Using Your Own Name May Be Infringement, Part 2
phillymjs writes "We're probably all familiar with Uzi Nissan and his fight to keep his nissan.com domain name from the clutches of Nissan Motors. Well, more same-name idiocy came to light today-- the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that their staff music writer, Bill Wyman, has received a cease-and-desist letter from lawyers representing former Rolling Stone Bill Wyman, for "a seriously misleading and, arguably, an intentional, unauthorized exploitation of our client's name, goodwill and publicity value."
It should be interesting to see how this one plays out, because Bill Wyman the musician was born William George Perks and changed his name to Bill Wyman in 1964. Journalist Bill Wyman was given that name at his birth in 1961."
...a good start...
Why must we be so sue-happy that respectful citizens cant even enjoy their own names without some over-paid copyright lawyer hearing the crinkling of his clients not-so-hard earned money.
It's obvious Bill Wyman is going to win this case.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
I lucked out. Imagine my last name was McDonald? I wouldn't be able to refer to anything in the possessive!
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
though many people seem to ignore this simple fact. This guy did the right thing, which was to tell the wannabe-Wyman to shove it up his ass.
sulli
RTFJ.
Considering the name change and the dates involved, this one just *BEGS* for the "real" owner of the name to countersue and demand the other change his name back (or to something else).
;-)
Damn, though, *this* one takes balls. I have to admit, paranoid as I can seem, I didn't see it getting to the point where using one's one name in normal daily activities would count as infringment.
Ah well, too bad I don't read Rolling Stone, I can't cancel my subscription in protest.
Keith Richard sends out Cease and Desist notices to cadavars because folks confuse them for him.
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
Because the average human is a loathsome, greedy, insensitive fool. As a result of this story, along with hundreds of others reported over the past decade or so (about how long I've really been following things), I am now convinced that our species will not survive past the next century.
...but Mr. Nissan has been running Nissan Computers from before Datsun Motors changed its name to Nissan Motors.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Please, RTFA before you post...
This has NOTHING to do with cyberspace. Bill Wyman was simply WRITING ARTICLES using his own name. He didn't try to register the name on the internet -- at least not according to the article.
I admit that the slashdot preview doesn't make this clear, but thats why you should RTFA.
a) it's your legal (from birth) name
b) your not trying to profit off of the name
c) you registered the name first
I think it's Nissan's (the company) fault for not registering the name first. Now they are left out in the cold. Too bad, so sad. Better luck next time.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Is that an accurate description?
This article isn't even about cybersquatting! It is about some guy who happens to work for this newspaper and who happens to sometimes write about the Rolling Stones. The musical Wyman wants the columnist wyman to put a discalimer on everything he writes that he is in fact NOT the musical Wyman! How ridiculous!
For those not familiar with the Nissan issue - Uzi Nissan has a real company named Nissan Computers, which he started several years before the Internet "took off", IIRC in 1991. Technically, he even registered his domain before the internet "took off", IIRC in 1994. "Nissan" is, and has been, his family name for many generations (whereas the other Nissan changed it's name from Datsun a couple decades ago).
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AFAICT, Bill Wyman the journalist has no website to call his own. I have no idea why this was posted under the Internet category, because I submitted it under News.
Anyway, the lawyers are objecting to Bill Wyman the journalist using his given name on the byline of the articles he writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (and, I suppose, any other publication for which he writes). Not because he owns any domain name relating to the name Bill Wyman.
This action strikes me as even more outlandish and insidious than anything the big corporations have done over real or alleged domain squatting. That's why I submitted the article.
~Philly
that the lawyers are also named Bill Wyman?
Sigs are bad for your health.
The law firm is in NYC. The Stones' Bill Wyman may not even know about the lawsuit. Lawyers are like that. Remember the fuss over "killustrator" in Germany?
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
It's true. We live in a country(I'm actually canadian, but the argument is the same in either nation) where ignorance of the law is not a valid defence and yet the countries COMPLETE legislation could not be read by a single person in their entire lifetime. BTW, my given first name is Duff so(although the product in my case is fictional) I have a lot of experience with the name/trademark crossover. I don't own duff.com(warning... porno), but if I did, you can bet I would raise all hell if FOX tried to take it from me.
lysergically yours
The Atlanta Journal-Courier's Bill Wyman, who has regularly covered Rolling Stones news, wrote an article in the AJC about some of the ban's old albums. The band's lawyer decided (not unreasonably, I guess) that readers would think bassist Bill Wyman had written the piece, and demanded that a) if a journalist was calling himself Bill Wyman to cover Rolling Stones topics, he stop and b) if someone genuinely had that name, he should make that clear. The story hints that the lableing demand would extend to all work by the writer, but it's not clear that that's so.
Whatever the legal merits of this case, it has nothing to do with a domain name.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Last name?
/runs and turns off Slashdot modding powers.
Nielsen.
Mental note. Rate nothing. Ever.
From imdb.com:
According to udpates at the bottom of this page, things aren't going so well for Uzi Nissan.
