I think I'll start a dingleberry page and plaster Orca's fat ass all over it.
Attorney General Madigan Files Suit Against local affiliate marketer
- Thread starter pocketrockets
- Start date
I think I'll start a dingleberry page and plaster Orca's fat ass all over it.
They're pissed at people bidding on her the oprah keyword? Wouldn't she want her visitors interested in the very products she featured?!!?! They're pissed that people used a few photographs from Google images, so they copyrighted them on 7/23/2009 - 7/27/2009 last month and now they're suing? Unpublished works are copyrighted too so... Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They have no statistics... so how many users actually viewed the advertisement? What's with the ridiculous dates on the Acai landing pages, July 2005? 2003? Acai wasn't even around in 2003... Am I missing something what do those dates mean under the landing pages? Some of those dates are blatantly false. Harpo isn't going to get shit.
The retardation of this suit is stunning. ahahahh, Harpo pwned itself so hard they need to chill on WF more.
As much as I don't mind pushing rebill offers, your living in a dream world if you think they are not on solid legal ground. The affliates and merchants are the ones that are about to get owned. Guaranteed.
They had it coming so they are completely at fault. Should be a wakeup call for others to not be so lazy swiping everyones landers and actually do something creative.
the popularity of resveratrol and acai was what really caused all of this. News papers were featuring it all the time it they were both pretty huge outside of the AM world. yah they are but it's not a very scary case because what the pubs did isn't all that scary
If the charges regarding the BS about TMs in meta tags and PPC SE bidding are allowed to go through without challenge, then that's going to be a pretty crappy legal precedant for anyone doing biz online in the future.
"Hey, I'm on the first page of Google for "Nikon Coolpix" - looks like all that SEO work paid off!"
"Congratulations - we'll see you in court."
Harpo is venturing into uncharted territory with these specific charges.
"Hey, I'm on the first page of Google for "Nikon Coolpix" - looks like all that SEO work paid off!"
"Congratulations - we'll see you in court."
Harpo is venturing into uncharted territory with these specific charges.
If you do that on the "More Sponsored Results" page, yes, that is what happens. That can even show ads that have been paused for a few days, containing your search term in their ad text (and not necessarily bidding on it).
Well played, I learned something new today. Of course, that's only google .. the msn & yahoo were screenshots of serps.
I just tested it on about a dozen snippets I knew to be in ad copy and got one that returned the match in the ad copy for a site that I didn't find in sponsored results bidding on the word.
From that quick test, it doesn't seem to work that way all the time, but it is possible to find ads that way. Perhaps it's not for all of your adcopy, just your top performing one?
some of the news releases said teeth whitening was also included but I don't see any of those offers above??
Here's how I think the liability will fall:
(for shady rebills/scam offers)
1. company selling product
2. affiliate
3. ad network (should be #2)
4. medium to serve ad
For deceptive marketing/cybersquatting/TM & IP infringement:
it pretty much lies with the affiliate unless the company is also doing it on their website. But some of this is very grey of what is acceptable or not ...
interesting to see how this will play out ...
at one point in time nearly all advertiers had Oprah's face on their checkout pages.
Nearly all resv checkout pages had this (except now Dr. Oz).
I know we are not lawyers...but is it really a trademark infringement to simply say a product was seen on o*p*r*a*h or as seen on C*N*N, etc? Particularly if it is a true statement. Really takes away from any honest journalistic elements one might be trying to include in a review.
