Court Rules Against Woman Who Didn't Like Search Results

But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Someone like Tiger Woods or Steve Jobbs could sue Yahoo!?

Re:But.... by Sylak · 2010-10-04 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

So could she but using a different part of the law.
Re:But.... by SimonTheSoundMan · 2010-10-04 05:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Let the Streisand Effect begin. :S
Re:But.... by ciggieposeur · 2010-10-04 05:33 · Score: 1

Also a "person" like BP, Exxon, Halliburton, IBM, Nike, etc.
Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:33 · Score: 0

Court ruled that you must have a commercial interest to protect if you are going to pursue an action under law that says you must have a commercial interest to protect. No big surprise there
But I doubt Woods or Jobs could sue Yahoo! for their search results. Woods, at least, has a commercial interest in his name. But its the the indexed sites that would be damaging his interests. Search engine, not so much.
Re:But.... by Adrian+Lopez · 2010-10-04 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Someone like Tiger Woods or Steve Jobbs could sue Yahoo!?
Perhaps they could, but hopefully it would depend on whether Yahoo itself was engaging in such practices, for otherwise it should be granted immunity (that is, it shouldn't be held responsible for what third-party websites do simply because they appear in Yahoo's search results). In any case, I don't think the court was implying the woman would have a valid case if not for her lack of commercial interest. Why bother exploring other issues when you've determined the plaintiff has no standing?

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Re:But.... by mea37 · 2010-10-04 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

More likely the judge is just using the most open-and-shut logic applicable in order to put this to bed at minimal cost to all involved. My gut reaction was that this was a Bad Thing, as it left the door open for other litigious behaviors; but when I thought about it, that's the right thing for the court to do: address the case at hand, narrowly.
Probably we could have a grand old time arguing about who's responsible for keyword associations, and who owns what, and on and on... but when the law in question can be quickly shown as inapplicable by examining a single fact, what's the point letting her dump money into an effort that forces Yahoo and the taxpayers to spend additional money as well?
If she's really committed to wasting resources, perhaps she'll have her lawyer come up with another theory with which to bring a suit that cannot be so quickly set aside; if so, I guess the fun will start anew.
Re:But.... by MBGMorden · 2010-10-04 06:04 · Score: 1

Well, anybody can sue. She did herself.
The important part is winning. She didn't. Now, the part of the law that got her suit thrown out wouldn't necessarily be the same part that would get the same suit by a publicly recognizable figure, but that doesn't mean that their own suits wouldn't also be thrown out - just because of a different part of the law.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:But.... by mcneely.mike · 2010-10-04 06:07 · Score: 1

Let me fix that for you....
Tigger Woods or Steve Jobs

--
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Re:But.... by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 06:12 · Score: 1

Well part of her problem is the system works on relevancy. There are scores of businesses which deal with optimizing web searches. If her brand or name was important to her as say Tiger Woods, she could spend less money on using the system to get search results that she wanted rather than sue. It does not appear she did that. Judges tend not to like it when your first reaction is to sue. Lawsuits should be the measure of last resort, not the first.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:24 · Score: 0

But I hugely disagree with the reasoning. In this world, we *all* have a commercial interest in our own name. Whatever else we may sell, we have to sell ourselves every time we go looking for work.
That said, I wonder how this differs from libel or slander, and whether those portions of law can't be refactored.
Re:But.... by zeropointburn · 2010-10-04 06:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just curious, but isn't it a commercial interest in the modern world when search results are used as part of employee screening? If my name brought up a bunch of scams and raunchy porn in a web search, it is quite possible that a prospective employer would decide not to hire me because of it (in whole or in part). This could be an impact in decisions that directly affect my income.
My guess is that the legal meaning of 'commercial' has little to do with the common meaning, thus leading to my irrelevant conjecture above.

--
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
Re:But.... by gad_zuki! · 2010-10-04 06:46 · Score: 1

Potentially, but I think the wording in the law is there for things like protecting business trademarks and fighting scammers. Names just don't fall into the same category.
I would think Tiger Woods, LLC would have a better chance at removing fake reviews of his products than just Tiger Woods, the man trying to get all those stories about him cheating on his wife off the internet.
Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:20 · Score: 0

This case made it to the Federal Seventh Circuit Court which is an appellate court. The case has made it pretty far up the chain and has already been ruled on by the district courts. The only place left to appeal is the Supreme Court of the United States. Cost has already been incurred.
Re:But.... by mea37 · 2010-10-04 07:52 · Score: 1

Actually, that may be a good question (but IANAL). The judge apparently didn't see it that way, but we don't know how the matter was presented by the lawyers; maybe a case could be made. Ultimately the judge is saying she didn't show that she had a commercial interest in her name; maybe she didn't assert an interest in her name as it appears to a job interviewer, or maybe her circumstances don't lead the judge to believe that will be a problem for her (e.g. if she's disabled, or a stay-at-home mom, or retired).
But to put this in context, the Lanham Act is trademark law. I'm not sure I want to think about the consequences if everyone is said to have a trademark in his or her own name. If you want to argue that a web search hurt your reputation, that's probably more properly a defamation issue - but good luck with a defamation suit in the U.S. IMO your best bet would be to hope people interviewing you have more sense than to assume you're assocaited with every link that comes up when they search for your name. (In other words, the issue you raise may be more social than legal.)
15 U.s.C. 1127 (construction and definitions, intent of chapter) would seem like the most obvious place to look for terms that limit the scope of the law. I don't see anything there that makes it clear to me why your argument wouldn't hold; but again as IANAL it doesn't mean much that I don't see anything there, plus the limiting clause could be tucked away elsewhere in the law (among other places).
Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 08:20 · Score: 0

Yes. The future is here! Remember all those Sci-Fi movies where megacorps were in charge? Here's a little prelude. Why "commercial interests" should be treated any differently than just anybody's good name and standing is not logical. It is logical, of course, if you have a corpverment (govercorp?) mentality. Then again, if your name is Joe Blow and you google/yahoo it, you shouldn't be able to sue search indexers for what it is that they are indexing (other people's webpages) as long they use a non-discriminatory indexing formula.
Re:But.... by TubeSteak · 2010-10-04 09:53 · Score: 1

Just curious, but isn't it a commercial interest in the modern world when search results are used as part of employee screening?
You'd have to prove you were denied a job because a potential employer searched your name online.
Good luck with that.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:But.... by arth1 · 2010-10-04 09:59 · Score: 1

Indeed. I'm not agreeing with this asshat woman, but it's sad that corporations enjoy greater protection by the law than individuals do.
IMNSHO, one should always receive more protection from the law if one didn't have a commercial interest. Money can defend itself.
Re:But.... by gregfortune · 2010-10-04 12:57 · Score: 1

May I quietly suggest that you didn't really want to work there anyway?
Re:But.... by MacWiz · 2010-10-04 17:15 · Score: 1

...isn't it a commercial interest in the modern world when search results are used as part of employee screening?
I see your logic, but it overlooks the fact that very few of us have a name that is truly unique. If the law won't apply to John Smith, then it shouldn't work for what's-her-name, either.
Re:But.... by vegiVamp · 2010-10-04 18:35 · Score: 1

As a prospective employee, you do not engage in commerce. Neither do most deskjockeys. Commerce is usually understood in the sense of owning a shop.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.

Be Honest by Ironhandx · 2010-10-04 05:27 · Score: 4, Funny

How many of you just went to google images and turned safe search off and searched for this womans name?

I think the answer will illustrate just how bad an idea this was for her.

Re:Be Honest by Ironhandx · 2010-10-04 05:29 · Score: 1

Though apparently the search will not. Having posted that I actually went and did that myself and came up empty. Given what I did see there I'm wondering what she's complaining about...
Re:Be Honest by hex0D · 2010-10-04 05:34 · Score: 1

it getz meh seal of approval.
no, seriously, whatever she saw is now ruined by the Steisand effect.
Re:Be Honest by satuon · 2010-10-04 05:35 · Score: 2, Informative

I think her complaint is with Yahoo.
Re:Be Honest by ElectricTurtle · 2010-10-04 05:41 · Score: 1

I'm at work so I don't dare do such a thing, but based on natural assumptions alone... when are people going to learn how the Streissand Effect works?! If you don't want attention the best thing you can do is ignore somebody. Trying to silence them is about as effective as handing them a megaphone, because in addition to whatever 'interesting' thing they were saying about you before, they can now additionally talk about how you're suppressing them to a forum which above almost all other things despises suppression as antithetical to its essential nature.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Be Honest by grub · 2010-10-04 05:42 · Score: 1

How would it be the Streisand Effect? She isn't trying to bury something that is spreading across the net against her wishes.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:Be Honest by Ironhandx · 2010-10-04 05:46 · Score: 4, Informative

If you RTFA(I know, I know) she sued both Yahoo and Google, but they haven't tossed the google case out of court yet.
Re:Be Honest by JWSmythe · 2010-10-04 05:51 · Score: 1

I did it and came up with what looked like avatar photos on a bunch of forums.
It's pretty easy for any of us to figure out the rest. If her name and her picture are on a bunch of forums that are not well maintained (i.e., spammed heavily) then they have both been related to each other pretty well. That would make the search engines accurate to associate the two. Well, as accurate as those get. If you do the same search for me, you'll see on page 3, I died on August 21, 1939. Damn, I missed my own funeral.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Be Honest by Ironhandx · 2010-10-04 06:03 · Score: 1

True, but all I saw were some avatar photos on sites that didn't look that bad.
Also, I share your pain. I died on March 9th, 1962.
Re:Be Honest by hex0D · 2010-10-04 06:16 · Score: 1

She was embarrassed by what was associated with her name. Now many, many, many more people are aware that there were embarrassing things associated with it, things that probably were nowhere near as bad as people are likely to imagine upon scanning a headline.
She will forever be that 'chick whose name search produced ciallis ads' to me and many others now.
Re:Be Honest by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2010-10-04 07:26 · Score: 1

True, but all I saw were some avatar photos on sites that didn't look that bad.
Also, I share your pain. I died on March 9th, 1962.
Not only did I die in the 1800s but I was born in 2005 and someone claiming to be my daddy put up a webpage about it. Might've put up a webpage but I have to work for a living! I should sue the bastard for child support.
Re:Be Honest by clone53421 · 2010-10-04 08:28 · Score: 1

Look at it from her perspective...
If a prospective employer googled her name and found a bunch of porn and spam, it would be entirely possible that they’d conclude either (a) she’s personally involved in porn or spam or more likely (b) she gave them a fake name.
At least now they’ll see that she’s a real person, that’s her real name, and although googling it might have gave porn and spam (at one point) it at least didn’t have anything to do with her.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:Be Honest by yuna49 · 2010-10-04 08:41 · Score: 1

Look harder. Try page 35 and page 36.
Re:Be Honest by treeves · 2010-10-05 06:08 · Score: 1

Wow, too much free time. I should talk! right?

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

So all she has to do is start a business in her na by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:27 · Score: 0

So all she has to do is start a business in her name and sue again?

Thought EVERY search came up with pharm/adult site by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Turns out it was just me. How did they know I like drugs and sex?

Sudden outbreak of common sense by AliasMarlowe · 2010-10-04 05:28 · Score: 1

I don't care what sort of drivel or ads they put in with search results for my name. Anyone with an ounce of sense would mentally filter the results, disregarding all such irrelevancies.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

WHO? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, because when I search for Beverly Stayart, what I'm looking for are pharmaceuticals and sexual escapades.

Re:WHO? by suso · 2010-10-04 05:35 · Score: 1

Maybe her hope was that by starting a lawsuit, she would bury those sites with news articles about her own case.
Re:WHO? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 07:34 · Score: 0

Maybe the pharmaceuticals are necessary for sexual escapades with Beverly Stayart.

Beverly Stayart free porn by A.+B3ttik · 2010-10-04 05:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

Re:Beverly Stayart free porn by 2phar · 2010-10-04 07:01 · Score: 2, Funny

She's unleashed a monster. Note the text following the photo at http://eaglehealthcare.blog-generation.com/2010/02/06/viagra-cialis-levitra/
Re:Beverly Stayart free porn by vlueboy · 2010-10-04 07:16 · Score: 1

I'm surprised the lameness filter let that through. :)
Oh well, can't blame /. for letting freedom have the upper hand, and letting moderation rule out the true page lenghtening post.
Re:Beverly Stayart free porn by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:47 · Score: 0

HAHAHAHAH NICE

So what if she did? by KnownIssues · 2010-10-04 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect? Could the court have ruled that Yahoo! could be sued for search results in that case? How would you prove that it's not just someone with the same name? It's almost too bad she didn't have a commercial interest to protect, because it would be interesting to see what the ruling would have been in that case. And it would be even more interesting to see how Yahoo! could comply.

Re:So what if she did? by ktappe · 2010-10-04 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect?
I don't understand how she could NOT have a commercial interest to protect. Each of us is an employable worker, which is a business contract for both employer and employee. If her ability to become employed is damaged by Yahoo search results on her name (and we should all assume prospective employers are Googling/Yahooing the names of applicants), then that budding business contract could be materially damaged.

--
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Re:So what if she did? by catbutt · 2010-10-04 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe, but this case didn't get that far. It didn't say anything on whether the case would have merit if things were different, it just pointed out the first reason why this one can't go further.
Re:So what if she did? by StuartLaJoie · 2010-10-04 05:45 · Score: 1

I wholeheartedly agree. Without looking at the merits of Ms. Quixote's case, I can't imagine the tortured process this court must have gone through in determining that a modern US citizen has no commercial interest in their own name. Googling new hires/clients is commonplace, as are surreptitious background checks, which means any negative information, even when demonstrably false, can hurt a person's commercial interests.

--
FrontDoor 2.02; Noncommercial version Press Escape twice for...
Re:So what if she did? by tool462 · 2010-10-04 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

And in her case, she should be glad her search results are polluted with links that are obviously unrelated to her. It will cause any potential employer who might search her name to question the legitimacy of anything he finds.
Re:So what if she did? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:50 · Score: 0

You must be confusing us for corporations. They're exactly like people except they have rights.
Re:So what if she did? by Late+Adopter · 2010-10-04 05:51 · Score: 1

If her name is trademarked for business purposes, like Donald Trump, then yes. But this is far more appropriate for a defamation suit, which (I can only guess) her lawyer thought would be harder to win.
Re:So what if she did? by jaredharbour · 2010-10-04 05:55 · Score: 1

If she had a commercial interest I would hope she would have a website. Assuming the content on said website was higher quality than porn I'm not sure she would have a case. When it comes to search results content is still king.
Re:So what if she did? by Loadmaster · 2010-10-04 05:56 · Score: 3, Informative

A "commercial interest" is not just whatever someone thinks it is. To maintain an action under the Lanham Act you must meet the definition of a "commercial interest" as used/implied by the Act. The court tells you what that means in the opinion.
Stayart’s argument hinges on the claim that by virtue
of her extensive activities, her name has commercial
value. These include: humanitarian efforts on behalf of
baby seals, wolves and wild horses; what she describes
as “scholarly posts” on a website; two poems that
appear on a Danish website; and genealogy research.
To determine whether a person or entity has standing
under 43(a), we look at whether they have “a reasonable
interest to protect” in a commercial activity. Dovenmuehle,
871 F.2d at 700; accord Stanfield v. Osborne Ind., Inc.,
52 F.3d 867, 873 (10th Cir. 1995). Indeed, standing to
assert a 43 claim is limited to a “purely commercial class
of plaintiffs.” Berni v. Int. Gourmet Rest. of Am., 838 F.2d
642, 648 (2d Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). While
Stayart’s goals may be passionate and well-intentioned,
they are not commercial. And the good name that a person
garners in such altruistic feats is not what 43 of
the Lanham Act protects: it “is a private remedy for a
commercial plaintiff who meets the burden of proving
that its commercial interests have been harmed by a
competitor.” Made in the USA Found., 365 F. 3d at 281
(quotation and brackets omitted). We addressed a
similar scenario in Dovenmuehle where we held that,
under the Lanham Act, relatives who had no commercial
interest in their family name did not have a
reasonable interest to protect in the trade name
“Dovenmuehle, Inc.,” and thus lacked standing to sue.
Dovenmuehle, 871 F.3d at 700.
Court opinions are not black boxes. If you want to know why the Judge decided a certain way then read the opinion. It will tell you everything you need to know about that very specific case. If you want to know about "but what ifs" you'll have to look at other cases or look to dicta. Courts don't go on long tangents of hypotheticals.
Re:So what if she did? by jd · 2010-10-04 06:01 · Score: 1

And money. Rights and money. And soda machines.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:So what if she did? by bws111 · 2010-10-04 06:04 · Score: 1

If you're going to file a claim under trademark law (Lanham Act), step one would be to own a trademark.
Re:So what if she did? by jd · 2010-10-04 06:10 · Score: 1

I would have thought that the key part of the Act was not the "commercial interest" but the fact that it requires that said interests be damaged by a competitor.
In this case, it is most unlikely Yahoo! is a competitor in the baby seal rescuing market. And to judge by past performance, it's hard to describe them as much of a competitor at all.
The advantage of that approach is that charities are quite significant businesses and those who are, in effect, charity celebrities have market value by right of being celebrities. That leaves the door open for an appeal and lawyers getting richer for no obvious benefit to anyone.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:So what if she did? by Fnkmaster · 2010-10-04 06:15 · Score: 1

Based on the description of her claimed "commercial" interest in her name, I'd say it's because she's idle and rich, or a dabbling housewife. In either case, it seems true that she had no real commercial interest in her name. Would definitely have been more interesting had this been a professional actively seeking a job who had filed this lawsuit.
Re:So what if she did? by hhw · 2010-10-04 06:19 · Score: 1

Well, any potential future employer can now see how litigious she is, which is going to be much worse than having unrelated spam links show up. I don't think too many employers want to hire a lawsuit waiting to happen.

--
http://astutehosting.com/
Re:So what if she did? by KnownIssues · 2010-10-04 07:02 · Score: 1

I think you mean, they're exactly like people except they have no responsibilities.
Re:So what if she did? by tomkost · 2010-10-04 07:15 · Score: 0, Flamebait

hahah, don't you know... PEOPLE don't matter anymore... can't let people sue corporations and win. The courts only help corporations and richer people now... rule of law, precedents, constitution, ethics, morals, sense of fairness are all gone. That being said, I do agree with this ruling. I just don't expect the courts to have helped this woman even if she was totally right.
Re:So what if she did? by shadowbearer · 2010-10-04 11:15 · Score: 1

Any potential employer who has a decent understanding of how internet search engines work, that is. There's an astounding amount of ignorance out there.
SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Re:So what if she did? by ktappe · 2010-10-05 00:59 · Score: 1

A "commercial interest" is not just whatever someone thinks it is....While Stayart’s goals may be passionate and well-intentioned, they are not commercial.

So if she started selling t-shirts, she'd have commercial interest? Maybe she should have had some whipped up before the trial....

--
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007

sanity prevails by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:29 · Score: 0

Sanity prevails

Re:sanity prevails by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-10-04 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not really - it was rejected because she couldn't show damage to commercial interests, not because it was bat-crap insane. If this ruling is followed through to its logical conclusion, anyone who DOES run a small business (or a large business) will be able to bring a sucessful claim against a search engine because their algorithm leaves unsavoury results near legitimate information about that person. Now, that doesn't mean that any other court will accept this position (doesn't say it's a precedent-setting appeal decision), or that they will just flip the coin over and follow to the logical conclusion, but it's not a great victory for common sense either (as evidenced by the fact that the ruling harps on about why X obscure law doesn't apply, rather than applying some common sense).

