Lady Gaga has lost her fight over the domain name LadyGaga.org after an arbitration panel ruled that a punter was well within her rights to use it for a fan site. The pop star's cybersquatting complaint was filed with the US National Arbitration Forum under Gaga's real name of Stefani Germanotta. The domain registrant is …
This woman is so ugly it's unbelievable how much fame she manages to get... At least when I was young, celebrities were hot :)
So you maybe mean something like Blondie - mad and sexy at the same time!
Millions of people bought Stock Aitken Waterman hits, and probably had no idea what they looked like -- I know I don't.
From what I can gather Janis Joplin was a bit of a munter too, and Lemmy's not going to win any "most handsome" awards.
I'm no fan of GaGa myself, but I do appreciate that she has some song-writing talent and a good sense of drama -- which, to my mind at least, is what a proper pop star ought to have.
If you want someone to perve over there are plenty of women falling over themselves to let you see them naked, for a small fee.
As I understood it there would be no use that Lady Gaga could put that name to anyway since .org is for non profit. Since LGG is anything but non profit surely she should have the .com and possibly register .gaga and leave the .org for the fans as has been ruled.
Suppose she wanted to start a charity? Many singers and celebs use .org for their charities that they use for tax write offs....
So Lady Gaga lost the case as it is allowed for "Stars" to have "Fans", however if the "fan" attempts to make a profit, maybe by selling Lady Gaga related items, then she can appeal.
What, so Lady Gaga can start to sell the very same "related items" or maybe even worse tat!
Oh, how these rules make nosense sometimes
I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not.
The dispute revolves around the trademark essentially. But trademarks are only contestable if you are trading. The clue is in the name, yeah?
no legal restriction for using .org for profit
So it's only logical the court can impose a "no profit" restriction. I wonder (a) how widely this will be reported, and (b) if the unofficial site has a spike in hits as a result...
Then again, I noticed yesterday that there are two profiles claiming to be the singer on Google+, neither of which are verified. I wonder how long the fake one (or two) last... :)
It seems to me that fan websites usually only have advertising on them to pay for the hosting revenue and that's the main reasong that there's objection from the copyright owner of the subject of the fan site.
So what about a hosting company that has an advertising programme where revenue from it goes directly towards the hosting costs, then any excess money goes towards a charity or to the users pocket in the case of non-fan sites, and if the advertising falls short the user pays the balance.
Then copyright owners shouldn't have anything to complain about in terms of fans profiteering from their copyright.
Put it on a .fan TLD even. Have .fan legally set up to only allow not-for-proffit (ie, you can make enough to cover costs) use.
Has there suddenly been an out-break of common sense?
...by the seldom-precidented clarity of common sense eminating from this particular court.
A fan's site does Gaga more good than repointing the domain to her official website. Mind you, I'd be surprised if the fan is still a fan after Gaga's stinking attitude.
more likely it is her PR Lawyer's stinking attitude, but still a fair point - she hired them, so unless she fires them (or at least makes them appologise to both the fan and the courts)...
But I stongly doubt lady gaga has even a passing knowledge of this incident.
No more than any CEO of a multi-million pound organisation is aware of the companies domain name snafu's going on and quite possibly less
'Spend my time trying to outdo the meat dress or talk to a lawyer about domain name ownership...what to do....'
Is clearly a breach of the loony strippers trademark.
Most like to become a hate site now
The decent thing for a rich megastar to have done would be to offer a spare few thousand bucks to the fan, as a sign of appreciation for the domain name, rather than resorting to court straight away.
I'd like to think that's what I would do.
Maybe that was done and rejected.
You can never accept such a offer - that has been used in the past to prove that the person is a domain squatter and using the domain to extract money from the "rightful" owner. "See here, the user is willing to sell the domain for x hundred bucks - it is a domain squatter".
The arbitration panel is not always as sane as they are this time.
I own a few 100 names and a few semi-celebs' names etc, but I would rather have an autographed CD then a 1000 dollars from anyone asking to have them.
... I think I'll sue the crap out of them.
Seriously, if someone admires you enough to put up a website about you it should be taken as a compliment!
But I somehow lost the domain for fitbirdacrosstheroadwholeaveshercurtainsopen.com
In fact, you're a nobody on the internet until you've had at least one *hate* site dedicated to you. I finally achieved this in 2008 after ten years of trying.
No, that domain is still available.
(OK, this afternoon is dragging on a bit)
Or were you going for something a bit more sweary
Surely the domain is invalid because the registrant has fake details in the whois?
What..? Oranges *aren't* cool?
One of the reasons that the proprietor of ladygaga.org cannot make a profit off of the site that that if s/he/it did, then they would be using a trademarked name (Lady GaGa) to generate revenue without licensing the use of the trademark from it's holder. This is one of the major qualifiers for cybersquatting. If s/he/it attempt to make a money from it, even as much as suggesting a buyout from GaGa (or arguably even from saying that an offer is not enough), then s/he/it is attempting to make a profit formt he cybersquatting and in violation of the regulations.
as for it being a .org address which was supposed to be limited to non-profits, if ICANN was doing that then they'd require submmission of the 501(c)(3) certification or similar for countries outside of the US.
IANAL so don't try to use this in court.
Thank you Peter David for the simple way to refer to hermaphrodites (the subject matter prevented me from using "hirsh)
I thought it was someting to do with the way she was standing or sitting
ok i dont know what it is about lady gaga but what is so special about this girl she dresses up wierdly honestly i dont know what people thease days see in her. as far as i see theres nowt special about her.
we had the dress made of meat.
now she has a hat made from her ass!
way to bite the hand that feeds you, dipshit.
LadyGagging.com is also taken. Oh dear.
Where money can't buy everything, as it should be.
You know sometimes you read things and you wonder there validity etc, but a (star?) takes one of her fans to court for using her name on a fansite? Well im wondering the sanity of that.
A few years back I had a website which parodied a real company - they didnt take me to court, they gave me tons of content as it was bringing visitors to there real site. Thus the wisdom to ladygaga instead of costing you money, send the owner some content, ask for a link to your "official" site, because at the end of the day if a fans out there paying real money for hosting etc and not making money off your name or being slanderous then think how it might be beneficial to have a good relationship with that site.
paris - because fighting fans is counter productive.
ps if i buy her CD will she sue me for playing it?
... will stay up.
Well, yes. But not like it used to. I'm not young anymore.
I'd officially endorse MyName.org and strike a mutually beneficial deal with the owner. My official endorsement would mean more traffic to the site, and the increased traffic means we could share in the greater revenue.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017