Slashdot Mirror
Google Asks Booble To Cease And Desist
cosmodemonic writes "The folks at Search Engine Journal have the low-down on a cease and desist order that Google has sent to the porn search engine/Google parody Booble. It seems that, although Booble is claiming to be a parody (which is protected under law), Google is flexing its muscle because of the marketability of the parody." Search Engine Journal makes the reasonable suggestion: "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody."
I hope Google adds this to their search features. Who wouldn't want to harness the power of Google for searching pr0n?
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Shame, I liked Even Worse a lot when I was a boy...
Who did what now?
What about parody movies like space balls? Can Lucas sue them because they made money?
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
Pun intended. See topic.
C|N>K
Why is there no 'I'm feeling Horny' button.
Like Spaceballs, Hot Shots, etc? Since when was making money off of a parody such a bad thing, as long as there is no mistaking it for the original?
Game dev and music blog
A search engine, like google, but that finds porn? Why is there no permanent link to this from the slashdot main page?
What I find most interesting, from an unemotional viewpoint, is why we are so fussy about trademark, copyright and patent law.
If you think about it, we (and by we, I mean, the Europeans, Americans and Antipodeans among others) enjoy a standard of life far higher than our African/Aisan/South American counterparts. Why is this so:
Certainly oil and other natural resources play a significant role, but, I think the main thing that maintains the imbalance is patent and copyright law. People in third world countries can produce things for the same prices as we can - or even cheaper, market them in much the same way and can attain similar standards of education (the privileged few initially).
What keeps them "down in the hole" is the constant flow of money back to the aforementioned "lucky countries" who hold the patents.
So, if we start to let even the hint of trademark, copyright or patent violation start to occur, we risk a slow steady slide away from out massive privilege. Governments and courts must be aware of this and I believe that in certain cases they act accordingly.
I am not casting moral judgement here, beyond to say that most cultures tend to vehemently (and often brutally) protect their privileges.
Just an interesting sociological phenomenon methinks.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
...the marketability of the parody
IWTKAL, but I think Booble is on pretty solid ground here. This is clearly, clearly a parody site (in fact, it's pretty bad parody if you ask me) and nowhere near functional.
I mean geez, a porn search engine that doesn't return any hits for "Jenna Haze," "Cherry Rain," or "Belladonna" is a long way from "marketable."
Well, I agree with you about parody, but there is really nothing creative about this - they've just borrowed the look of Google to create a porn portal.
Unless there is some very subtle joke here, I think that Google have a point. If Booble were using its revenues to say, fund free speech sites which are suppressed (allegedly) by Google in China, then that would represent some sort of statement. I don't see that Booble is making a statement, except that they are cheekily borrowing someone else's artwork to make money. Not exactly mass murder, as crimes go, but trademarks are legally protected for a reason.
To shut it down sure would be twisted
We just learned this place existed...
The Simpsons has an answer for everything
and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
IANAL, but I think I see the line being drawn here.
Money can be made off of a parody, such as Spaceballs, because of the intent behind it - to make money directly from reaction to the parody.
Booble isn't doing that. Booble is using the name parody as an advertisement. They're trying to make money by using that as a pull, a gimmick, a trick.
Too bad Google probably has the name trademarked. Google now can use fair litigation to shut them down.
In other words: Google uses dark magics for good purposes, such as self-defense!
I understand that the spate of frivilous and poorly thought out litigation that has swept over the Internet in the past few years has made everyone who appreciates the freedom that the net offers cringe when they see lawsuits and C&Ds like this one. However, Google's concerns don't appear to be unfounded.
The comments that I've seen so far have been quick to point out that parodies such as Spaceballs and Hot Shots! made money and were protected, but the analogy falls down quicky, in my opinion. The Booble site looks exactly like Google, and the only indication (from the front page) that you're not dealing with the same company and the same search technology is the fine print at the bottom of the page that Joe Internet User couldn't read and understand if he wanted to. Going back to the film parody analogy, Booble's parody of Google would be akin to Mel Brooks casting Mark Hammill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: Spaceballs and creating a film that looked and felt like it fit in the series, while providing a small disclaimer at the beginning that it wasn't affiliated with the franchise.
Most litigation and "big guy ordering little guy to C&D" that we see is bad and hurts everybody, but there are still times when it's legitimate. I submit that Google has done what it had to do in this case, and that we shouldn't all immediately run to back the little guy without considering the situation.
Booble is (was ? ) simply worthless as a pr0n engine.
What, an "adult search engine" that returns exactly 0 matches for the word "bondage" ?
I mean, come ON ! Even altavista picture search does better !
(Uh, hope my supervisor doesn't read slashdot too much...)
Thomas Miconi
Several posts have questioned the difference between a parody making profit and the site in question. Besides the obvious RTFA, there is a rather large gap between the movies/songs suggested and the site in question.
Parody's are allowed to make money, there is no problem with that. The distinction lies in whether the parody makes money (attention, whatever) due to it's own content or due to the content of it's predecessor. A successful parody uses it's predecessor as a starting point but, in order to be successful paradoy, must have it's own message, generally humor.
Example: Song x makes a few million dollars. As a form of art another artist creates song y based on the original song x. People hear song y on the radio (stream, etc) and decide to buy (download, etc) song y because they like it. Or in simplest terms, they purchase/download/acquire song y due to it's own merits, not necessarally due to the merits of the original.
In the case of the site in question, they have used the notoriety of the original to create business for themselves. They are not creating a commentary or derived work to be successful or not on it's own two feet. The goal of Booble is not to make a commentary/etc on Google, but to use the image of Google to sell their own product. The fact that it is Porn meens nothing, it would be no differant than if I started up a searchsite called Wooble, used a very similar front-end, etc. to search for Small Furry Animals.
I would submit that the closest I have seen to an actual google paradoy would probably be elgoog, though even that would be stretching the definition of parody as I see no real commentary in Elgoog, only nifty "See what I can do"-ity.
Whee signature.
He didn't do the video because he desires permission of the authors. Nothing in that article states that he's legally disallowed from making the video, he's just standing by his (previously mentioned) judgment that it's better for artist relations if he's not going against artists' wishes.
Here it is from booble.com site:
January 28, 2004
Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,
We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.
As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.
In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:
the domain names are entirely different;
the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and
the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects:
it features a woman's chest;
it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;'
it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and
it disclaims any association with Google.com.
Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished.
In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's paro
Omgili - Find out what people are saying.