Comments on: Freedom of speech http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/ where there’s smoke there’s fire Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:13:52 +0000 hourly 1 By: David http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2765 David Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:17:00 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2765 Thank you for coming in here and making some sense. Everyone is quick to judge that this is a bonehead move, but ignore the fact that it's a move they have to make - they have the right to control their trademark, and they need to defend it. Thank you for coming in here and making some sense. Everyone is quick to judge that this is a bonehead move, but ignore the fact that it’s a move they have to make – they have the right to control their trademark, and they need to defend it.

]]> By: BW http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2764 BW Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:53:16 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2764 Your reading of Reno v. ACLU is not applicable. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress--i.e. the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Congress was attempting to restrict what could be said or expressed on the internet. This is not the case for canonrumors.com. You are correct that both cases invlove the internet, but that is the end of the similarity. Instead, in the present case, it is Canon (a private company) enforcing its trademarks against another private individual (canonrumors.com). Congress simply is not invloved in trying to control or restrict the speech of canonrumors.com. Your reading of Reno v. ACLU is not applicable. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress–i.e. the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Congress was attempting to restrict what could be said or expressed on the internet. This is not the case for canonrumors.com. You are correct that both cases invlove the internet, but that is the end of the similarity. Instead, in the present case, it is Canon (a private company) enforcing its trademarks against another private individual (canonrumors.com). Congress simply is not invloved in trying to control or restrict the speech of canonrumors.com.

]]> By: BW http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2763 BW Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:44:57 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2763 I cannot say that I agree more that Canon is making a bonehead move by requiring canonrumors.com quit using the domain name. However, as a lawyer I must say that your First Amendment analysis is WAY off. Just read the text of the Amendment which you quote, it says "Congress shall make no law..." Our friend at canonrumors is not being shut down by the government (Congress), but by a private company (Canon). Indeed, the First Amendment provides no protection for freedom of speech in such a context. Anyway, I do wish canonrumors the best, and think that Canon is being totally unfair. Unfortunately, they do have the legal right to control the use of their trademarks...including the use of Canon in a domain name. I cannot say that I agree more that Canon is making a bonehead move by requiring canonrumors.com quit using the domain name. However, as a lawyer I must say that your First Amendment analysis is WAY off. Just read the text of the Amendment which you quote, it says “Congress shall make no law…” Our friend at canonrumors is not being shut down by the government (Congress), but by a private company (Canon). Indeed, the First Amendment provides no protection for freedom of speech in such a context. Anyway, I do wish canonrumors the best, and think that Canon is being totally unfair. Unfortunately, they do have the legal right to control the use of their trademarks…including the use of Canon in a domain name.

]]> By: David http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2770 David Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:13:57 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2770 I'm not familiar with Thom Hogan, but if the books he writes has Canon's name on them, then he obtained permission to do so. And Canon is getting a cut of his profits. Why would Canon allow someone to sell books with their name on it, and not want a piece of the money?<br /><br />As for Ken Rockwell - if his site is generic in name, and doesn't use a product or company name, then he's fine.<br /><br />Really, the case is - are you standing on your own merits, or are you driving traffic to your site (or your book) because you're piggybacking on someone else's name? They worked hard to build a brand. Why should you benefit from their brand name, without letting them benefit as well? I’m not familiar with Thom Hogan, but if the books he writes has Canon’s name on them, then he obtained permission to do so. And Canon is getting a cut of his profits. Why would Canon allow someone to sell books with their name on it, and not want a piece of the money?

As for Ken Rockwell – if his site is generic in name, and doesn’t use a product or company name, then he’s fine.

Really, the case is – are you standing on your own merits, or are you driving traffic to your site (or your book) because you’re piggybacking on someone else’s name? They worked hard to build a brand. Why should you benefit from their brand name, without letting them benefit as well?

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2769 Blog Admin Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:08:29 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2769 You could be right, I wonder how Thom Hogan does it? When he rights his books, does he pay Nikon? I don't think so. How about Ken Rockwell - he does not have a Nikon domain name, but he is making tons of money based on reviews on Nikon's equipment and the name Nikon is all over his site? How are those 2 cases different?<div>I am sorry but this does not make sense to me.</div><div><br></div> You could be right, I wonder how Thom Hogan does it? When he rights his books, does he pay Nikon? I don’t think so. How about Ken Rockwell – he does not have a Nikon domain name, but he is making tons of money based on reviews on Nikon’s equipment and the name Nikon is all over his site? How are those 2 cases different?
I am sorry but this does not make sense to me.
]]> By: David http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2768 David Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:59:22 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2768 You wouldn't be able to sell a book on the Canon DSLR, without Canon's approval. First, why would Canon let you put money into your pocket (the sales of the book), without getting their cut of the book? Second, no publisher would touch it for that same reason.<br /><br />Let's face it - you have sponsors on this web site. That's money in your pocket. That's eyeballs looking at your web page BECAUSE of the name you have in your domain name. If you didn't have Nikon in the name, I wouldn't be here. If this was 'digitalcamerarumors.com', it might not be as popular as quickly. You wouldn’t be able to sell a book on the Canon DSLR, without Canon’s approval. First, why would Canon let you put money into your pocket (the sales of the book), without getting their cut of the book? Second, no publisher would touch it for that same reason.

