Just an old retired girl from Ontario (though sometimes, I'm just tired). Retired photographer, doing freelance and stuff for fun now. Not very politically motivated, but there are some things that can get me riled up some...
I suppose that's true, but in this case ... what exactly whas trademarked? A phrase with 3 words in it.
Funny that though ... I checked my gmail account tonight and the first email was titled "Winter is Coming" ... and it contained an updated game from G5 games (not related to the Game of Thrones).
The use of the phrase is all over the web, and doesn't appear to have generated any angst (so far) from HBO, so it seems odd they would have picked on a child's drawing which appears to be unrelated to the show in any way.
Doesn't make sense, but the full story isn't always what we see either.
Hopefully, someone with a sane mind will see that they lose the tradement.
The phrase is used constantly in the northern hemisphere ... it's simply part of many statements in this area. How can they be allowed to trademark a phrase which has existed for years, and that people use all the time (long before this show, or any thought of the show existed)?
Insanity.
This book was printed in 1873, with a poem titled "Winter is Coming" ...
There's many references to winter is coming on the web and in old books, none of which have anything to do with some silly TV program. They shouldn't have been granted the TM to begin with.
I completely agree. In fact, on Facebook, I use FB Purity to block everything except my family & friends, and I don't friend people I don't really know.
For me, most social sites aren't the place I go to be "social". They're a tool to keep my distant family close.
To get social ... I go out my front door and meet people face to face.
I found TechDirt in search results, and I've been reading it ever since. Interesting content doesn't meed social media to have loyal readers.
There are many other portraits of William Shakespeare available in the public domain too. Who needs to pay for a license to get one from them?
If people don't buy, how are they making money? Anybody with half a brain can search for public domain works. In fact there is at least one in the British Library Public Domain images they released.
Not much I can to that. What did you think would happen though?
Google exists to make money. Not to be 100% altruistic. If they were, they wouldn't be able to provide relief funds for disaster responses; they wouldn't be able to provide advertising for charities ... they wouldn't be able to take on publishers all over the world. They wouldn't be able to develop things like eye implants, or provide internet service to very remote people, or many of the other good things they do. You think all of this doesn't cost money?
And no, I don't particularly agree with everything Google does, nor the way they sometimes to do it.
But, if someone can do it better then I hope someone does.
[I think there is a huge difference between a news site that links to the occasional NSFW pic (when needed for context) vs a porn listing site that links to nothing but NSFW pics.]
Yes I would think so too. But sometimes it doesn't work that way. People complain. Notices get sent.
[The problem here is that the policy only concerns itself with content not context.]
In some cases that particularly true. I've run afoul of it with the word "naked" (as in "naked genius" or "naked tree") and ads would not show on that page no matter what. That was the "bot" that crawls. It didn't like that I had a word related to adult content.
But of course, they own the service and most advertiser's don't complain about ads on Google's own search results. They actually pay a hefty fee for it, so I'd guess the rules for those advertisers (which are outside of the publisher network) are probably a lot different than for the advertisers whose ads appear on the publisher network.
When you own a company, you tell employees what they can or can't do at work but I doubt you tell the CEO what they can or can't do.
[Now, Google is a private company that obviously has the right to choose who it wants to do business with and how it does business, but this seems particularly ridiculous. This does raise questions for us as a media property and whether AdSense is compatible with news reporting.]
So ... have you actually read their policies? It does seem ridiculous to most people, but even linking to "prohibited contents" is a violation.
Having been a reader of this site for ages (a supporter at one point ... need to do that again) and a forum regular at AdSense, I can tell you ... TechDirt appears to have much more leeway than the average publisher does. I could pick out dozens of violations if I wanted to, and many more in the form of comments (for which publishers are responsible as well).
AdSense is pretty much influenced by what the advertisers want, and what they complain about.
A lot of news/reporting type sites run into issues with AdSense. Whether you decide to keep it or not usually depends on whether the adjustments are worth it for the publisher.
[Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.]
That's a shame. We've been using Brighthouse in Florida, and compared to others, they were amazing. Reasonable pricing, good service, decent customer service. Better than the service we have in Canada for almost 3 times the price.
I'd rather like Brighthouse to stay as they are, so I hope that Charter isn't going to change the service or the pricing.
But I am thankful that me and my home still live in the "lost world". I admit it, I'm a dinosaur.
What's wrong with walking over to the thermostat and changing it yourself? Or turning on your lights using your hands instead of some "device"?
Tales like this one make me wonder how society would survive without all their little electronic gadgets and doodads.
Things like having internet, or phones or TV are fine, but they shouldn't be the things that run our lives and it seems that the more forward thinking the devices become, the less people enjoy life and worry more about the devices working.
Spent the last few months away from home without all of that stuff and we found ourselves a lot happier.
... just sayin' don't buy "things" to run your life for you.
[ even if you don't appreciate Prince's "art," it's fairly obvious that some people do, because people do keep buying up his works,]
ummmm what work? None of it appears to be "his". Adding a bit of text to someone else's "work" doesn't make it yours. That's not work. It doesn't make it "art" either.
That's about the same as photocopying a page from a book, printing your name in crayon on it, and then calling it your work.
Re: Re: Re: Is it really from HBO?
I stopped uploading there a few years ago.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do it everywhere
Funny that though ... I checked my gmail account tonight and the first email was titled "Winter is Coming" ... and it contained an updated game from G5 games (not related to the Game of Thrones).
