the registrar. Is it possible to get that domain from the person? Or do they have to put something up similar to your site before you can file a complaint?
Hope that makes sense!
Sure, it happens more often than not. Adwords is not going to let you you use their trademark name in the ad copy, but Google has fought legal battles and won that say they can accept bids from advertisers on other people's trademarks as ad "triggers", so you'll probably be in good shape there.
As you correctly point out, copyright notices/takedown requests ARE often used as a bullying tactic to suppress legitimate free speech. If you aren't trying to profit off using their name, aren't confusing ad readers that you are associated with them (probably not a risk if you are basically saying XYZ Network Sucks), and you don't tell lies on your LP (opinions are generally ok, even if your opinion is that they are an awful network) then you are usually going to be in a pretty good position if it came down to a suit against you. That may not stop them from getting your webhost to remove the page though a DMCA, at least temporarily though.
Good Q.
Just because you never registered your trademark doesn't mean you don't have legal trademark rights in it, as discussed more here . you still have mostly the same trademark rights under common law as you would if you had registered it.
Your scenario is pretty fact-specific, so its hard to answer without knowing the two words in question. If the "other" word is merely descriptive or generic, you have less of a case than if that second word was specific to whatever your trademark is.
For example, if your site was Jaxstar-Beer.com, and you'd always sold your own particular brand of frosty adult beverages from it, you'd have a better case against the .net guy then if your site was Jaxstar-sales.com or something more generic like that. Since they only have a holding page up now, you'd probably need to wait for a "gotcha" like them posting pictures of a competing beer or something on that .net site.
Sure, FB could bring a suit for using the Facebook brand name without permission (causing a dilution issue for that trademark). It is probably why they already stopped using 'facebook" in their ads. The fact they still use the trademark on their website indicates that probably FB hasn't raised much of a fuss, but they'd have to take it off if Zuckerberg and Co. made a big deal about it.
Realistically, FB probably doesn't mind too much, since they are selling an enhancement to FB's product, not interfering with FB's relationship with its users, and probably aren't really causing much damage/dilution to the Facebook brand.
How did I miss that?
For example: A ringtone campaign. It is possible to get sued for bidding on artist names? Is it one of those things that is possible, but not likely to happen? As long as you watch out for landmines (ie Metallica)?
How did I miss that?
For example: A ringtone campaign. It is possible to get sued for bidding on artist names? Is it one of those things that is possible, but not likely to happen? As long as you watch out for landmines (ie Metallica)?
Similar to Hurr-durr's Q+A in that you can usually use the song/band name as a trigger, but it might be hard to get much out of it if you can't use it in the actual ad text. Once they got to your site, there is a secondary issue of if that new ringtone "format" of a copyrighted song is infringing. I had a friend that worked for one of these companies that made/sold those ringtones, and some labels/artists make a big deal out of it and bring complaints, while others consider it good promotion if their hit song is playing every time the 14-year old girl in line behind you gets a phone call. I'd probably still stay away from Lars & Co, although I do see some generic PPC ads using "Metallica ringtones" as a trigger on Google currently.
I own a domain name and it's a specific brand of watch. An example is RolexWatches. com Mine is nowhere near this big but a small time company. I created an informational blog around this brand and took the site to the top of the search engines and then proceeded to build an e-commerce store to sell these watches.
Once done I got set up with the mfg of the watches to be a distributor. Got a call back from them a day later saying that what I'm doing is illegal because they own the rights to the name of the watch. I used the Trademark Search found here and I show no record of any trademarks on this specific brand of watch.
Am I really doing anything wrong if the name is not trademarked?
Once done I got set up with the mfg of the watches to be a distributor. Got a call back from them a day later saying that what I'm doing is illegal because they own the rights to the name of the watch. I used the Trademark Search found here and I show no record of any trademarks on this specific brand of watch.
Am I really doing anything wrong if the name is not trademarked?
TESS will only show trademarks that have been officially registered with the Patent & Trademark Office. A business can still have a common law right to the trademark they use in business, even if they never registered it; most trademarks don't get registered with the USPTO.
I wouldn't say you've done anything "wrong" per se, but that company is going to have a right 1) to enforce their trademark rights against alleged infringers, and 2) refuse to do business with you. Since it doesn't sound like you've done anything in bad faith (i.e. registered their name in a URL in order to sell a competing product) then you might be able to get them to see things your way, since they would certainly be better off if you were using the site to push their product, vs. a competitor or full of ads, but ultimately that is going to be their decision.
Thanks..Assuming they dont see it my way am I in the wrong at all if I just leave up my informational blog or can they make me pull everything down?