Let’s face it – you have sponsors on this web site. That’s money in your pocket. That’s eyeballs looking at your web page BECAUSE of the name you have in your domain name. If you didn’t have Nikon in the name, I wouldn’t be here. If this was ‘digitalcamerarumors.com’, it might not be as popular as quickly.

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2767 Blog Admin Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:34:08 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2767 Why do you think that 95% of the readers are "boneheads"? 95%!!!<div>I can assure you those are not stupid people - you should read some of the other posts and see what kind of crowd we have here. <div>Think about it... 95%<br><div><br></div></div></div> Why do you think that 95% of the readers are “boneheads”? 95%!!!
I can assure you those are not stupid people – you should read some of the other posts and see what kind of crowd we have here. 
Think about it… 95%
]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2766 Blog Admin Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:30:30 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2766 It seems that you are criticizing only  the week points in my post and you are probably right (I still think that the whole law system should be based on the constitution and they should be no law opposing the constitution, but I could be wrong) . You did not say anything about the fact that "Canon is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services". How is this different if I right a book about "Canon DSLR". Will Canon come after me for using their name? The website is providing a service and the only way to specify the details of this service is to use the Canon name. They are not selling anything with the Canon logo on it. <div>I would appreciate if you clarify this topic for me.</div><div>Thanks!</div> It seems that you are criticizing only  the week points in my post and you are probably right (I still think that the whole law system should be based on the constitution and they should be no law opposing the constitution, but I could be wrong) . You did not say anything about the fact that “Canon is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services”. How is this different if I right a book about “Canon DSLR”. Will Canon come after me for using their name? The website is providing a service and the only way to specify the details of this service is to use the Canon name. They are not selling anything with the Canon logo on it. 
I would appreciate if you clarify this topic for me.
Thanks!
]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2771 Blog Admin Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:18:16 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2771 On the other site I think Nikon is benefiting from this site because of the free publicity and brand promotion. Just try to say that you like Canon on this blog and you will be squeezed. On the other site I think Nikon is benefiting from this site because of the free publicity and brand promotion. Just try to say that you like Canon on this blog and you will be squeezed.

]]> By: Xavier http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2762 Xavier Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:03:28 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2762 I am shocked that you cannot use the "C" brand name!<br />If this ridiculous behaviour is approved by the law, why not sue all article that talk about the "C" company.<br />Personally, i experienced funny stuff with the french branch, and do not work with them anymore ! plus i love Nikon, Leica and Hassleblad anyway !<br />Every mag, susceptible of speaking about the "C" company's product should boycottit just for the freedom of speech !<br />Do a petition, i'll be the first one to sign it !<br />Good luck to you !<br />Regards<br />XL I am shocked that you cannot use the “C” brand name!
If this ridiculous behaviour is approved by the law, why not sue all article that talk about the “C” company.
Personally, i experienced funny stuff with the french branch, and do not work with them anymore ! plus i love Nikon, Leica and Hassleblad anyway !
Every mag, susceptible of speaking about the “C” company’s product should boycottit just for the freedom of speech !
Do a petition, i’ll be the first one to sign it !
Good luck to you !
Regards
XL

]]> By: David http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2761 David Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:25:38 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2761 Klaus - let's not split hairs. By 'own', I meant 'trademark'.<br /><br />Volkswagen cannot keep you from using their name in a discussion. And I never said they could.<br /><br />What I did say was that VW has defended it's trademark by telling website owners that they couldn't use 'VW' or 'Volkswagen' in the name of their website.<br /><br />Despite what you (and many others think), a reasonable person *could* confuse a rumor site with a legit site. Just the fact that it could happen could be enough for a judge to side with the company.<br /><br />A company *has* to defend it's trademark. If they do not, a judge will rule that the trademark has fallen into public domain. Canon cannot afford to let that happen.<br /><br />In all likelihood, Canon's lawyers are doing this to defend their trademark, to show that they are doing their due diligence to protect their name. If Canon is truly okay with the site, then they will work out a deal to 'license' the name back to the site.<br /><br />As to your comment 'trademarks are almost never declared generic' - that's because lawyers defend trademarks to keep that from happening.<br /><br />(Yes, me and quite a few other people I know were approached by VW and 'asked' to stop using their trademarked names in websites we participated in). Klaus – let’s not split hairs. By ‘own’, I meant ‘trademark’.

Volkswagen cannot keep you from using their name in a discussion. And I never said they could.

What I did say was that VW has defended it’s trademark by telling website owners that they couldn’t use ‘VW’ or ‘Volkswagen’ in the name of their website.