The latest:
September 2002
The previous court rulings did not end this case. Nissan Motors filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment trying (and has been successful) to get the Court to deprive me of the right to a jury trial on October 15, 2002. The Court, much to my surprise, changed its attitude on this issue and:
1. Changed the relevant date for "fame" from 1991 to 1994.
2. Found that no reasonable jury could find that Nissan was not famous by 1994.
3. Found that Nissan Computer and The Internet Center diluted Nissan Motor's trademark.
4. Found that the publication of information about this lawsuit, the comments made by many people -- on this www.ncchelp.org and my media campaign to bring this issue to the public, actually -- tarnished Nissan Motor's trademark.
Many legal experts view our case, not as a "law-breaking" case, but as a "law-making" case. The Court indicated during the hearing on this motion that certain aspects of this case may be creating new law as well.
The trial date has thus been taken off calendar and Nissan Motor is now asking the Court to take away my domain name from me entirely. We expect a ruling on this motion some time in November this year. Our legal team is evaluating our options, which evaluation can not be completed until we know the final ruling by the Court. We believe that the potential loss of our domain name in this fashion may set the wrong precedent for future cases and will open the door for any deep-pocket corporation to do the same. This may become "the law of the land" and may affect many others in a similar situation, it could affect you or someone you know.
This case received the attention of CBS Evening News, and has been looked at by other news agencies that have not yet published stories about it. Public attention to this type of corporate behavior is most important to get the issues properly debated. Your emails were very successful in CBS Evening News' decision to run a short story on this case. We are asking for your continued and crucial support by sending an email to the media and stating the importance of bringing these facts to the public. Remember that it was Public Opinion and Awareness that ended the Soviet Union, not missiles. Together we can make a difference.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's one thing when Nissan sues you, yeah, I could deal with that. What are they going to do, run me over with a Nissan?
;)
But when the Uzi people finally get wind of this fellow, you can bet he'll change his tune.
It's just not wise to argue with Israelis armed with machine guns with a beef over territory or ownership rights.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I think you'll find it interesting.
I just searched for my own name (in quotes) on google, and found:
- A wildlife foundation under my name
- A gallery under my name
- A cricket player with my name
- A professor with my name
- A folk singer with my name
- Artists with my name
- About 14,000 other links with my name not related to me personally.
I already knew many companies operated under my last name, but didn't know so many used my full name!
So, how many of you are in danger of losing your names like this?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
No one should ever be forced to change their given name. Period. Why can't people like you understand that real people are living real lives, and that they names are not properties to be bought and sold via lawsuits.
There is absolutely NO inconvenience if both Bill Wymans use their own names. Geez! Next thing you know you'll be arguing that there should be only one John Smith in the world.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Sounds like their database administrator shouldn't have used performer_name as the primary key.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
For a full treatment of Nissan history, click on this link.
To summarize, the first companies that would eventually become Nissan started in 1911. After a series of mergers, changed company names, and revisted models, they started selling cars with the Datsun name in 1932. However, the company was never known as Datsun Motors. Datsun was just the brand name of their cards, from "son of DAT." The company has been called Nissan Motors ever since the merger between DAT Automobile Manufacturing Company and Nihon Sangyo, another pre-existing automobile manufacturer.
Some other juicy bits that the enthusiast site I've linked to doesn't go well into is the fact that Nissan was the largest of the "new zaibatsu" and profitted quite considerably from the rape of Manchuria by the Japanese in the 1930s. The older zaibatsu, like Mitsui, Sumitomo, and Mitsubishi were all tightly controlled by greedy single families who weren't well liked by the wartime government. Companies like Nissan who were owned by multiple owners were treated more favorably and got the sweeter deals in exploiting the newly conquered Japanese territories.
Also, the website glosses over the labor struggles of the 1950s in Japan. Nissan was a "innovator" in breaking their unions and was one of the first companies to create a company-created union that would provide the model for all modern Japanese labor unions. Modern Japanese labor unions are all company (not trade) specific and are essentially a secondary tier of management over the workers used to keep them in line and in harmony with company desires, and striking is no longer allowed. Though as far as I know, Nissan's 100-day strike was very bloodless compared to many of the other labor struggles during the period, it was the pioneer in establishing the crippled system that exists today in Japan.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Unfortunately the sharks will just leave the lawyer alone. It's professional courtesy.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
In other news, McDonnell, world-renowned maker of fighter jets including the F-15, has decided to sue McDonalds, world-renown maker of fried heart-attack hamburgers.
McDonnell is apparently worried that the US Government, intending to go to McDonnell.com and buy an airplane, will instead go to McDonalds.com and buy a Happy Meal.
"Naturally," a McDonnell representative said, "We don't want McDonalds taking advantage of our good name and making 15 million dollars on a Happy Meal because the US Government got confused."
McDonald's has filed counter-suite, claiming that a family wanting to buy a happy-meal for $4.50 will become confused, walk into McDonnell Corp and buy a F-15 for $4.5 Million.
"Obviously," a McDonald's spokesperson said, "there is a great potential for consumer-confusion here. We just want to make sure that consumers intending to buy a Happy Meal will buy a Happy Meal and not an air-plane."
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen