Lady Gaga Tries To Seize Fan Domain... But Fails

from the you-don't-get-everything dept

While we've noted that Lady Gaga seems to be really on top of things when it comes to copyright issues on her music, in other areas of her operations, she's pretty aggressive in pushing intellectual property claims. We've noted, for example, her attempts to aggressively use trademark claims to stop "Baby Gaga" ice cream and copyright claims to control her image by photographers. As we noted, to Lady Gaga, intellectual property seems to have nothing to do with her music, but everything to do with her image.

It's too bad she recognizes the benefits of being open in one aspect of her business, but not in other areas. Of course, the constant overreaches aren't always successful. Take, for example, her recent attempt to gain control over a fan site at Rather than embrace the fan site and be happy for the support, Gaga and/or her management, went to the National Arbitration Forum and argued that this fan had registered the domain in bad faith:
The owner of the site then responded that it was merely a non-commercial, unofficial fan site for Gaga that "does not have any sponsored links or links to third-party websites which market and sell merchandise bearing Complainant’s trademark.”

The owner added that her fan site supported Gaga's fame and was giving the singer free publicity. In other words, the site owner (identified as "Miranda") loves Lady Gaga so much that she's willing to erect a digital shrine to her, and lawyers shouldn't interfere.
Of course, it's quite a fan who's willing to still erect a digital shrine to an artist who goes legal to try to seize their domain. However, the NAF wasted little time in siding with the woman who owned the domain and against Lady Gaga. The ruling made clear that such a fan site is a perfectly legitimate purpose for the domain name.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 28 Sep 2011 @ 10:55am

    "Lady Gaga" sells occult sex goddess schtick.

    Not music. It's the image that brings in cash, not the canned performances. Hence the focus on controlling "secondary" markets.

    Pretty much doing as you advise, and this proves that your notions don't necessarily lead to dropping copyright, just to ignoring music.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.