• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

captainamericacomics

Started by chunkybutt,

33 posts in this topic

chunkybutt

chunkybutt

Posted
Posted

I am considering trading for this domain that is for sale in gold/silver/bronze section.

 

I need legal advise from someone who knows, could I be introuble for owning a domain set-up the same way he has it now?

 

Could I add links and other cool stuff without getting trouble.

 

The dude seems legit and is willing to accept 1 Timely issue for the domain.....I think $300-$500 would be worth it.

 

What do you guys think?

 

I posted this in CG because I know I will get lots of opinions.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I am considering trading for this domain that is for sale in gold/silver/bronze section.

 

I need legal advise from someone who knows, could I be introuble for owning a domain set-up the same way he has it now?

 

Could I add links and other cool stuff without getting trouble.

 

The dude seems legit and is willing to accept 1 Timely issue for the domain.....I think $300-$500 would be worth it.

 

What do you guys think?

 

I posted this in CG because I know I will get lots of opinions.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Personally, I think the name has little commercial value. If you attempted to use it for a commercial purpose you may run into issues with the rights holder. In this case the rights holder has the resources of a multi billion dollar corporation. Even if they aren't right, they'll win by attrition.

 

So as long as don't plan on disparaging the character, harming the value of the property, and just want it for kicks it might be ok, but I wouldn't get too attached to it if the legal department at Disney is feeling saucy one day.

 

They may never bother you, but who knows. I wouldn't give up anything I cared about.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
curious,who is the "rights holder"? And what exact rights does he/she own?

 

 

No idea, but they are out there.

 

If I had to guess, I would say they are led by a mouse and their name rhymes with "Bisney".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whomerjay

whomerjay

Posted
Posted
curious,who is the "rights holder"? And what exact rights does he/she own?

 

 

No idea, but they are out there.

 

If I had to guess, I would say they are led by a mouse and their name rhymes with "Bisney".

 

 

And what "rights" do they own? The question really is how can money be made off a site like this, and how much. It seems that if revenue streams like ads can be placed on a site that would only be a positive to whomever these "right holders" are, decent $ could be made given this domain name would draw a lot of hits by design or by accident. Does anyone who has/has had a similar experience know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark 1

Mark 1

Posted
Posted

I would think the issue is the comics part. If it was www.captainamericacollectables.com maybe they can get away with it.

 

Comics is clearly an infringement. In my opinion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
curious,who is the "rights holder"? And what exact rights does he/she own?

 

 

No idea, but they are out there.

 

If I had to guess, I would say they are led by a mouse and their name rhymes with "Bisney".

 

 

And what "rights" do they own? The question really is how can money be made off a site like this, and how much. It seems that if revenue streams like ads can be placed on a site that would only be a positive to whomever these "right holders" are, decent $ could be made given this domain name would draw a lot of hits by design or by accident. Does anyone who has/has had a similar experience know?

 

 

The question is, how much money do people have to defend themselves against a corporation that could file documents and letters in court for a year, and run a site owner through the wringer, and never notice it on their bottom line?

 

If rights holders are willing to give a C&D to an artist they already employ, who's putting out positive images of their character in a print or a sketch book when they aren't printing more than 100 prints or a 1,000 sketchbooks, why would they do less to someone they don't know, don't employ and don't indirectly profit from.

 

Like I said, if it's a non commercial site I don't see a problem. If you try to make money off of the name, it's muddier. Ambiguity can get expensive, regardless of who is "technically" right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted
curious,who is the "rights holder"? And what exact rights does he/she own?

 

 

No idea, but they are out there.

 

If I had to guess, I would say they are led by a mouse and their name rhymes with "Bisney".

 

 

And what "rights" do they own? The question really is how can money be made off a site like this, and how much. It seems that if revenue streams like ads can be placed on a site that would only be a positive to whomever these "right holders" are, decent $ could be made given this domain name would draw a lot of hits by design or by accident. Does anyone who has/has had a similar experience know?

 

You wouldn't have to make any money off this website for them to send you a cease-and-desist. Fox attacked every X-Files fan website years ago in what was (if I recall correctly) the first mass-shutdown of unauthorized use of a licensed property.

 

For the most part, people who put up Captain America (or any other character) sites are allowed to do so because Marvel probably deems it too expensive and detrimental to their public image to order them offline.

 

The rights holder to the name Captain America and his likeness pretty much dictate how, when and where that likeness can appear. If you make an interesting, fun site, that would be cool - and it may go one infinitely - but you just need to know going into it, that you are using a URL that uses someone else's licensed property in the name and may be asked to stop at any given point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted
so it's something of a gamble, although sounds like you can fly under the radar long enough to make some $.

 

Ethically, a person shouldn't want to make money off someone else's licensed properties, but if you get past that - then, yes - you'd be doing it until someone caught you and ordered you to stop.

 

However, you'd have a much better chance doing a "fanpage" type of website, as those tend to be innocuous because they aren't cashing in on the property. Like I said, it could go on forever or it could go on for six months - there's no way of knowing for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whomerjay

whomerjay

Posted
Posted
so it's something of a gamble, although sounds like you can fly under the radar long enough to make some $.

 

Ethically, a person shouldn't want to make money off someone else's licensed properties, but if you get past that - then, yes - you'd be doing it until someone caught you and ordered you to stop.

 

 

I don't think it's that black and white. All along I thought we were discussing the legal issues with the assumption that there wasn't necessarily an ethical basis for the legal "rights" to everything related to Captain America. Because big companies go overboard in protecting their rights, for various reasons. Like with the Barbie domain story.

 

I understand why property needs to be licensed to protect what are legimate rights. However, I imagine there's a way to run his site that makes money and doesn't infringe on what should be the legitimate rights of whoever created Captain America. Where exactly that line is I don't know, and whatever positon one takes is obviously dictated by their fundamental position on intellectual or licensed property.

 

There are multiple ad absurdum examples where one might argue that any type of allusion to a character infringes on the rights owner. One example not so absurd is art of a character made and sold but not sold by the rights owner. So my point is regardless of what the legal rights are and the practical issues associated with potentially encroaching on rights of licensed property owners, the ethical issues can be fuzzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing