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 …
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.
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
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.
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....'
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.
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)
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?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019