VIDEO: Ron Paul files suit for RonPaul.com (Fox News)

[CaptLouAlbano]

Biographies are done with the consent of the concerned parties. Aren't there also terms that allow them a certain portion of the profits? These things are all hashed out. You can't go writing a biography of someone while they are still alive without even asking and expect them not to complain if enough people read it for it to be significant.

Really? http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-T...5735&sr=8-7&keywords=unauthorized+biographies

And don't forget about Kitty Kelley's unauthorized bio of Nancy Reagan

 

[sailingaway]

Biographies are done with the consent of the concerned parties. Aren't there also terms that allow them a certain portion of the profits? These things are all hashed out. You can't go writing a biography of someone while they are still alive without even asking and expect them not to complain if enough people read it for it to be significant.

If it is truthful and clear it is unofficial not under your auspices it is usually fair use. here Ron has only one name and the domain rules specify when use of someone else's name is not ok.

 

[angelatc]

Biographies are done with the consent of the concerned parties. Aren't there also terms that allow them a certain portion of the profits? These things are all hashed out. You can't go writing a biography of someone while they are still alive without even asking and expect them not to complain if enough people read it for it to be significant.

That's just wrong. Google Kitty Kelley.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

From what we have learned politicians do not have that trademark on their name as celebrities do. For example, Mitt Romney is not afforded the same trademark rights as Frank Sinatra. But we shall see what happens in arbitration.

Where did you learn that? Who is this "we"? Explain.

As far as I'm concerned, a person's birth certificate is their "registered" trademark.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

You seem to be really eager for that result, but I'll wait to see what happens. There is definite confusion and trading off of Ron here, and it is Ron's name. We'll see.

I always tend to side with the entrepreneur.

 

[angelatc]

If it is truthful and clear it is unofficial not under your auspices it is usually fair use. here Ron has only one name and the domain rules specify when use of someone else's name is not ok.

I've guess you've moved beyond none of us being sure, eh?

 

[sailingaway]

I always tend to side with the entrepreneur.

But Ron starting out in a new business is not an entrepreneur?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Exactly. I'm still betting on a ruling for the domain owner. If that is the case, Ron could very well be SOL depending on how much he pisses off the site owner.

I think you're guilty of the same fallacy you accuse sailing of. How can you think Ron would do this if he wasn't aware of how likely he was to succeed? He and his advisors all think he probably has a pretty good case if they are going to go forward with this. Otherwise, why bother? To me, you are accusing Ron Paul of the same naivete that sailing is. Oh, the irony.

 

[sailingaway]

I've guess you've moved beyond none of us being sure, eh?

No, I am not sure about what happened or whether Ron will win his claim. It is pretty clear the domain has rules over what is permissible though.

 

[angelatc]

Where did you learn that? Who is this "we"? Explain.

As far as I'm concerned, a person's birth certificate is their "registered" trademark.

I would tell you to read the threads so you could see our sources, but I already know that the opinions of experts aside from yourself carry no weight in your world.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Where did you learn that? Who is this "we"? Explain.

As far as I'm concerned, a person's birth certificate is their "registered" trademark.

It was earlier today, you'd have to look back. I think Angela posted it. Politicians don't have the same claim as other celebs do. I am guessing it is because their fame comes from public service, but that is just my guess.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Really? http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-T...5735&sr=8-7&keywords=unauthorized+biographies

And don't forget about Kitty Kelley's unauthorized bio of Nancy Reagan

I guess they got away with it because nobody complained. Can you say for certain that they would have gotten away with it if they had complained?

 

[sailingaway]

It was earlier today, you'd have to look back. I think Angela posted it. Politicians don't have the same claim as other celebs do. I am guessing it is because their fame comes from public service, but that is just my guess.

Ron is no longer a politician.

 

[angelatc]

No, I am not sure about what happened or whether Ron will win his claim. It is pretty clear the domain has rules over what is permissible though.

As long as it's clear to you, then your work is done here. The rest of us are still discussing the implications on free speech and fan sites, because we're not convinced the 3-prong test has been met.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I guess they got away with it because nobody complained. Can you say for certain that they would have gotten away with it if they had complained?

You must be young and have no idea about the Kitty Kelley bios.

Maybe you haven't been to a book store lately, but there are a ton of Obama bios that I am sure he didn't approve of.

 

[sailingaway]

As long as it's clear to you, then your work is done here. The rest of us are still discussing the implications on free speech and fan sites, because we're not convinced the 3-prong test has been met.

I didn't say the test had or hadn't been met. In fact I specifically said I didn't know if Ron would win. I said there were rules. Whether they were met is what the arbitration will decide.

 

[angelatc]

Ron is no longer a politician.

Sure he is. He is a retired politician. His fame is the direct result of his being a politician. The "Who Is Ron Paul?" and the "Google Ron Paul" themes clearly indicate that he wasn't the household name they're now pretending that he was during the 2007 run.

 

[fr33]

As long as it's clear to you, then your work is done here. The rest of us are still discussing the implications on free speech and fan sites, because we're not convinced the 3-prong test has been met.

Should one not be responsible when they purchase a domain? Hell it makes more sense than the constitution. My name is not on the constitution yet I am tied to this "social contract" without signing it while the owners of ronpaul.com actively signed the ICANN contract.

 

[sailingaway]

Sure he is. He is a retired politician. His fame is the direct result of his being a politician. The "Who Is Ron Paul?" and the "Google Ron Paul" themes clearly indicate that he wasn't the household name they're now pretending that he was during the 2007 run.

I hear your argument, but it is just an argument. Ron used his name when he was out of office to publish and speak, and intends to do more with it. How the arbitration will weigh all the facts is yet to be determined

 

[angelatc]

You must be young and have no idea about the Kitty Kelley bios.

Somebody should really just close this thread, because it's bordering on the absurd. Ron Paul is suddenly no longer a politician, and you have to have the permission of the subject to write a biography.

You can't just argue with that logic.