PDA

View Full Version : A Possible Risk with google? Important




justinc.1089
12-01-2007, 07:28 PM
If the phrase "Google Ron Paul" is put on the blimp, isn't that running a risk of getting into some type of legal issues with Google?

That question absolutely needs to be answered because if that is put on the blimp, and the answer is yes, and Google gets upset, it could end this entire project.

cien750hp
12-01-2007, 07:30 PM
alot of people at google support ron paul firstly, and one guy even quit working there to head up project live free or die.

but no, it is not an issue. google is a word in the dictionary i believe, and used as a verb.

plus it would not be worth their time or look good for them to come after us, nor would they want to

deehrler
12-01-2007, 07:32 PM
Come on, it is advertising Google too. Why not ask them for a fee?

seapilot
12-01-2007, 07:34 PM
Free advertising for Google, why wouldnt they like that?

justinc.1089
12-01-2007, 07:36 PM
Eh that might be true that their employees like Paul, and wouldn't want to go after him or us, but thats not very reassuring about the possible legal issues here.

I mean if I was in charge of a corporation like Google, it wouldn't matter if I liked something like this or not, if something illegal happened then I would try to make sure it was corrected first if I liked it, and second stop it if it couldn't be corrected. The reason I would do so is because lets say I'm google and I like Paul, and we do this google Ron Paul without doing whatever to make it ok if its not ok. I (google) let it slide because I like Paul, but then someone else or some other company or something puts Google whatever on something, and I don't like it, and go after them. Well now they can say "Well you didn't bother doing anything about this when Paul and his people did it."

I'm doubtful anything will happen, but I think its a very big risk to take if this could stop the entire thing.

But I also realize we may have no choice at this point because it may cause the blimp to be delayed too long to change artwork now.

Edit: Thats true about the free advertising. Actually some serious free advertising lol. Yeah I guess they would let it slide if we're doing something wrong as a thank you for free advertisement. I hope lol....

MozoVote
12-01-2007, 07:39 PM
Google might not like if their brand was tarnished by association, or diluted. Since the message is encouraging the use of Google to learn about a public figure I don't see why it would be a problem. Google is all about searching, after all.

Oh well, they have a legal team. Hopefully a release of some kind was available from Google.

cien750hp
12-01-2007, 07:40 PM
from merriam-webster dictionary:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/google



Main Entry:
goo·gle Listen to the pronunciation of google
Pronunciation:
\ˈgü-gəl\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
goo·gled; goo·gling Listen to the pronunciation of googling \-g(ə-)liŋ\
Usage:
often capitalized
Etymology:
Google, trademark for a search engine
Date:
2001

: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web




its in the dictionary. we're free to use it.

michaelwise
12-01-2007, 07:42 PM
Come on, it is advertising Google too. Why not ask them for a fee?
I think your on to something. Ask Google if they would like to pay for the advertising of their company, on our company blimp.

steph3n
12-01-2007, 07:42 PM
I think your on to something. Ask Google if they would like to pay for the advertising of their company, on our company blimp.

Then it would need to be google's official colors :D

jp5065
12-01-2007, 07:43 PM
google is a word in the dictionary

So is coke, doesn't mean you can use it to promote anything you want.

walt
12-01-2007, 07:46 PM
:eek::confused::eek:
barfs at the google nonsense....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_(verb)

MozoVote
12-01-2007, 07:47 PM
This is sort of like the use of the word "Xerox" to make copies, or "Kleenex" for tissues, or "Kitty Litter" for ... you know.

Sometimes the companies fight to keep their brand names from slipping into public domain usage, and sometimes it's not worth fighting over.

It makes more sense to me that Google would encourage the use of their brand *to use their website* but would oppose the term "googling" to become so generic that any time you are online and searching is considered "Googling".

So for example, an ad campaign like "Use MSN to google your news" would be a much more legitimate complaint.

michaelwise
12-01-2007, 07:49 PM
Then it would need to be google's official colors :DYes, and they can pay for the graphics too. If I were a Google company executive, I would certainly want my company associated with the first political blimp in history. After all, both companies are unique.

BeFranklin
12-01-2007, 07:51 PM
This is sort of like the use of the word "Xerox" to make copies, or "Kleenex" for tissues, or "Kitty Litter" for ... you know.

Sometimes the companies fight to keep their brand names from slipping into public domain usage, and sometimes it's not worth fighting over.

It makes more sense to me that Google would encourage the use of their brand *to use their website* but would oppose the term "googling" to become so generic that any time you are online and searching is considered "Googling".

So for example, an ad campaign like "Use MSN to google your news" would be a much more legitimate complaint.

Ahg, push on. If that happens, its worth some press, and something, if its all a scam, its worth some press and something. Just keep moving.

Dutch
12-01-2007, 08:02 PM
Then it would need to be google's official colors :D

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/chipcyr/grp.jpg

Dutch :D

bdillahu
12-01-2007, 08:45 PM
"I am not a lawyer" but I think this is something that should be double checked. You don't want to start some lawsuit and get bad publicity just because it wasn't checked.

A quick read of Google's rules:

http://www.google.com/permissions/index.html
http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html

Doesn't really answer it for me, but they have a "request permission" form on that second page that might be worth a look also.

Bruce

deehrler
12-02-2007, 09:18 AM
If the RP Blimp Company (it is not Ron Paul's entity) used 'Google', Google would not have recourse on our campaign for using their name without permission. I suspect that is part of the reason that they chose to incorporate as they did. They have a good opportunity to make a few extra bucks to pay for their liability insurance over and above that of the Blimp company. What if the blimp crashes into a Rudy supporter's grandmother's house? You talk about lawsuits! I live near Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Rarely does a day go by that I don't imagine shooting one of those blimps down. They can be very annoying once you get used to them. But most people in other parts of the country don't have the same problems that I do and enjoy and actually chase them around. Their is a dark side to everything.

I would not introduce 3rd party entities UNLESS THEY PAID FOR IT. Google wants its name to be a household word. I doub't they care if someone said "Google' child porn". They want everyone to Google anything<period> I doubt that the RP Blimp Company would put Google on the blimp unless they did.

Cyclone
12-02-2007, 09:22 AM
If the RP Blimp Company (it is not Ron Paul's entity) used 'Google', Google would not have recourse on our campaign for using their name without permission. I suspect that is part of the reason that they chose to incorporate as they did. They have a good opportunity to make a few extra bucks to pay for their liability insurance over and above that of the Blimp company. What if the blimp crashes into a Rudy supporter's grandmother's house? You talk about lawsuits! I live near Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Rarely does a day go by that I don't imagine shooting one of those blimps down. They can be very annoying once you get used to them. But most people in other parts of the country don't have the same problems that I do and enjoy and actually chase them around. Their is a dark side to everything.

I would not introduce 3rd party entities UNLESS THEY PAID FOR IT. Google wants its name to be a household word. They could not care less if someone said 'Google' child porn. They want everyone to Google anything<period> I doubt that the RP Blimp Company would put Google on the blimp unless they did.



"hey could not care less if someone said 'Google' child porn. "

I dare you to make up some t-shirts and sell them online.

alexpasch
12-02-2007, 09:23 AM
Companies that have issues are when the brand is tarnished or diluted:

For example, pass me a "kleenex" becomes any tissue, eg. Puffs or w/e

Even then it usually gets really hard to do anything about it from a legal perspective

Cyclone
12-02-2007, 09:24 AM
:eek::confused::eek:
barfs at the google nonsense....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_(verb)

If they don't sue for use of their name without their permission then they risk losing all IP rights to their name.

MozoVote
12-02-2007, 09:35 AM
"hey they could not care less if someone said 'Google' child porn. "

I dare you to make up some t-shirts and sell them online.

LMFAO!!1!

constitutional
12-02-2007, 09:38 AM
This is a serious concern that the author has brought up. I don't believe these people working on blimp are concerned... they are going after one thing and one thing only: money.

jp5065
12-02-2007, 03:23 PM
If they don't sue for use of their name without their permission then they risk losing all IP rights to their name.

Yup, just like asprin used to be a registered trademark, unitll they didn't fight it when someone used it. Now they have no rights to it at all.

If Google sued, could they stop the blimp from flying until the lawsuit was over?

Rhys
12-02-2007, 03:32 PM
Honestly, a Tie in is a great idea. Instead of just saying "Google" we could definitely ask Google if they want their actual logo instead of just the word. They could then pay $25k. That would pay for the employee.

If not, there's nothing illegal about saying Google. Google has a decreased expectancy of privacy, being in the public eye. Worst case scenario, they send a cease and desist order and by the time everything with that happens, the blimp comes down anyway.

EDIT: It's also like saying "Eat at Burger King" on a blimp. No company in their right mind would ask a huge block of customers to not support them by asking people to use their service.

Matthew Zak
12-02-2007, 03:40 PM
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/chipcyr/grp.jpg

Dutch :D

You probably want to keep google and ron paul separate colors/styles

AAjax
12-02-2007, 03:45 PM
If the phrase "Google Ron Paul" is put on the blimp, isn't that running a risk of getting into some type of legal issues with Google?

That question absolutely needs to be answered because if that is put on the blimp, and the answer is yes, and Google gets upset, it could end this entire project.

In the end it promotes their product, so I would figure it wouldnt be much of an issue

bolidew
12-02-2007, 04:09 PM
Remove "google"!

Rhys
12-02-2007, 04:19 PM
Another thing we know about google is, they don't have any problem giving things away. They make their money by selling advertising. People see their adds when they "Google" something. And trust me, NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD will ever not advertise on Google because of something we do. We could put Google Ron Paul on one side of the blimp, and Google Child Porn on the other, as someone suggested... Advertisers would still advertise with Google. However, Google probably would get involved at that point.... along with the campaign!

But, like I said, Google gives things away every day. They're really not going to be concerned about us asking people to "Google" Ron Paul. If anything, they'll be happy.

It does however, never hurt to ask... for money.

ItsTime
12-02-2007, 04:23 PM
this just proves how terrible of an idea this whole thing is.

Anyone find out where the money is going if the blimp does not take off? Are the lawyers getting paid with your money, the person working "20 hours a day" getting paid with your money and THE BLIMP DOES NOT EVEN FLY.

Great idea everyone.

Joe Schwartz
12-02-2007, 05:00 PM
:eek::confused::eek:
barfs at the google nonsense....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_(verb)

It's not nonsense. Google has to ensure that nobody uses their name in a generic sense. I've heard that Google employees are discouraged (or forbidden?) from using "Google" as a verb. And Google is required by law to protect their trademark, or else they risk losing it.

Danny
12-02-2007, 05:16 PM
Google has said it intends to crack down on the use of its name as a generic verb, in phrases such as "to google someone."

The Internet search giant said such phrases were potentially damaging to its brand.

"We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word 'Google' to describe using Google to search the Internet and using the word 'google' to generally describe searching the Internet. It has some serious trademark issues," a representative for the search company said.

http://www.news.com/Google-wants-people-to-stop-googling/2100-1030_3-6106479.html

Rhys
12-02-2007, 06:00 PM
This is all part of why the blimp team got a lawyer, I'm sure.

There's really nothing left for the group to debate about, unless you just want to.

There's a lawyer, money, blimp, staff, flight plan, and name. If any serious issues arise, I'm sure they'll be solved. We should all be fine.

The lawyer will ask Google if they can use their name. If Google says no, they wont use their name. No biggie.

robert4rp08
12-02-2007, 10:17 PM
Google is definitely trademarked by the company.

However, "google" as a verb is not trademarked (as far as I know).

Scaryclouds
12-02-2007, 11:09 PM
I'm sure they are planning on it... But they must contact Google before using it as the graphic on the blimp. By putting "Google Ron Paul" that could suggest to people Google endorses Ron Paul. Even if a large amount of Google employees support Ron Paul (it seems they support Obama more judging by campaign contributions) Google, as a company, has not officially endorsed Ron Paul, nor should we expect them to as it could hurt their business (sadly not everybody loves Ron Paul).

axiomata
12-07-2007, 07:09 PM
Has the company's lawyer checked into this?

http://www.news.com/Google-wants-people-to-stop-googling/2100-1030_3-6106479.html

I'd gladly take on the FCC and its anti-first-amendment laws but there's no reason to risk getting into it with Google. Especially since the company is incorporated I think there may be a small chance of problems arising.

Someone needs to look into this.

paulpwns
12-07-2007, 07:19 PM
pre law here


the reality is, they might challenge this, as it puts them in danger of losing "google" to the public domain, much like xerox and kleenex did.

Tivo is another one that is hoping not to lose trademark.

Tarzan
12-07-2007, 07:22 PM
pre law here


the reality is, they might challenge this, as it puts them in danger of losing "google" to the public domain, much like xerox and kleenex did.

Tivo is another one that is hoping not to lose trademark.

I think they have a double problem... the dictionary now lists "google" as a verb, xerox and kleenex were not words until the company created them... google was a word in the dictionary before it was used by them.

Trigonx
12-07-2007, 07:24 PM
I don't see the big deal at all, its basically free advertising for Google, since you really only google things at Google.

split_lipz
12-07-2007, 07:24 PM
I think google should pay us for the free advertising.

torchbearer
12-07-2007, 07:29 PM
google is a verb in websters dictionary.
Google is a proper noun, the company.

torchbearer
12-07-2007, 07:30 PM
The message is:
(You) google Ron Paul.

Used in that context, they are using the verb form not the noun form.

alexpasch
12-07-2007, 07:30 PM
I think they have a double problem... the dictionary now lists "google" as a verb, xerox and kleenex were not words until the company created them... google was a word in the dictionary before it was used by them.

Google was not in the dictionary before Google came about. It was added as a verb because everybody started using it as such.

Google is a pun for googol (some ridiculously huge number 1 * 10^100)

torchbearer
12-07-2007, 07:33 PM
The message is:
(You) google Ron Paul.

Used in that context, they are using the verb form not the noun form.

repeat for context.

MozoVote
12-07-2007, 07:43 PM
Remember that HQ did release a video with a "Google Ron Paul" song already. Google has had months to defend their trademark against "verb encroachment" and nothing has happened.

That doesn't mean they may not object at any time. But I have read in these kinds of situations, an intellectual property rights judge takes into consideration how "vigorously" a brand is defended.

My gut feeling is that as long as it is lower case, and not using Google font or colors, it's OK.

shane2
12-07-2007, 07:43 PM
If google got a cease & desist against their name useage, an hour later it can be complied with via spray paint, while we all enjoy the benefits of a fresh brand new news cycle of national coverage and stories talking all about it and the blimp. Very little downside risk here and a bunch of upside exposure. I would just hope that they'd wait till the blimp mania had already naturally cooled down some.

I actually tried to get a cease & desist issued against my business back in 2001 for this exact reason, that it would then generate national media coverage of it, with a huge billboard up in Austin, but the intended offended never did bite.

- Shane

rancher89
12-07-2007, 07:50 PM
Sheesh, I just posted in another thread yesterday or the day before, asking if we should contact GOOGLE to see if they wanted to pitch in. I swear I'll keep my mouth shut on the open forum and just post to individuals that can deal with an off the cuff, late night brainstorming way to get the blimp off the ground. Lack of sleep, trying to keep the home business going and keeping up with all of the great ideas people seem to come up with on a VERY regular basis, is frankly, getting a little hard to keep up with. I really like this forum, but the negativity is going to send me away, don't have time for it and I can't seem to get past it if I read it.

See you in SC in Rock Hill, Anderson and Greenville, Sat 8th
See you at the blimp launch in Weeksville, Sun & Mon 9th & 10th
See you at the Tea Party on the 15th and 16th

Oh yeah, then there's the 23rd that I'm supposed to be planning for Charlotte, NC and OMG Christmas with relatives coming in and rum balls to make, and all that other food and cleaning the house, I need sleep.

ppc1040
12-07-2007, 08:08 PM
It is true that trademarks get diluted over time. But one thing companies can do to prevent dilution is to actively enforce (i.e., litigate) the trademark to maintain its legal relevance. You can read more about the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Dilution

shane2
12-07-2007, 08:09 PM
I really like this forum, but the negativity is going to send me away, don't have time for it and I can't seem to get past it if I read it.Most of the strongest negativity in this thread, if you check the posting dates, is over 5 days old and precedes the now proven success of the donation drive and now established fact that the blimp is really going to take off and can generate so much positive media coverage, etc.

- Shane

Danny
12-07-2007, 08:40 PM
I think we should be hoping that Google sends a cease and desist. If Google chose this situation as their first attempt to combat this usage of their name, it is only going to generate more media coverage for the blimp. What would it cost to recreate the graphics for one side of the blimp? A few thousand $$? We would get a hundred times that in free media. I guess the only downside would be if they had to fly the blimp back down to NC to have the new graphics applied.

axiomata
12-07-2007, 09:09 PM
I think we should be hoping that Google sends a cease and desist. If Google chose this situation as their first attempt to combat this usage of their name, it is only going to generate more media coverage for the blimp. What would it cost to recreate the graphics for one side of the blimp? A few thousand $$? We would get a hundred times that in free media. I guess the only downside would be if they had to fly the blimp back down to NC to have the new graphics applied.
Do you consider trademarks property? Should we respect Google's property rights if they wish to enforce them?

I still think someone should have gotten in touch with Google, just to be on the safe side. The article I linked to was over a year old, and Google may have given up their fight to keep google from being a verb since it is already lost to common usage.

If cease and desists were simply "media battles" then I'd love to get into it with them. However, they are not. I don't the company can afford either the time or the legal fees to get into a battle.

yaz
12-07-2007, 09:42 PM
If anything happens we'll change the word Google to "Search for". Plus the lawsuit would result in more media attention. lol.

peruvianRP
12-07-2007, 10:45 PM
google is a word in a dictionary now. go and google it.

MozoVote
12-07-2007, 10:46 PM
Another reason I think this end up being a non-issue ... If Google wants their name off, OK. The advertiser can probably ask MSN Search or Yahoo for permission. I don't see much benefit to Google stepping in, only to end up promoting a competitor as a result.

JustBcuz
12-07-2007, 10:53 PM
A Google lawsuit may be just bad PR, while the blimp could generate traffic.

I'm guessing Google doesn't shut it down, but issues a statement that they don' support any particular candidate.

James R
12-07-2007, 10:59 PM
If the phrase "Google Ron Paul" is put on the blimp, isn't that running a risk of getting into some type of legal issues with Google?

That question absolutely needs to be answered because if that is put on the blimp, and the answer is yes, and Google gets upset, it could end this entire project.

I would argue that the term "google" in "Google Ron Paul" is being used as a verb rather than a company name. You would cite "Webster's New Millenium Dictionary as English". But regardless of that, Google getting all that free advertising is bound to be a mostly good thing for them. A very good thing.

Leslie Webb
12-07-2007, 11:00 PM
Google is a pun for googol (some ridiculously huge number 1 * 10^100)[/QUOTE]

So if we have to cease and desist from using Google, we just use Googol. :)

The Lantern
12-07-2007, 11:00 PM
This is sort of like the use of the word "Xerox" to make copies, or "Kleenex" for tissues, or "Kitty Litter" for ... you know.

Sometimes the companies fight to keep their brand names from slipping into public domain usage, and sometimes it's not worth fighting over.

It makes more sense to me that Google would encourage the use of their brand *to use their website* but would oppose the term "googling" to become so generic that any time you are online and searching is considered "Googling".

So for example, an ad campaign like "Use MSN to google your news" would be a much more legitimate complaint.

If you are a writer and use the word Kleenex for tissues or Xerox to make copies, they make you add the copyright symbol after their name.

mathamagician
12-08-2007, 12:15 AM
Kleenex is a brand name also but they aren't asking for royalty anytime someone uses it in print.

DirtMcGirt
12-08-2007, 12:21 AM
the blimp organizers hired an attorney and said it is a verb and can be used, only thing that concerns me is that bill and hillary are at Google's founders wedding and they like getting involved in everything... if they disallow it we own the internet right now and we can always slap another sticker on it!!!!

ignoranceisntbliss
12-08-2007, 12:50 AM
Last year I read that they wanted the 'verb' removed from dictionaries. In the same article I seen Apple complaining about ipod becoming the official meme for mp3 players.

Elijah
12-08-2007, 12:56 AM
Again, if Google wants to write us a letter they will. We are using Google checkout, Google calendar, Google mail, and google maps (gps tracking).

Not sure why they would care if it was on the blimp besides a search box on the website.

We shall see.

trueg
12-08-2007, 01:50 AM
Guys you should read this. Apparently Google doesn't like people using google as a verb. They even sent out a cease and desist letter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_(verb)


Fearing the dilution and potential loss of its trademark, Google has attempted to discourage use of the word as a verb, particularly when used as a synonym for general web searching. In February 23, 2003[6], the company sent a cease and desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of Word Spy, a website that tracks neologisms.[7] In an article in the Washington Post, Frank Ahrens discussed the letter he received from a Google lawyer that demonstrated "appropriate" and "inappropriate" ways to use the verb "google".[8] It was reported that, in response to this concern, lexicographers for the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary lowercased the actual entry for the word, google, while maintaining the capitalization of the search engine in their definition, "to use the Google search engine to seek online information" (a concern which did not deter the Oxford editors from preserving the history of both "cases").[9] In October 25, 2006, Google sent a plea to the public requesting that "you should please only use 'Google' when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services."[10]

split_lipz
12-08-2007, 01:55 AM
you should please only use 'Google' when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services."[10]

Isn't their search engine one of their services? The message on the blimp is obviously referring to one of their services.

tangent4ronpaul
12-08-2007, 02:13 AM
Then it would need to be google's official colors :D

Google has official colors?

-n