--
FGD 135
Re:sanity prevails by canajin56 · 2010-10-04 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

You have a bizarre version of logical conclusion. For example, let us say a crazy person brings a wrongful death suit against Google, on the grounds that their father had a heart attack after getting some porn in his search results. If the court rejects the claim because the father did not die from his heart attack (and thus it cannot be wrongful death without a death) the logical conclusion is NOT that Google would be automatically guilty any time anybody does die while using the internet.
In this instance, a woman was suing Yahoo! because somehow, if you search for a name, any search results are implicitly endorsed by the person whose name that is. Not just one of them, but somehow, all of them in the world all endorse all of those matches, even though the name doesn't appear in the matches. She sued under false endorsement laws. The court refused to hear the case, on the grounds that false endorsement laws require the person to have a commercial interest in making an endorsement. The court specifically didn't even consider whether or not Yahoo! was making any kind of endorsement whatsoever.
Anyways, if somebody sues under, as you put it "X Obscure Law" then of fucking course the court rules on whether or not "X Obscure Law" applies. That is its one and its only job.

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:sanity prevails by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2010-10-04 06:08 · Score: 1

No, it means that she can't sue because of a lack of commercial interest. Nothing is said about other reasons for throwing the case out - one is enough.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:sanity prevails by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-10-04 06:20 · Score: 1

See, that doesn't make sense to me. If someone's argument is wrong at several points, you explain each & every single point where it is wrong. You break every point in the logical chain that you can.
She sued because her name came up with unsavoury results, that's insane and I'd rather it be thrown out because it's fundamentally insane than because this particular means of trying to establish liability doesn't apply. This way it just looks like an open door for (a) her to try and get in with a different law (b) anyone else with a commercial interest to protect to fire up a search engine and see if they have an unexpected payday waiting.
I understand that it's not how the courts usually work, but that doesn't mean I have to think the status quo is the right way for them to operate.

--
FGD 135
Re:sanity prevails by Drakkenmensch · 2010-10-04 06:29 · Score: 1

Even if this insane lawsuit was defeated not by common sense but by narrow word of the law, keep in mind that insane lawsuits sue based specifically on the word of the law to begin with, using it to further insane agendas. This is just a stupid lawsuit dying by its own sword.
Re:sanity prevails by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2010-10-04 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

See, that doesn't make sense to me. If someone's argument is wrong at several points, you explain each & every single point where it is wrong. You break every point in the logical chain that you can.
Why? It's enough to dismiss the case. If they want to try again, they can refile.

I'd rather it be thrown out because it's fundamentally insane
Sure, but that's more work. This is cut and dried, so no need to examine and prove the insanity therein.

This way it just looks like an open door for (a) her to try and get in with a different law (b) anyone else with a commercial interest to protect to fire up a search engine and see if they have an unexpected payday waiting.
a) she's welcome to try and b) this isn't something that establishes precedent (IANAL), so nothing changes.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:sanity prevails by emt377 · 2010-10-04 07:56 · Score: 1

Not really - it was rejected because she couldn't show damage to commercial interests, not because it was bat-crap insane. If this ruling is followed through to its logical conclusion, anyone who DOES run a small business (or a large business) will be able to bring a sucessful claim against a search engine because their algorithm leaves unsavoury results near legitimate information about that person.
Not really, the logical conclusion is that if you have a business interest the court will listen to your case. She can incorporate and sue again, but that doesn't mean she's going to get any compensation.
Personally, I think employment is a commercial interest. It's a contracted business activity that includes work exchanged for money, done for profit not fun, but the government has special-cased it so it's not considered commercial. She also owns her likeness - it's her property, but it's still not commercial until she trades it. This law sounds like it was custom written not to protect people, their property, and their businesses and commercial interests, but to indemnify corporations with no regard given to anything else. On the other hand, people shouldn't expect privacy on the Internet.

Re:So all she has to do is start a business in her by cryoman23 · 2010-10-04 05:30 · Score: 0

from the sounds of it ya, if going to go about in the same direction to try and sue that is

--
epic sig..... ya i got nothing

Business model by flyingfsck · 2010-10-04 05:30 · Score: 1

Damn, the judge destroyed her business model in one stroke of his pen.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

Re:Business model by kaini · 2010-10-04 07:07 · Score: 0

Damn, the judge destroyed her business model in one stroke of his pen.
I heard she's sueing him.

--
please restate bitrate in libraries of congress per hour.

Online presence protection by BadAnalogyGuy · 2010-10-04 05:31 · Score: 1

There are online presence management companies that actively fight this kind of negative publicity.

As long as you can make use of these services, it should not be possible to sue. It should be up to the individual to manage their own online presence.

Backwards thinking court by StuartLaJoie · 2010-10-04 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Googling a potential new hire or business associate for background information has become too widespread for anyone to have "no commercial interest" in their name. False information, even when obviously false, can and does adversely affect anyone looking for jobs or business opportunities beyond paper hats and drivethroughs. It goes to show how out of touch this court is from the mainstream of society.

--
FrontDoor 2.02; Noncommercial version Press Escape twice for...

Re:Backwards thinking court by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:37 · Score: 0

That's the first thing I thought of. We all have a commercial interest in our name in that we want to be hired for a job when we apply for one and most certainly do not want bad search results to make an employer think twice.
Re:Backwards thinking court by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-04 05:45 · Score: 1

Again, that is just insane. What kind of fucking retarded employer would not only judge someone based on online behavior (which mostly has nothing to do with offline behavior, as people react differently offline than online in most cases), but trust spam results and such? Not one you'd want to work for, that's who.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Backwards thinking court by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Someone who is googling and not testing whether the results are false is probably someone you don't want to work for. Also someone who googles a lot would hopefully recognize that sort of thing happens a lot.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Backwards thinking court by AnonymousClown · 2010-10-04 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Someone who is googling and not testing whether the results are false is probably someone you don't want to work for.

That's not a luxury most people have.

--
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Re:Backwards thinking court by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:08 · Score: 0

You have a stack of 125 resumes for a position. You look up each name in google and within 15 seconds decide to toss or keep. This quickly (or not quickly because of sheer volume) eliminates a large percentage of the people, making your job easier... Or take the time to accurately see if they match or not. Now which one seems more probable?
Re:Backwards thinking court by StuartLaJoie · 2010-10-04 06:08 · Score: 1

Again, that is just insane. What kind of fucking retarded employer would not only judge someone based on online behavior (which mostly has nothing to do with offline behavior, as people react differently offline than online in most cases), but trust spam results and such? Not one you'd want to work for, that's who.
The kind of employer who happens to be a Fortune 100 company, for starters. The one I work for monitors internet postings (like the one I'm writing) on many social networking sites, search results, and public records for employee or potential employee activity which may damage the company's public image or leak sensitive/proprietary information. If the information that the company does so weren't considered public knowledge, I would never have considered posting here. While most companies, my employer included, use (at least) a "human" filter for the gathered data, many rely on simple algorithms or third-party search agents which may provide a number of false positives.

The unfortunate fact of business life inside the corporate suite is that your life outside does directly affect your earnings and advancement. For instance, tweeting about a hobby the boss doesn't like (dog fighting, poetry slams, line dancing, whatever) can easily take a job offer off the table or cause the HR department to start the death-spiral paper trail. Facebook photos from high school or college where the subject is involved in illicit, distasteful, or bacchanalian behavior can quickly erase a large portion of lifetime earning potential should they be found and individually identifiable.

--
FrontDoor 2.02; Noncommercial version Press Escape twice for...
Re:Backwards thinking court by Loadmaster · 2010-10-04 06:15 · Score: 1

This court decided the case using the Lanham Act which is the law plaintiff chose. If a name is now a "commercial interest" it isn't defined that way by the Lanham Act. Use a different law if you want to sue. The court can only rule on the evidence presented and the law plaintiff invokes. The court does not state that there is no "commercial interest" in their name, just that plaintiff has no "commercial interest" in her name as defined by the Lanham Act. Again, plaintiff chose the Lanham Act. The court did not rule on this case after invoking the Lanham Act sua sponte.
Re:Backwards thinking court by Neil+Watson · 2010-10-04 06:21 · Score: 1

False is rather relative in the case of search results. The results may be false for one person and accurate for another. Further I believe that search engines often rank results on popularity which has little to do with accuracy.

--
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Re:Backwards thinking court by SomePoorSchmuck · 2010-10-04 06:22 · Score: 1

Quite the contrary -- it is your two comments on this same topic which are of questionable rationality. Unless maybe someone else is paying your bills? For most people, and particularly in the last 10 years, the list of "employers you'd want to work for" consists chiefly of those who are willing to, you know, employ you and send you a regular paycheck for the foreseeable future.

I have no idea why you are apparently working from the assumption that the job-hunting process involves sitting on the living room floor sorting the numerous large stacks of job offers into piles of "Employers I'd Want To Work For" and "Employers I Wouldn't Want To Work For".

That may be fine on the Neal Stephenson Snow Crash Libertarian Workers' Paradise of Slashdot, but real people have real families with real medical bills and real hunger, and when faced with a choice between selling their skills today for real money, food, and medication, versus the inedible and scant comfort of a moral victory at not choosing to work for "some kind of f-ing retard employer" while sitting at home scared to answer the phone because of the collection agencies... well, I don't know why you're so intent on excoriating the working folks who are trying to make ends meet in a tough economy that could sink even farther over the next ten years.

--

Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Re:Backwards thinking court by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-04 06:30 · Score: 1

"You look up each name in google and within 15 seconds decide to toss or keep"
There's the first mistake! Instead of (tedious, but accurate) actually finding out their skills, they take the quick and inaccurate way out and judge people by online behavior (which might not even be them).
"Now which one seems more probable?"
Which one seems more fair and accurate? This is the error of lazy employers.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Backwards thinking court by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-04 06:32 · Score: 1

"can easily take a job offer off the table"
So in other words, be a mindless drone? Yes. I realize that, however, that doesn't make it any less idiotic.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Backwards thinking court by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-04 06:34 · Score: 1

"consists chiefly of those who are willing to, you know, employ you and send you a regular paycheck for the foreseeable future."
Now, now. I said "want to work for" not "need to work for." I was demonstrating that they are obviously idiots.
"I have no idea why you are apparently working from the assumption that the job-hunting process involves sitting on the living room floor sorting the numerous large stacks of job offers"
I didn't, you just misinterpreted what I said.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Backwards thinking court by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:35 · Score: 0

I have often told clerks that they don't need my name for purchasing item X and furthermore: "My name is too high a price to pay for anything." Everyone's has an intrinsic value, even though they or someone else may have made it virtually *worthless*. I haven't read the law in question and thus can not speak as to how it defines "commercial interest" and I do agree that her lawsuit is silly and Yahoo has no obligation to defend her name other then not intentionally creating libelous content.
Re:Backwards thinking court by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:13 · Score: 0

Someone who is googling and not testing whether the results are false is probably someone you don't want to work for.

I'll have to remember that when I have kids to feed and a mortgage to pay.
Re:Backwards thinking court by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 07:25 · Score: 1

I never said it was fair but would you want to be hired by said company and then have your job terminated because of questionable results. You might have a job for a while, but will you never be secure in that job:
"Bob, we'll have to let you go based on the charges that were filed against you yesterday."
"Huh? What?!"
"You got a DUI and ran over a school bus."
*Googles* "That's another Robert Smith in another state."
"Sure it is. Clear out your desk immediately."

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Backwards thinking court by Dan667 · 2010-10-04 07:29 · Score: 1

You would not want to work for any employer too stupid to be able to distinguish between related and unrelated information about you.
Re:Backwards thinking court by Xugumad · 2010-10-04 07:51 · Score: 1

Okay, so... Googling my real name gets you someone else. We can't both be the top set of results. Now what?
The problem isn't Yahoo/Google, the problem is companies that think real names are a unique identifier.
Re:Backwards thinking court by StuartLaJoie · 2010-10-04 07:55 · Score: 1

A good point. I was looking more at "commercial interest" in a broad form, not the specifics of the Lanham Act. FWIW, I think the plaintiff's attorneys chose a Lanham Act case with the hope of broadening Lanham definitions through case law, but IANAL so mine is only an informally educated one.

--
FrontDoor 2.02; Noncommercial version Press Escape twice for...
Re:Backwards thinking court by clone53421 · 2010-10-04 08:33 · Score: 1

You don’t take the tedious but accurate route to narrow down 100+ applicants. You take the quick and inaccurate way, narrow that down to a dozen or so, and hopefully you didn’t get rid of the person who was really the right one for the job... then you have a manageable task: finding out the skills of whoever made the initial cut and selecting the right one for the job.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:Backwards thinking court by gknoy · 2010-10-04 10:23 · Score: 1

If they gave this as the reason for letting you go, I imagine you'd have grounds for a wrongful termination suit. Unfortunately, the likelihood of them telling you WHY they are letting you go is slim. Instead, they'd say, "sorry, our budget doesn't let us keep you", and you'd never know that the real reason was that they mistakenly thought you were a crack dealer / drunk driver / kitten murderer.
Re:Backwards thinking court by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-04 11:20 · Score: 1

"then you have a manageable task: finding out the skills of whoever made the initial cut and selecting the right one for the job."
Alright, then mistakes will continue to happen and nothing will change. All because of lazy employers.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Backwards thinking court by clone53421 · 2010-10-05 00:28 · Score: 1

Employers have much more to do than simply review resumes and interview candidates all day long, believe it or not.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:Backwards thinking court by SomePoorSchmuck · 2010-10-05 02:40 · Score: 1

Fair enough. [handshake]

--

Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Re:Backwards thinking court by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-05 04:57 · Score: 1

Yeah, and that's why people are unfairly judged by the behavior of someone on the internet that might not even be them.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Homophones by Ukab+the+Great · 2010-10-04 05:33 · Score: 1

Was Yahoo's search engine not able discriminate between Stayart and "Stay Hard"?

eBay by bsDaemon · 2010-10-04 05:35 · Score: 1

Where there any sponsored ads to buy her on eBay? Inquiring minds want to know.

