"...tarnish our brand..."
That's our job. Bitch!
Facebook is suing Faceporn for alleged trademark infringement. The social networking giant claims Faceporn copied its logo, aspects of its blue and white page design and other trademarks. A statement on faceporn.com says: "Due to unforeseen circumstances, faceporn is down until further notice. We are doing our best to come …
and I seriously doubt that many people had. But now they do. I wonder when internet companies will realise that there's pretty much no such thing as bad publicity on the web. It's all, simply, publicity so shouting about something you don't want people to know about is kinda counter productive.
You mean lawyers who most politicians are write laws that put a tax on companies to force them to pay lawyers to defend their business models. IMHO most of the corruption in Western culture can be directly and indirectly to greedy lawyers who put a tax on anything and everything everyone else does.
Hollywood (and I do like that name) figured out a long time ago that there's no such thing as bad publicity - if Facebonk ^H^H^Hook had ignored FacePorn then the site would have probably sunk without a trace ... or else FacePorn would been force to sue FaceBook for "passing off" to get publicity.
I have to admit that my first thought was that "FacePorn" was some kind of PhotoShopped site ... that's got to be one of the dumbest web site names in history ... "YouPorn" on the other hand has much better "visuals" upon first hearing.
"Vulture Towers is ashamed to admit it was unaware of Faceporn until earlier today."
I thought that was your job, guys? Keeping on top of this sort of thing so your loyal readers didn't have to. Honestly. Now I'm going to have to spend more of my own time browsing porn sites online so that I know my awareness is up-to-scratch...
I hope you're happy now.
Pff.
...either unclear on the concept, or something so ghastly that I can't imagine it - and please don't help me.
The first couple of times somebody explained "teabagging", I was appalled. Then I forgot what it meant. Now I'm taking care not to find out again. Luckily that isn't very difficult.
Really Robert?
Did they explain by doing a demonstration on you or something? (and if so it's interesting that you asked them to explain it a couple of times!)
If not you'd better get the Australian government to come round and install some filters on your internet pretty quick as there are much, much more disturbing things people can get up to.
Some of them even take their socks off and keep the lights on while doing them!
If what you're thinking of doesn't leave a brown stain on the saucer then we are talking about different things.
I'm open minded about what consenting adults may do but with an exception against humiliation just for the sake of it, which is what... I'm trying not to remember. What was put to me was just so far from sex that I don't even understand it.
So, anyway, Faceporn... if they are doing some or most of what Facebook does, but with the added element of porn, then Facebook are reasonably aggrieved.
But if they are doing porn of the face, I say, "Hey! Eyes down -there-, lady!"
Well, it's not that I don't consider the face to be an important and attractive feature of human beings. However, in much of graphical erotica, faces show rather clearly that the people involved are not enjoying the event as much as you, the spectator, were hoping to. This appeals to some, but I find it discouraging, and, in fact, I disapprove.
...No-one could get confused between the two sites.
After all, one is entirely about the exploitation of people who don't know better and is visited by sad, lonely wankers who sit in darkened rooms furtively clicking links, pretending it in some way adds a sense of fulfilment to their empty lives..
".No-one could get confused between the two sites.
After all, one is entirely about the exploitation of people who don't know better and is visited by sad, lonely wankers who sit in darkened rooms furtively clicking links, pretending it in some way adds a sense of fulfilment to their empty lives.."
You ARE talking about Facebook, right? :) Ric
The only commonality between Facebook and Faceporn is the word 'face' which is so common it must have been used for every human ever born and well before Zucker whatnot was born.
As for the colours they are suddenly people can't use the same colour? Maybe I sould think about that next time I sample a web page colou palette that I find pleasing.
The logo's are likely the only thing that the court could get upset about.
The dictionary should remain public domain, if someone wants a unique word, let them work on it, just like Exxon or Lenovo did.
...misses part of the point in that the Good Ol' US of A operates a "Protect it or Lose it" policy when it comes to trademark infringement. If Facebook had not initiated legal action they might have diluted or even removed the rights they currently have to their brand image. I think these alone are sufficient grounds to justify the piles and piles of litigation over trademarks in the USA.