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 LadyGaga.org. 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.�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.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: domain name, fan site, fans, lady gaga, music, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm not really sure if it's her or her manager(s) that go that aggressive. I'm inclined to believe Gaga herself wouldn't be that stupid. Stupidity concerning real life aspects usually come from lawyers and managers out of touch with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/10431413988/weird-al-denied-permission-to-parod y-lady-gaga-releases-new-song-free-anyway.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they are the ones that will start changing copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not all her fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not all her fault
Thank you captain obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not all her fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not all her fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not all her fault
"All we hear is Radio ga ga
Radio blah blah
Radio what's new?
Radio, someone still loves you!" - Queen 1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not all her fault
That's not to say that the Baby thing wasn't clearly making a reference, of course, but there's a big difference between that and infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Lady Gaga" sells occult sex goddess schtick.
Pretty much doing as you advise, and this proves that your notions don't necessarily lead to dropping copyright, just to ignoring music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lady Gaga" sells occult sex goddess schtick.
But then again, I might pay her depending on my intents and her "profession" (again, please assume that I actually think she's hot and pretty for this to work).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lady Gaga" sells occult sex goddess schtick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lady Gaga" sells occult sex goddess schtick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought common sense had no place in trademark disputes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or failing that, your bad romance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rings Faint Bells
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goes for make-up company now!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15106553
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goes for make-up company now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]