What by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-04 05:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yahoo is just a search engine, as far as I know they don't have any responsibility for the websites that people find while using it (if they do, they shouldn't). Good thing she lost, because she's a fucking idiot.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

perfect job for 4chan... by hex0D · 2010-10-04 05:36 · Score: 2, Funny

...posting images associated with her name that are truly offensive. It would actually be a good object lesson in why not to file stupid lawsuits like this.

Re:So all she has to do is start a business in her by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:37 · Score: 0

That would get her farther than she got this time, but she still probably wouldn't win. Arguing that she's suing under the wrong law was just the easiest way to get the case thrown out.

I dunno about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:37 · Score: 0

I don't know about that. I, for one, am kind of worried about what this might mean. IANAL (and disclaimer: I do work in SEO) but this seems like a good decision for all the wrong reasons and in the wrong situation.

I'm all for you not being able to sue when you've made information public and search engines index that. But she doesn't have commericial interest in her own name? Really, now? Seeing how many employers, etc. google a candidate's name before the interview, I think that everyone has commercial interest in their own name (Hell, I've certainly spent quite a few hours in ensuring that the results list looks nice for my name, just because of my commercial interests. Then again, when you work in SEO/Internet advertising, search engine results for your name are pretty vital). Also, does this mean that a company or other such entity with commercial interest in their name could still sue for search engine result page?

Re:I dunno about that... by cheekyjohnson · 2010-10-04 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

If her employers search for her name using a search engine and trust spam links and such, well, that's not a company she would want to work for anyway, I assume. They'd be fucking idiots (like people who judge others based on behavior online, which has nothing to do with their behavior offline in most cases). Yahoo is just a search engine anyway, they don't and shouldn't have any or little responsibility for websites they link to.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:I dunno about that... by maxwell+demon · 2010-10-04 05:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, I just typed "Anonymous Coward" into Google. Not a single page about SEO. Seems your SEO abilities are not that good. ;-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:I dunno about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:59 · Score: 0

Yes, I see exactly what you mean. :)
Re:I dunno about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:01 · Score: 0

GP here.

If her employers search for her name using a search engine and trust spam links and such, well, that's not a company she would want to work for anyway, I assume. They'd be fucking idiots (like people who judge others based on behavior online, which has nothing to do with their behavior offline in most cases).
I agree with you, but only partially. IE: I do agree that they would, in many cases, be idiots. But that doesn't mean that such idiots don't exist or even that they are rare. As such, I do think that people have commercial interest in search results for their name, whether that would be the case in utopia or not. And economy being what it is, we really can't make an assumption that a person wouldn't want a job anyways if someone in HR is an idiot!

Yahoo is just a search engine anyway, they don't and shouldn't have any or little responsibility for websites they link to.
Not disagreeing with you there. As I said, a good result but it seems to me that the reasoning behind it isn't as good (even if it is legally sound).
Re:I dunno about that... by digitig · 2010-10-04 06:24 · Score: 1

I'm all for you not being able to sue when you've made information public and search engines index that. But she doesn't have commericial interest in her own name? Really, now? Seeing how many employers, etc. google a candidate's name before the interview, I think that everyone has commercial interest in their own name
If you Google for my name you'll get a pile of results that are me and a pile of results for other people who have the same name. If I have a commercial interest in my own name, so do they. If they don't like what I'm posting because it happens to have their name on it, I don't see why they should be able to sue me for doing it in my own name, and vice versa. Have people really not learned yet that a name is not a unique identifier?

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:I dunno about that... by Thing+1 · 2010-10-05 00:34 · Score: 1

Have people really not learned yet that a name is not a unique identifier?

Today's QOTD is rather apt: "That secret you've been guarding, isn't."

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Application for hire - not a commercial interest? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:39 · Score: 0

Doesn't everyone have a commercial interest? Are employers prohibited from doing search on you when making decision to hire?

I feel for her, sorta by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:40 · Score: 0

I have to say I was pretty annoyed when I googled my preferred screen name and saw the 9th or 10th result was someone else using this combination of 7 seven letters for an account on a site for collecting images of a highly questionable nature, risque anime-style art of clearly immature girls. Strangely, the screen name is a "made up word" that is pronounceable but has no clear connection to any latin based language.

I am gonna sue Slashdot by vawarayer · 2010-10-04 05:42 · Score: 1

I don't like my /. Karma. Brace for impact.

Does that mean I can't sue? by Cro+Magnon · 2010-10-04 05:46 · Score: 1

Because everytime I google myself, I get all those pictures of dumb-looking men, many of whom buy car insurance from small lizards.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

Her initials sum up her case... by hex0D · 2010-10-04 05:47 · Score: 1

they're both BS

Anti-Streisend effect....? by Joce640k · 2010-10-04 05:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

The hundreds of news stories about this trial seem to have swamped the juicy links and made them vanish.

Is this an 'anti-Streisand' effect?

--
No sig today...

Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by alta · 2010-10-04 05:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes, I've noticed the same. overall, she won. Yahoo'ing for her (weird word) doesn't turn up anything juicy, just this lawsuit. Damn, the Seventh Circuit Court just got USED!

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by cb88 · 2010-10-04 06:26 · Score: 0

Yes and if I searched her name I would find that she is the sort of person I do not want to do any business with.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by alta · 2010-10-04 06:39 · Score: 1

she should consider suing herself.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by commodore64_love · 2010-10-04 06:52 · Score: 1

So maybe I should sue Yahoo too, to clean up my search results. Of course this is only a temporary effect. Fast-forward a year and Beverly Stayart's search will turn-up porn again.
The irony is that Alyssa Milano did the same thing, to have her nude images removed from the web, and she won despite all common sense (if you pose nude - then it becomes part of the public searches). Why is Miss Milano allowed to clean-up her yahoo/google results but not Miss Stayart?

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by scot4875 · 2010-10-04 07:01 · Score: 3, Informative

There really is no comparison. The images of Milano were copyrighted and being distributed without permission. There were no images of Stayart herself, copyrighted or otherwise; just that a search for her name returned unrelated links to porn.
There is no irony, or even contradiction. Two completely different issues.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by srussia · 2010-10-04 07:11 · Score: 5, Funny

The hundreds of news stories about this trial seem to have swamped the juicy links and made them vanish.
Is this an 'anti-Streisand' effect?
No, this is the "Stayart Effect" ®

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by cb88 · 2010-10-04 07:31 · Score: 0

Now .... if she took the lawsuit winnings and payed everyone that searches for her name that would be awesome.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by xenoglossy · 2010-10-04 07:38 · Score: 1

Now we are all Rickrolled. When we search for her name and the associated links all we get is the lawsuit. Brilliant!

--
Fixer of things broken by people who really ought to know better
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 08:05 · Score: 0

She's lucky she did not annoy 4chan ...
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by postbigbang · 2010-10-04 08:36 · Score: 0, Troll

Yes they are, and now we should connect them back again. After all, this is TrashDot. In just a few viagra sentences, I'll have the search engines cialis bringing up this whole post ED to slime this response, and no one percodan will find out oxycontin until they get right here when they're searching on pornstar her name and xtube this post.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by ydrol · 2010-10-04 09:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Mistress Beverly "whiplash" Stayart should sue Google/Yahoo because first SERP is a bunch of Lawyers diminishing her reputation and frightening away clients
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by alta · 2010-10-04 09:17 · Score: 1

wow, you seem to know what you're doing there... have experience with this much?

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by postbigbang · 2010-10-04 10:30 · Score: 2

No one saw the viagra humor in it, I guess.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by icannotthinkofaname · 2010-10-04 11:20 · Score: 1

I know! It's weird. Among the various law office results for the name, I also came across this Slashdot article and the Wikipedia article on the Streisand Effect.
I was amused.

--
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by SimonTheSoundMan · 2010-10-04 12:32 · Score: 1

You're right. Now we can google her and see her dumb lawsuit.
Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by AmiMoJo · 2010-10-04 23:50 · Score: 1

This is probably worse than the porn links. It would be fairly obvious to any prospective employer that the dodgy links are nothing to do with her, but now they know she likes to start frivolous lawsuits.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:So all she has to do is start a business in her by UnknowingFool · 2010-10-04 05:53 · Score: 1

If she did that then the results might skew to her business and would unlikely be able to sue. The original cause was that some sites like adult websites use a variety of means to get more hits. For search items that don't really have an internet presence, they might skew towards these questionable results. Once a web presence is established then the results might be more related to her.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

but but butt by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:54 · Score: 0

Fogwet Tiger Woods, I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called 'Biggus [censored - this is a family show]'

Re:but but butt by mcneely.mike · 2010-10-04 06:11 · Score: 1

And then he watched 'Caligula' starring Malcolm McDowell and went... "this ain't no family show, is it Dickus.

--
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!

RTFA by Sponge+Bath · 2010-10-04 05:54 · Score: 1

...baby seals, wolves, and wild horses;

Kinky.

...'scholarly posts' on a website

Of course. All of my posts are scholarly as well.

She got what she wanted by guyminuslife · 2010-10-04 05:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

She may have lost in court, but if you search for "Beverly Stayart" now, the first result is actually her.

Be careful what you wish for.

--
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.

Re:She got what she wanted by clone53421 · 2010-10-04 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe she prefers it this way...
For that matter, how do you know this wasn’t her plan all along...?

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:She got what she wanted by barzok · 2010-10-04 08:56 · Score: 1

That's a lot of time & money to spend on such an endeavor.
Re:She got what she wanted by clone53421 · 2010-10-04 09:01 · Score: 1

Time & money she apparently had, and was willing to part with...

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.

I didn't see anything. by AnonymousClown · 2010-10-04 05:58 · Score: 1

I did the search with the "SafeSearch" off and saw nothing of any significance.

--
RIP America

July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

Re:I didn't see anything. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:32 · Score: 0

I agree. Where is the truth in advertising. I was expecting (hoping) for some good pr0n. I think I will sue.

I totally agree with her! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 05:58 · Score: 0

I am totally feeling Beverly here.

-- James P. Goatse

This isn't idle. by colmore · 2010-10-04 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a somewhat important story. It isn't idle.

The interesting thing here is that her suit worked. I just searched google and yahoo for Beverly Stayart, and none of the kind of websites she was talking about came up.

--
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!

Re:This isn't idle. by Inda · 2010-10-04 07:07 · Score: 1

I just Googled using their handy date range form, in 12 month blocks, back to 2005.

Nothing about nothing.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.

Sounds like a protection racket to me by Moraelin · 2010-10-04 06:06 · Score: 1

There are online presence management companies that actively fight this kind of negative publicity.
As long as you can make use of these services, it should not be possible to sue. It should be up to the individual to manage their own online presence.

Hmm? So basically I can smear your name with any crap I can think of, and it should be ok because you can then pay some other sleazeballs to link-spam and game google to bury the nasty bits?

Surely you can't be serious there.

For a start it's basically a DIY protection racket. If your "presence management" link-spammer business is slow, just buy adwords in some people's names and, hey, you can't be sued if they don't want to pay money to have that crap removed.

But, generally, that's not how justice or the law were supposed to work in any society. The idea that someone's only recourse if they're wronged is to pay some goons to do right it -- because that's essentially what you advocate there -- is wrong on several levels. Not the least being that basically it means you can be a bully as long as you can make it too expensive for the other guy to repair the damage done. And it's usually cheaper to damage than repair.

But generally, we don't rule that keying cars is ok because you can pay for a new door. We don't rule that throwing a brick through someone's window is ok because they can just pay for a new window. We don't rule that "boosting" someone's TV is ok because they can pay for a replacement TV. And we sure as heck don't rule a libel campaign ok because someone could just pay an agency to buy every copy of that newspaper to keep people from finding it.

I seriously don't see why here the victim should shut up or pay some spammers to cover something that isn't the victim's fault. Surely _if_ some malicious mis-representation has been done (which here doesn't actually seem to be the case), then it shouldn't be expected that the victim _also_ makes a financial loss to fix that.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

yahoo could classify pages by Colin+Smith · 2010-10-04 06:12 · Score: 1

baysian classifiers can do a good job on emails. Why not on web pages ? The index entry could be tagged with adult , pharmaceutical etc .

--
Deleted

Bad ruling by Todd+Knarr · 2010-10-04 06:22 · Score: 1

The court shouldn't've ruled she had no commercial interest in her name. Down that path lies a situation where nobody can get redress for libel and slander because they had no interest in their good name. They should've ruled simply that nobody has a right to be the only subject of any particular search. She can hold the search engine liable if she can show the results weren't responsive to that particular search but the search engine put them in anyway. She can't hold the seach engine liable for results that are responsive to her search but merely refer to someone other than her. But she can hold someone liable if they're presenting material that isn't associated with her and isn't associated with what it's being presented as but they're associating it nonetheless. Ie. if a Web site's presenting images that aren't of you or about you, but they're tagging them with your name, you can sue the Web site (but not the search engine that led you to it).

Re:Bad ruling by lgw · 2010-10-04 08:28 · Score: 1

The court ruled only that she had no "commercial interest" in her name under the trademark law she sued under. This has nothing to do with "intrest in her good name" under libel and slander law.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Python? by snspdaarf · 2010-10-04 06:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

"Could I have that without so much Beverly Stayart in it?"

"You mean free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal? Eugh!"

"What do you mean, 'Eugh!'? I don't like Beverly Stayart!"

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!

Beverly Stayart? Pfffft. by bobdotorg · 2010-10-04 06:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Let's just hope that Bobbie Goatse never googles herself.

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to sue her folks? by mark-t · 2010-10-04 06:34 · Score: 1

[facetious remark]They were the ones who gave her that name, after all... [/facetious remark]

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

I sympathize with this woman by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2010-10-04 06:43 · Score: 4, Funny

There are others with your plight

Sincerely,

John Q. Viagra

Re:I sympathize with this woman by sorak · 2010-10-04 07:08 · Score: 2, Funny

It's always nice having an unpopular name that will not be adopted by porn stars.
Lempdeck Von Scrotomeuncher

Silver lining by chebucto · 2010-10-04 06:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Cases like this are good in a way.

Think about it: in 2000 years, long after the American Empire collapses to the Canadian Hordes, scholars will look back at the US legal code and declare it to be the more comprehensive in existence, covering every conceivable eventuality, no matter how brain-dead.

--
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.

Which adult websites she was upset about? by dmmiller2k · 2010-10-04 07:08 · Score: 1

Now when you search for her name all you get are results pertaining to this stupid lawsuit, no matter WHICH search engine you use.

--

"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

Backwards thinking poster by canajin56 · 2010-10-04 07:16 · Score: 1

Yes, it is a damn shame the judge didn't call you up for a definition of "commercial interest", and instead he turned to the musty old ivory tower elitist law books, which are totally out of touch with Joe on the street in REAL AMERICA. In this case, the plaintiff sued under trademark law, for advertising that, by "false or misleading representation of fact, which -- is likely to...deceive as to the...sponsorship or approval of his or her goods, services or commercial activity by another person".

That's all well and good, except for one tiny little detail: This is a trademark law. Now, you don't need a registered trademark to sue for trademark violation. However, you do at a minimum need a "commercial interest" in the mark. In spite of what you wish to be true, the law does define commercial interest as, "placing a mark in any manner on a good or the packaging thereof, or when that is impractical, in the accompanying documentation." or use of the mark in the advertising thereof, or in the sale or advertising of any service offered commercially. Putting your name on a resume is not using the mark in the sale or advertising of a service, so it does not constitute a "commercial interest" as far as trademark law goes. By your definition, every person in the world would have an automatic trademark on their name. Meaning, nobody could ever sell anything under their name without first proving that nobody else has that name. Otherwise, they have a "commercial interest" and you would be breaking the law by registering it!

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI

Re:Backwards thinking poster by StuartLaJoie · 2010-10-04 07:59 · Score: 1

As I've said elsewhere in the thread, it can be supposed from the case that the plaintiff's attorneys were attempting to broaden (or modernize, depending on your viewpoint) the definition of "commercial interest" with regard to Lanham-related issues. Doing so could protect individuals from exactly this kind of abuse by non-related commercial interests.

--
FrontDoor 2.02; Noncommercial version Press Escape twice for...

Re:Beverly Stayart? Pfffft. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:37 · Score: 1, Funny

seriously, if she googles herself too much she might end up with a huge, distended googhole.

I did a search for "Beverly Stayart".. by kheldan · 2010-10-04 07:41 · Score: 1

..but all I found was articles about being an attention whore. Was I not doing it right?

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Greatest Idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:51 · Score: 0

So I think that we should all Google bomb her name to a porn site.

That would teach her

Dude Hardman by dbet · 2010-10-04 07:53 · Score: 2, Funny

That's my real name, and I have the EXACT same problem.

Re:Dude Hardman by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 12:56 · Score: 0

Did you fix the cable?

Can a machine without credibility _lie?_ by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 08:23 · Score: 0

Geez, seems like everyone is talking about the "commercial interest" part.

I'm more interesting in the "falsely gave the impression that she personally endorsed the products" part. Everyone knows that a search engine result is blind, dumb mechanical process. Ergo, the machine can't really make misleading claims, because 1) at most it can offer an opinion 2) it's stupid, so it's opinion is worth less than most. Furthermore, it usually can't offer even an opinion about a person, because people tend to be identified by non-unique keys (names).

If a search engine gave bullshit results about me, sure, I would be mad. But how mad can I be at a robot, compared to the people who put all their faith into believing a robot? The robot isn't really the problem.

Bad summary by plcurechax · 2010-10-04 09:27 · Score: 1

The court dismissed that Lanham Act-based case, because Beverly Stayart had no "commercial interest" where Yahoo (and Overtune?) i.e. search engines were competitors to herself.

It did not mean that she has no commercial interest in her own name. She cannnot sue "big company X" who display unrelated (read: adult content, ED pharmaceuticals) ads paid for by third-parties.

The judge's decision was that Beverly Stayart cannot use the particular section, 43(a), of the federal Lanham Act (in regard to trademarks) to have Yahoo search engine's Safe Harbor protection drops.

See TechDirt article for a better write up.

Dammit! by fishexe · 2010-10-04 09:44 · Score: 2, Funny

Searching "Beverly Stayart" was my main starting point every time I want to wank off. Now the porn is all replaced with articles about her stupid case. Time to find a new search. Maybe "Christine O'Donnell?"

--
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009

Commercial Interest In Her Own Name by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 10:09 · Score: 0

The court has apparently never heard of a resume when it ruled that Stayart did not have a commercial interest in her own name.

Surely I can't be the only guy that does an Internet search on the names of prospective job seekers.

I know ... by PPH · 2010-10-04 10:44 · Score: 1

... exactly how she feels.

Signed, Hugh Jardonne

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Link to the decision by chazzf · 2010-10-04 11:47 · Score: 1

Link to the actual decision, for those interested: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=09-3379_002.pdf

--
No statement is true, not even this one.

Now by ThurstonMoore · 2010-10-04 13:30 · Score: 1

Now when you search her name on Yahoo all the results are for her lawsuit. Looks like she got what she wanted.

I think we... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 16:37 · Score: 0

should consistently Google "Beverly Stayart horse porn" so it will elevate the search results...

Slashdot Mirror

Court Rules Against Woman Who Didn't Like Search Results

173 comments