The use of the phrase is all over the web, and doesn't appear to have generated any angst (so far) from HBO, so it seems odd they would have picked on a child's drawing which appears to be unrelated to the show in any way.
Doesn't make sense, but the full story isn't always what we see either.
Re: Re: Re: Do it everywhere
The phrase is used constantly in the northern hemisphere ... it's simply part of many statements in this area. How can they be allowed to trademark a phrase which has existed for years, and that people use all the time (long before this show, or any thought of the show existed)?
Insanity.
This book was printed in 1873, with a poem titled "Winter is Coming" ...
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ERMtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=winter+is+coming& amp;source=bl&ots=hAG5ku4DgP&sig=6aISIYSoyiNV7E-QHjdiv8zLq-U&hl=en&sa=X&redir_es c=y#v=onepage&q=winter%20is%20coming&f=false
There's many references to winter is coming on the web and in old books, none of which have anything to do with some silly TV program. They shouldn't have been granted the TM to begin with.
(untitled comment)
What? WAIT ... people actually get news on Facebook? pshaw.
Never in a million years would I look for news on facebook.
It's usually crap news ... sensationalism at it's worst (or best if you rather).
If I want to read the NEWS I go to a NEWS site.
(untitled comment)
Very creepy.
Admit I have no clue who he is and after that, don't wanna know.
... remind me never to watch anything he's in.
(untitled comment)
It's my right to claim or not claim such fees, not someone else's.
How exactly would this even be thought of as helpful to anyone creating images? It isn't. It's only helpful to the collection groups.
(untitled comment)
For me, most social sites aren't the place I go to be "social". They're a tool to keep my distant family close.
To get social ... I go out my front door and meet people face to face.
I found TechDirt in search results, and I've been reading it ever since. Interesting content doesn't meed social media to have loyal readers.
(untitled comment)
If people don't buy, how are they making money? Anybody with half a brain can search for public domain works. In fact there is at least one in the British Library Public Domain images they released.
(untitled comment)
Just wait ... someday we'll all be assigned numbers at birth instead of names ... just to avoid offending someone.
Re: Sell your soul to the company store...
Google exists to make money. Not to be 100% altruistic. If they were, they wouldn't be able to provide relief funds for disaster responses; they wouldn't be able to provide advertising for charities ... they wouldn't be able to take on publishers all over the world. They wouldn't be able to develop things like eye implants, or provide internet service to very remote people, or many of the other good things they do. You think all of this doesn't cost money?
And no, I don't particularly agree with everything Google does, nor the way they sometimes to do it.
But, if someone can do it better then I hope someone does.
Re: Re:
Yes I would think so too. But sometimes it doesn't work that way. People complain. Notices get sent.
[The problem here is that the policy only concerns itself with content not context.]
In some cases that particularly true. I've run afoul of it with the word "naked" (as in "naked genius" or "naked tree") and ads would not show on that page no matter what. That was the "bot" that crawls. It didn't like that I had a word related to adult content.
Re: Re:
But of course, they own the service and most advertiser's don't complain about ads on Google's own search results. They actually pay a hefty fee for it, so I'd guess the rules for those advertisers (which are outside of the publisher network) are probably a lot different than for the advertisers whose ads appear on the publisher network.
When you own a company, you tell employees what they can or can't do at work but I doubt you tell the CEO what they can or can't do.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
So ... have you actually read their policies? It does seem ridiculous to most people, but even linking to "prohibited contents" is a violation.
Having been a reader of this site for ages (a supporter at one point ... need to do that again) and a forum regular at AdSense, I can tell you ... TechDirt appears to have much more leeway than the average publisher does. I could pick out dozens of violations if I wanted to, and many more in the form of comments (for which publishers are responsible as well).
AdSense is pretty much influenced by what the advertisers want, and what they complain about.
A lot of news/reporting type sites run into issues with AdSense. Whether you decide to keep it or not usually depends on whether the adjustments are worth it for the publisher.
Re:
Re: Full Retard Engaged
Re: Google, quit complaining and do something.
(untitled comment)
That's a shame. We've been using Brighthouse in Florida, and compared to others, they were amazing. Reasonable pricing, good service, decent customer service. Better than the service we have in Canada for almost 3 times the price.
I'd rather like Brighthouse to stay as they are, so I hope that Charter isn't going to change the service or the pricing.
(untitled comment)
But I am thankful that me and my home still live in the "lost world". I admit it, I'm a dinosaur.
What's wrong with walking over to the thermostat and changing it yourself? Or turning on your lights using your hands instead of some "device"?
Tales like this one make me wonder how society would survive without all their little electronic gadgets and doodads.
Things like having internet, or phones or TV are fine, but they shouldn't be the things that run our lives and it seems that the more forward thinking the devices become, the less people enjoy life and worry more about the devices working.
Spent the last few months away from home without all of that stuff and we found ourselves a lot happier.
... just sayin' don't buy "things" to run your life for you.
(untitled comment)
ummmm what work? None of it appears to be "his". Adding a bit of text to someone else's "work" doesn't make it yours. That's not work. It doesn't make it "art" either.
That's about the same as photocopying a page from a book, printing your name in crayon on it, and then calling it your work.
Those who can, create. Those who can't, copy.
More comments from Gracey >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gracey.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt