Techdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
Tony La Russa Sues Twitter Over Fake Profile
from the let's-try-this-again... dept
Video Savant has sent in the news that St. Louis Cardinals' manager Tony La Russa is suing Twitter, claiming that the company is guilty of trademark infringement, cybersquatting and misappropriation of likeness and name, because someone set up a fake Tony La Russa profile. He claims that he tried to contact the service and was unable to get them to take down the fake profile (which seems odd, since the company has apparently been pretty good about taking down fake accounts upon request). However, when he was unable to do that, he filed the lawsuit. Either way, it's difficult to see the lawsuit going very far. While (tragically) there is no section 230 or DMCA-type safe harbors for trademark, common sense should make it clear that it's not Twitter that's the liable party here (if there's any liability), but whoever created the account. Even then, it's difficult to see this getting very far. The use wasn't "in commerce" which should preclude most trademark claims, and the nature of the fake La Russa tweets suggests that anyone who read them would likely realize that it was a parody of the real La Russa. Still, there was a similar issue recently with Kanye West getting angry over fake users on Twitter -- but it hardly seems like something worth suing about. If the person is so famous, then it's not hard for them to (as West did) point out that the profile is fake, and it shouldn't much matter any more.Filed Under: cybersquatting, lawsuits, misappropriation, tony la russa, trademark
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect, meet Tony La Russa.
You two play nice, now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How do I know Tony La Russa didn't set that account up himself just so he can sue?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right. Ban the internet now! Btw, I'm suing you, Anonymous Coward, for trademark infringement, inciting riots, pandering, loitering, advocating communism, patent infringement, and vandalism.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree and there should be a site where I can search about me everywhere and then require an injunction wherever my name appears on the internet without my authorization.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This has happened to me. It's sad that law makers are sleeping while people's lives are being destroyed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There's No Crying In Baseball
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Quite simply, Twitter needs to do a better job of knowing WHO is responsible for the accounts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find that unlikely, it's highly unlikely someone within twitter would have a motive to create a fake account about someone else. It's possible but it's also possible other people created it. How would twitter know, people can use proxies to change their hostmask and such (or they can use TOR). There are ways of hiding ones identity.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no reason to specifically exclude Twitter or a rogue Twitter employee- if they can't say WHO did it, then it would be who own the domain, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean people should be guilty until proven innocent?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "rogue internet user" is turning into the "two black youths" of the 21st century.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is simply not true. The law says it's not true, and there is not a single case on record that says that.
Please. Do not make up stuff.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why couldn't have been Tony La Russa himself, just so he can have an excuse to sue? If there is money in it for him, that's a good motive (certainly much better than your, "someone at twitter thought it was funny" motive). The most someone should be able to sue twitter for is an injunction (and perhaps, if it's not unreasonable for twitter to keep logs, a request of the IP addresses/Hostmasks and times that the person created the account and logged in).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Quite simply, Twitter needs to do a better job of knowing WHO is responsible for the accounts."
They require an email address to associate with the account. That's it, and all there needs to be.
Does Tony have a trademark on his name? Is there anyone else on the planet with the same name? Do THEY have a trademark? Is this account being used for commerce? In TLR(tm)'s business? Is it Parody? Way too many variables. Not their gorram problem.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly...
Watch House
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
La Russa
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha...???!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wha...???!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How would you know?
====================================================
Seems odd? How would you know? Work there? Twitter is only 45 employees, makes ZERO money in profit, only has investor money and has to monitor millions of infringers everyday. You know what's odd? When Twitter collapses and requires to charge every text message a dime to a dollar. You'll be cursing and will leave immediately.
What's odd is Mike Masnick, coming across like a new Mickey Mouse character, but has his head up his bar exam butt. That's what's odd. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A FELONY and the case is Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena. Look it up, while you still have eyes and a brain that works, fool.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha ?
As for fake profiles - so what ? Make your own and denounce the other .. problem solved really. I'd be more likely to assume it's a 'genuine fake' rather than an employee or the whiner.
I think some people just love lawsuits, sadly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
La Russa Suit Doesn't Stand A Chance
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply