Automattic Rejects Series Of Bogus Janet Jackson Takedown Attempts By Using Janet Jackson Song Titles
from the automattic-wins-the-internet dept
Via Parker Higgins we learn that Automattic (better known as the Wordpress people) have added singer Janet Jackson to their "Hall of Shame" for sending totally bogus takedowns. Apparently, her people made the wacky claim that this post on "what would your WWE smackdown name be?" represented trademark infringement. It doesn't. The only place it even mentions Jackson is in showing a picture of Sacha Baron Cohen with the following explanation:Costume and entrance: Picture Sacha Baron Cohen in, what else? his movie The Dictator. Elaborate General’s outfit, hat, etc. He walks in flanked by half a dozen sexy female soldiers inspired by the Janet Jackson Rhythm Nation video.Uh, yeah. That's not trademark infringement. It's not copyright infringement. It's not anything but someone writing.
The other takedown is equally problematic. It claims the following image is copyright infringement:
Still, Automattic's lawyers had some fun with their response, noting that they "tried to use as many Janet Jackson song titles as possible" in the response (while also noting they hope that doesn't lead to another takedown demand):
Nicely done.It seems like you believe the use of the trademark “Janet Jackson” is reserved all for you, but we were hoping you’d be open to some feedback because your attempt to control every use of the mark is pretty nasty. If you read up on nominative use, you’ll discover that it doesn’t really matter that “Janet Jackson” is used on this site. If you believe there are any other alleged infringements, would you mind submitting a notice again via our trademark form?
http://automattic.com/trademark-policy/
So excited to work with you going forward
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: copyright, fair use, janet jackson, takedowns, trademark, wordpress
Companies: automattic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.inflexwetrust.com/2014/01/30/nfl-10-years-since-nipplegate-heres-what-justin-timbe rlake-has-to-say-about-the-sb-incident/janet-jackson-wardrobe-malfunction-4/
And yes, you are right (as shown above) pics of the "malfunction" are (still) all over the internet. To target this one site for just MENTIONING it in text only is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously if anybody is holding something it is Tim Howard.
Derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clearly, you don't understand how copyright works. Copyright is a tool for taking down anything you don't like that remotely references you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or extracting payment thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Welcome to the Legal side of the Internet, where lawyers go after pretty much anything they could conceive of going after on an hourly basis (they bill by the hour).
Now, actually getting a court ruling in their favour on such a thing, that's another issue. But with DMCA takedowns, it rarely gets that far; most people just take down the material when threatened by a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Few more legal points
It was an honest legal error, done Because Of Love, but also with The Knowledge, that Love Will Never Do. That's The Way Love Goes.
Techdirt may cause lawyers to Runaway after these details, but hey, that's The State Of The World and they may need an Escapade.
All Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only thing i didn't like about it...
1. a SEX-obsessed 'culture' hyperventilates about a fine looking woman showing a portion of a fine looking boobie during THE high-testosterone event of the year ? ? ?
hypocrisy abounds...
2. could have done without the pastie thing, ruined a good boobie...
3. it is certain there were MANY commercials during the broadcast far more 'disgusting' and 'obscene' than a jj nip slip...
4. as a general rule, most any woman who wants to show me her boobies is welcome; i can confidently speak to this for 99.99% of the male population, and about 5-10% of the female population...
(yes, even gay males will want to see her boobs, *that's* how fine she is...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the only thing i didn't like about it...
Tangentially related to your ode to boobies: a couple of days ago, I was talking to a friend who was bemoaning the fact that she had small breasts. I told her the ill-kept "secret" of men: men think breasts are awesome. Doesn't matter if they're big, small, or what their shape is. They're all fantastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the only thing i didn't like about it...
damn, are you going to blab all the sekrets of man klub ? ? ?
IF ONLY women knew that it is *one* thing for us piggies to admire, desire, or fantasize about a 'perfect body/woman' (which we NEVER expect to come to fruition, EVER); but they can't know that 90%+ of us are ABSOLUTELY THRILLED with her (supposed) less-than-perfect body... she is perfectly fine to us ! ! !
oh, crap, me and my big mouth...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the only thing i didn't like about it...
Not only that but in my experience, no two people actually agree as to what a "perfect body" looks like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That should have read "I think she boobed here".
Stupid autocorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave Janet alone Now!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leave Janet alone Now!!!!
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toodles!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i got that DMCA too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]