patrick.net

Peter P disagrees with me.

I did not disagree. I merely failed to agree. ;)

@Peter P,

Sorry to give ya' a hard time about this, but I just gotta know for sure. I'm 89.7% convinced I'm right, but given IANAL, I'm hoping there's someone out there who is can make it 100%.

Parody offers certain protections which may (this I am unsure on) even allow commercial use. However, recent cases have shown that the [copyrighted material] must also be the object of the parody. E.g., using the Trix Rabbit to make a parody of Trix is OK, but using it to make a parody of the NAR is not OK.

Um.. it occurs to me that there are two issues here, trademarks and copyright. While some lower creatures try to make you think that intellectual property is all one thing, each component has its own distinct requirements and rules (and for good reason).

So, for the picture, you have to consider any trademarks you are (ab)using (like the Google logo), any copyrights you may be (ab)using (whoever owns the original image, and the owners of any other images used in the final collage).

Oh, and IANAL.

Thanks, requiem.

If you are correct, then I should be in the free & clear, given that:
(a) both of the doctored photos I used were available for free in the public domain (Internet - in fact I used Google image search to find them) and (b) Google is both object and subject of the parody.

NP,

BTW, (a) may or may not be a safe assumption, but other than that it should be OK.

I believe you could even sell this commercially and you’d be fine. Parody is fairly clearly protected, even Parody for profit.

Ok, then! How much should I charge for my GooglePimps© T-shirts & coffee mugs?

Sorry, SQT, wrong thread.
This one's about Google™, pimps, intellectual property and doctored photos.

I'm kidding of course....

Disclaimers: We don't have an attorney-client relationship; in fact, I've never met HARM or Peter P. I read their posts on this blog, and they presumably read mine, but that's the extent of our relationship. I haven't throughly researched this issue, so you shouldn't rely on the following opinion. It's just my seat-of-the-pants assessment; it could be wrong.

I don't see much potential for liability here. There are three main claims that the Google guys could bring against HARM, Peter P, and the site: trademark infringment, infrigement of their right of publicty, and defamation.

First, with respect to trademark infringement, assuming that the Google guys had a common-law trademark in their images, the picutre posted above transforms their images to such an extent that it must be considered a parody. Parodies are a form of fair use under the Lanham (trademark) Act. The fact that this use of this image is not commercial is also significant, although on can argue that Patrick.net is a commercial site due to the fact that banner ads are placed atop the Comment box on each page. Still, I don't see any trademark infringment claim here.

Second, the Google guys have a common-law and statutory right of publicty in their likenesses, and they could claim that this picture infringes their right of publicity. But here again, the fact that their images have been transformed means that the resulting picture may be deemed a fair use of their likenesses and therefore entitled to First Amendment protection. Also, the fact that the image is used as an editorial statement, rather than for a commercial purpose, such as an advertisement, is also signficant in this context.

Finally, the Google guys could bring a libel or defamation (they are the same thing, the historic differences between libel and slander have been eliminated) lawsuit based on the image, arguing that the picture, in portraying them as pimps, falesly suggests that they are people of low moral character. However, since the picture is an obvious parody, and when taken in context with the post is clearly meant as a commentary on their vast wealth, I don't see any significant danger that would prevail in such a libel action.

All in all, then, I think that the Google guys would lose a lawsuit if they were to bring it. However, this doesn't mean that they cannot file the suit. They may lose in the end, but they can still file their Complaint and go through the motions. And the thing about litigation is that even if you win, you still lose, because the defense of a lawsuit is a time-consuming and often ruiniously expensive processs.

On the one hand, I always advise clients that the risk of possible litigation is one of the last things they should take into account when making a business decision. Lawyers say "no" far too often, and if a client gets too worried about the possibility of a lawsuit, he may be unable to go about his real business, which is making money. And the risk that these guys would actually sue over something this stupid is pretty darned remote. On the other hand, it's generally a bad idea to anger a .com billionaire. I've represented a few prominent Silicon Valley people myself, and when they become emotionally involved in a piece of litigation, they'll fight to the bitter end and spend whatever is necessary to obtain satisfaction.

Anyway, there's my $.02.

On the other hand, it’s generally a bad idea to anger a .com billionaire.

Moreover, Sergey and Larry are decent people that brought us extraordinary innovations. We should be nice. :)

To think that Larry or Sergey would even care about this site is a bit narcissistic, don't you think? Their billions gives them a lot of room to ignore us simple folk.

