Mike, advertisers know they need to get publicity consents from every person they depict in their ad copy. The law is entirely clear about this. So if the facts are as alleged, Match.com is in deep trouble. Eric.
I'm pretty sure Google was paying Twitter for access to the real-time feed, so my guess is that Google wanted to reduce or eliminate its payments and Twitter would rather get paid. One other example to note is how Facebook routinely blocks j.mp links as "spammy." Eric.
When patents were tied to devices and information was otherwise hard to get, the patent marking requirement might have served some useful notice function. But now, no one knows how to provide notice on intangibles, and I would be shocked if any secondary users relied on the patent marking one way or another as opposed to doing patent searches, etc. Now, it is mostly a trap for the unwary who fail to remove expired patents from the patent notice. Combined with the potential for sky-high damages created by the Federal Circuit, I really think this is all antiquated infrastructure built for a different time, and it needs to be fixed. Eric.
A number of the trademark plaintiffs in the US have similarly had their hands caught in the cookie jar, i.e., they engaged in the exact same competitive advertising purchases that they were suing over. Eric.
There is already a fee-shifting provision in copyright law that allows defendants to get bogus plaintiffs to pay their attorneys' fees in some circumstances. Eric.
I believe Google is analyzing a lot of this data using search queries, at least internally. Hal Varian has been repeatedly quoted as discussing how search queries provide valuable macro-economic data. See, e.g., http://feeds.wired.com/~r/wired/index/~3/M4yZ_3nVw28/nep_googlenomics Eric.
Even though a website can try to control its description through various HTML commands, the ultimate decision about which information to present is Google's, not the individual website. http://ssrn.com/abstract=635803 So it would be ironic if a website would be liable for a description that it didn't actually create.
On the post: Married Woman Sues Match.com For Using Her Photo In Ads
On the post: Social Networking Wars 2011: Everyone Cutting Off Everyone Else
On the post: Lady Gaga Says $0.99 Albums Make Sense, Especially For Digital
On the post: Teen Who Used Facebook Images To Rank Looks Of Female Classmates, Arrested For 'Disorderly Conduct'
On the post: If You Can't Understand The Difference Between Money And Content, You Have No Business Commenting On Business Models
On the post: Woman Sues Match.com Because She Was Assaulted By Someone She Met On Site
On the post: How Does Guinness Figure Out The World's Most Prolific Blogger?
What is a "Blog"?
On the post: From Tasini To The Winklevi: Greed, Retroactively Breaking Deals And Feeling Entitled To What's Not Yours
On the post: Should A Company Be Liable For What Its Affiliates Do?
A couple of links
I also note the 1-800 Contacts v. Lens.com decision, which rejected affiliate liability in the TM context: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/03/important_ninth.htm
I've generally taken the position that government regulators have a more expansive view of affiliate liability than the actual law; i.e., when tested in court, the regulators' views fail. http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/08/affiliate_liabi.htm
Eric.
On the post: Washington DC Football Team Who Shall Remain Nameless Won't Let Blogs Use Name Without Permission
Speaking of trademarks...
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Would Curtail Lawsuits Against Those Who Falsely Claim Patent Protection
Disagree with you on this
On the post: Film Your Kid Dancing To A McDonald's Happy Meal CD... Get A Takedown Notice From Google
An added bonus
On the post: Minnesota Public Radio Reporter Faces Hacking Charges For Reporting On Data Leak
Deja Vu
On the post: With Viral Media, It's The People Passing The Links Whose Brand Is At Stake
Don't Leave Us Hanging
On the post: Indian Company Sues Google For Showing Competitors Ads... Even Though It Places Ads On Competitors Too
Not unusual....
On the post: And What's The Deal With Copyright Misuse? Seinfeld Cookbook Doesn't Infringe
Fee-shifting in copyright cases
On the post: New Lawsuit Against Facebook From People Who Just Don't Like Facebook
Copyright Claim
On the post: Analyzing Labor Data Via Facebook Status
Another Source
On the post: Could Your Website Be Liable For The Way Google's Algorithm Summarizes It?
Google Can't Be Sued
Even though a website can try to control its description through various HTML commands, the ultimate decision about which information to present is Google's, not the individual website. http://ssrn.com/abstract=635803 So it would be ironic if a website would be liable for a description that it didn't actually create.
Eric.
On the post: Claiming That Downloading Is Fair Use Seems Destined To Fail... Badly
We already have that dangerous precedent!