PureBasic Forums - English

Hi everyone,

have you already read the very latest newspaper?

Regards, Little John

You should know, that this is a fake from American artists...

harff182 wrote:You should know, that this is a fake from American artists...

Thanks for telling me. Without your help, I really would have believed that it's a newspaper from

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

BTW: Did you see that "wink" smiley in my first post?

Regards, Little John

You read the fine print, didn't you? http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/the-fine-print/

The New York Times - Breaking News

So it's broken now? Can we fix it somehow?

Trond wrote:

The New York Times - Breaking News

So it's broken now? Can we fix it somehow?

Nahhhh...don't bother, just return it under warranty and get your money back.

Trond wrote:Can we fix it somehow?

Yes, we can fix the news.

http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/the-fine-print/ wrote:Following are just a few of the many, many groups working for change. Join them, support them, or start your own, and we can begin to make the news in this paper the news in every paper.

Regards, Little John

I'm waiting to read about the ensuing law suit from the real New York Times (who's title is trademarked).

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traff ... mes-se.com

> I'm waiting to read about the ensuing law suit from the real New York Times (who's title is trademarked)

You can't sue over parody.

PB wrote:
You can't sue over parody.

You can sue over parody if the trademark is used in such a context to imply reality of the original. Look at the site web address, theres no indication that its not a possible real foreign subsidary of the original and implies reality of the original through the web address.

There's enough clues on that site to show it's a parody and not the real thing,
so it can't be sued. There's actually 3 things on the main page which give it
away:

(1) The date is in the future.
(2) The bottom says "Copyleft" instead of "Copyright".
(3) It has a "Fine Print" link which explains the fictitious nature of the site.

These 3 are enough to protect it from a lawsuit, as nobody with any degree
of intelligence could assume it to be the real actual website of the NY Times.

Matter of opinion, I think it's not clear enough, but the key issue may be the usage of the logo.

Not that I would care

PB wrote:There's enough clues on that site to show it's a parody and not the real thing,
so it can't be sued. There's actually 3 things on the main page which give it
away:

(1) The date is in the future.
(2) The bottom says "Copyleft" instead of "Copyright".
(3) It has a "Fine Print" link which explains the fictitious nature of the site.

These 3 are enough to protect it from a lawsuit, as nobody with any degree
of intelligence could assume it to be the real actual website of the NY Times.

It isn't the clues on the site in the content or the content, its the web address. True, no one with any degree of intelligence would assume the content to be real. But companies don't sue just over content, they also sue over use of things that indicate reality of the original which the web address does. If the web address were something like 'www.nytimeparody.com' it would be different, but its not, the web address is clearly "http://www.nytimes-se.com/" the actual NY Times web site is "http://www.nytimes.com/". Although the '-se' is added to the parody site, the web address its self even with the '-se' provides no indication that its anything but a possible affiliate/branch/licensee of the actual NY Times in some way, thus its a reality of the original and the web address is not a parody even though the content on site may be.

In other words, for example, if there were two web sites, lets call them 'www.dogsoftheworld.com' (no its not a dating site ) and 'www.dogsoftheworld-se.com', and lets say that the first site 'www.dogsoftheworld.com' is the original one (had the web address first) and offers information for dog grooming and dog supplies for the family dog. Then lets say the second site 'www.dogsoftheworld-se.com' offers porn. If someone were to search on say Google for 'dogsoftheworld' they would get both of the sites in the results. So the second site offers the reality of the first original site in its web address because there is nothing in the web address to indicate its not associated with the first (the '-se' is not descriptive enough to provide a clue as to it not being associated with the original), and because the second site offers porn people might associate the second site with the first and thus impact the sales potential and the revenue of the first because they think the two sites are related.

Yes, you can sue for a parody if it offers the reality of the original by any means, thats what the NY Times parody site does in its web address.