It's actually quite hard to get noticed by, and even harder to get sued by, big corporations or insanely rich people. It's usually the opposite that happens.

Though Joe Schmoe may have a personal interest in encouraging such suits. This country needs more lawyer jobs and prop up Palo Alto property prices, darn it!

Wow, thanks for the fine analysis, Joe.

However, since the picture is an obvious parody, and when taken in context with the post is clearly meant as a commentary on their vast wealth, I don’t see any significant danger that would prevail in such a libel action.

Yes, that was exactly my intent. I had originally created this to be the graphic for Peter P's "Orb of influence" thread, which was about Google millionaires.

For any lawyers out there representing Sergey Brin and Larry Page:
I did NOT intend to imply that they are people of "low moral character" in any way. I was trying to convey in a humorous light that these men have attained "pimpified" levels of material success --i.e., the pimp as popular symbol of conspicuous wealth and fame.

For my next parody, I will create a composite picture of David Lereah engaged in a disgusting four-some with Leslie Appleton-Young, Gary Watts and Alan Greenspan while they are being roasted in Hell.

:twisted: I sincerely hope this doesn't offend anyone. :twisted:

being roasted in Hell

I do not want to go to hell just to eat roasted meat. :)

HARM? I know not of this HARM to you refer. I say slander away boys.

For my next parody, I will create a composite picture of David Lereah engaged in a disgusting four-some with Leslie Appleton-Young, Gary Watts and Alan Greenspan while they are being roasted in Hell.

Don't forget that sitting pretty financially chick. Odd that we don't hear much from her anymore.

One more thing slightly OT, regarding rents. You should see what is going on in San Diego. Fools on Craigslist trying to rent 2bedroom condos downtown for 3500/month. Its as if they said "hmmm what to charge for rent, well my mortgage is 3500, I know, $3500". Sitting pretty financially chick said the same thing, "oh well we'll just rent it out" good luck suckas.

Regarding the "rent increase" in the bay area, the chart shows what fools are asking, not what fools are getting.

Wait a minute is the Larry and Sergie crunking?

Nice pimp cups. But then again with 1.4 billion in cashed out options one could afford a nice pimp cup to crunk with.

X,

Fo' shizzle, homie!

I have always wanted a suit like the ones that Larry and Sergey are wearing. A mustard orange double-breasted with lime green pinstripes would be ideal.

Alternatively, I would like a casual outfit consiting of brown leather pants and a matching brown leather jacket (worn without an undershirt) like the one Richard Roundtree wore in "Shaft's Big Score." Alas, I am too fat to pull it off, but maybe someday...

There was actually a men's store in downtown Chicago which sold suits like the one described in the first paragraph. I still sort of regret not buying one. It would be fun to be all pimped out for a weekend. It probably wouldn't work, though. I once bought a shiny, tailored suit and wore it with a shirt with a contrasting collar and a loud tie. It was supposed to make me look like a sleazy con man, but instead I looked like a corn-fed Midwesterner, the outfit didn't change my look in the least. Any effort to don a pimp suit would probably yield the same end result, but one can hope.

Joe,

Clearly you need: http://www.pimphats.com/ecatalog/

Regarding the report on CNN about RE values. They predict 2-3 % drop ? I think that's too precise for RE prices. Median is such a loose indicator. 2-3% up or down means nothing. Even a bum can negotiate that change up/down.

A range of % over a range of months is a much better way to predict IMHO.

Ha Ha you are a fucking idiot. The job you post is very very high level with very specific experience, yet from this you extrapolate that it is a normal position. Fuck you. I for one am so fucking glad you get job offers like this, now perhaps you will finally afford to BUY A FUCKING LIFE.

I don't fucking care how much money you make, to me you are just another fucking maggot living in the ant hill that is the Bay Area. Here's an idea you small minded fuck, why don't you buy a fucking Hummer with you astounding wealth and just print your fucking salary number on the side of it? Maybe then you won't just jack off in the shower or pay hookers when on vacation to Taiwan or Thailand.

Did I mention FUCK YOU?

heres a better idea you fucking moron, do me a favor and calculate your hourly rate, no lying now maggot, use the true 65+hr a week this type of job requires. Ok, I'll do it for you.

52*65=3380

175K/3380=$51/hr

congradulation on your new found wealth. You are a fucking idiot.