Despite what you (and many others think), a reasonable person *could* confuse a rumor site with a legit site. Just the fact that it could happen could be enough for a judge to side with the company.

A company *has* to defend it’s trademark. If they do not, a judge will rule that the trademark has fallen into public domain. Canon cannot afford to let that happen.

In all likelihood, Canon’s lawyers are doing this to defend their trademark, to show that they are doing their due diligence to protect their name. If Canon is truly okay with the site, then they will work out a deal to ‘license’ the name back to the site.

As to your comment ‘trademarks are almost never declared generic’ – that’s because lawyers defend trademarks to keep that from happening.

(Yes, me and quite a few other people I know were approached by VW and ‘asked’ to stop using their trademarked names in websites we participated in).

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2760 Blog Admin Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:00:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2760 So my question is how can someone write a book about Nikon D90 let's say - the book will be obviously called Nikon D90?Do they have to pay to Nikon in order to publish the book with that name? How is this different than an online blog? So my question is how can someone write a book about Nikon D90 let’s say – the book will be obviously called Nikon D90?Do they have to pay to Nikon in order to publish the book with that name? How is this different than an online blog?

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2759 Blog Admin Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:57:29 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2759 only to congress?<div>this is what I found on the link you gave me:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: -webkit-sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">In a rare 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._ACLU" title="Reno v. ACLU" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; " rel="nofollow">Reno v. ACLU</a></i>, a decision which struck down portions of the 1996 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act" title="Communications Decency Act" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; " rel="nofollow">Communications Decency Act</a>, a law intended to outlaw so-called "indecent" online communication (that is, nonobscene material protected by the First Amendment.) The court's decision identified the Internet as a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone" title="Free speech zone" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 43, 184); background-image: none; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; " rel="nofollow">free speech zone</a>," and extended the same Constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken expression to materials Publish on the Internet.</span><br></div> only to congress?
this is what I found on the link you gave me:
In a rare 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in Reno v. ACLU, a decision which struck down portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law intended to outlaw so-called “indecent” online communication (that is, nonobscene material protected by the First Amendment.) The court’s decision identified the Internet as a “free speech zone,” and extended the same Constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken expression to materials Publish on the Internet.
]]> By: Robert http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-2/#comment-2758 Robert Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:53:52 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2758 When you write about freedom of speech, you mention "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."<br />Well, the freedom of speech only applies to the CONGRESS! <br />You should read wikipedia about freedom of speech... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States</a> When you write about freedom of speech, you mention “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Well, the freedom of speech only applies to the CONGRESS!
You should read wikipedia about freedom of speech… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-2757 Blog Admin Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:49:13 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2757 Very cool! Posted already. Thanks. Very cool! Posted already. Thanks.

]]> By: Lawrence Solum http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-2756 Lawrence Solum Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:47:17 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2756 This is a meritless claim by Canon. They are likely to bring this to arbitration via ICANN's UDRB & their claim should fail. There is a bona-fide use of the Canon (which is a trademark) and does not constitute either Trademark infringement or Trademark dilution. This is a meritless claim by Canon. They are likely to bring this to arbitration via ICANN’s UDRB & their claim should fail. There is a bona-fide use of the Canon (which is a trademark) and does not constitute either Trademark infringement or Trademark dilution.

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-2755 Blog Admin Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:41:39 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2755 Thanks. Thanks.

]]> By: H http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-2754 H Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:35:43 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2754 Well, i've sorted out a banner.<br /><br />It's here:<br /><br /><br />If someone could give it some proper hosting, that'd be great.<br /><br />The url for it is here:<br /><a href="http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23lie03&s=4" rel="nofollow">http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23lie03&s=4</a> Well, i’ve sorted out a banner.

It’s here:

If someone could give it some proper hosting, that’d be great.

The url for it is here:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23lie03&s=4

]]> By: Klaus http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-2752 Klaus Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:05:49 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2752 A reasonable person *might* expect "NikonBooks" or "NikonTips" to be associated with Nikon.<br /><br />But "CanonRumors?" The official rumor-spreading wing of a photo/electronics company?<br /><br />I don't think anybody is being confused, and I think it's imperative that we maintain a very narrow definition of what constitutes infringement. A reasonable person *might* expect “NikonBooks” or “NikonTips” to be associated with Nikon.

But “CanonRumors?” The official rumor-spreading wing of a photo/electronics company?

I don’t think anybody is being confused, and I think it’s imperative that we maintain a very narrow definition of what constitutes infringement.

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-2751 Blog Admin Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:37:47 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/08/30/freedom-of-speech.aspx#comment-2751 Apple wouldn't settle out of court if they could win this case. This trial was considered as a "loss" for Apple (according to many online articles - just google it for more info), nevertheless the bad publicity. Apple wouldn’t settle out of court if they could win this case. This trial was considered as a “loss” for Apple (according to many online articles – just google it for more info), nevertheless the bad publicity.

]]>