Google Asks Booble To Cease And Desist

cosmodemonic writes "The folks at Search Engine Journal have the low-down on a cease and desist order that Google has sent to the porn search engine/Google parody Booble. It seems that, although Booble is claiming to be a parody (which is protected under law), Google is flexing its muscle because of the marketability of the parody." Search Engine Journal makes the reasonable suggestion: "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody."

From the C&D

[Anonymous Coward]

Your web site is a pornographic web site.

That doesn't seem right. It's no more pornographic than google is.

Marketable Parodies?

[MaestroSartori]

Like Spaceballs, Hot Shots, etc? Since when was making money off of a parody such a bad thing, as long as there is no mistaking it for the original?

I hope they lose

[twitter]

As much as I hate porn and as much as I like Google, I value freedom more and hope Google loses. Paradoy DESERVES to make money, it's creative. When you get to the point that reasonable men can dissagree, you have left the realm of imperical fact and entered the world of faith where government should not have a hand. How much creativity is involved with Booble? Close to zero and it's mostly repulsive and it did not come from Google.

Where do you draw the line?

[Talez]

It's one thing to infringe copyright with additional creative material to create a parody.

It's another thing to do a 5 minute knock off of a popular website and stick a giant adult store behind it.

Re:I hope they lose

[tgma]

Well, I agree with you about parody, but there is really nothing creative about this - they've just borrowed the look of Google to create a porn portal.

Unless there is some very subtle joke here, I think that Google have a point. If Booble were using its revenues to say, fund free speech sites which are suppressed (allegedly) by Google in China, then that would represent some sort of statement. I don't see that Booble is making a statement, except that they are cheekily borrowing someone else's artwork to make money. Not exactly mass murder, as crimes go, but trademarks are legally protected for a reason.

Re:Marketable Parodies?

[WegianWarrior]

Since when was making money off of a parody such a bad thing, as long as there is no mistaking it for the original?

The point of the C&D letter, as I read it, is that Google's lawyers don't believe that Booble is a parody - but rahter that they use the "look and feel" of Google on their searchengine. To qoute: "We have recently become aware of your website at http://www.booble.com (the Domain Name). This Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE trademark. Your web site is a pornographic web site. Your web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's website, including Google's trade dress and the GOOGLE logo." and "We note that you have given interviews to the press in which you state that you intended booble.com to be a parody. We dispute your assertion that your website is a parody. For a work to constitute a parody, it must use some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on the original author"s works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569. Your website does not comment on the Google website at all; it merely uses the Google look and feel and a similar name for a search engine.". So, if the Booble site _isn't_ a parody, it's perfecly allright to send them a C&D-letter. If it _is_ a parody, they are protected under free speach.

Question is... who decide if something is a parody or not?

Re:Movies

[JaredOfEuropa]

What about parody movies like space balls? Can Lucas sue them because they made money?

That's not the point, despite the fact that it came up in the article. In the case of Spaceballs, and the parodies by Weird Al for example, the works themselves are the parody. In the Booble case, the content is not intented as a parody but as a 'serious' service that they hope to exploit profitably.

The Booble people hope to capitalise on the marketability of the name; to claim that the name is a parody is a sad excuse. I could, for example, start manufacturing cars, call the company Dorkswagen, and claim that it's 'only a parody of Volkswagen' when challenged about the similarity of the names.

Re:No permanent slashdot link?

[1u3hr]

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be a "search engine". Try searching for likely subjects like "Pamela" and you get NO results. They "suggest" searching for "porn", that gives you a list of rated websites. I'd guess that's the only search that works -- unless anyone has more patience than me wants to try. It's really just a hand-compiled list of porn sites.

Re:Movies

[teridon]

Did you RTFA?

For a work to constitute a parody, it must use some elements of a prior author"s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on the original author"s works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569. Your website does not comment on the Google website at all; it merely uses the Google look and feel and a similar name for a search engine.

SpaceBalls clearly is a new work, and, in part, comments on the original author's works. Does the Booble website make jabs at Google's company practices? Is imitating Google's design a comment?

I'd say Booble's logo, in itself, is a parody. The website, as a whole, is not.

Why this isn't bad

[AltControlsDelete]

I understand that the spate of frivilous and poorly thought out litigation that has swept over the Internet in the past few years has made everyone who appreciates the freedom that the net offers cringe when they see lawsuits and C&Ds like this one. However, Google's concerns don't appear to be unfounded.

The comments that I've seen so far have been quick to point out that parodies such as Spaceballs and Hot Shots! made money and were protected, but the analogy falls down quicky, in my opinion. The Booble site looks exactly like Google, and the only indication (from the front page) that you're not dealing with the same company and the same search technology is the fine print at the bottom of the page that Joe Internet User couldn't read and understand if he wanted to. Going back to the film parody analogy, Booble's parody of Google would be akin to Mel Brooks casting Mark Hammill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: Spaceballs and creating a film that looked and felt like it fit in the series, while providing a small disclaimer at the beginning that it wasn't affiliated with the franchise.

Most litigation and "big guy ordering little guy to C&D" that we see is bad and hurts everybody, but there are still times when it's legitimate. I submit that Google has done what it had to do in this case, and that we shouldn't all immediately run to back the little guy without considering the situation.

Best thing that ever happened to that site

[The I Shing]

I'd never heard of Booble before seeing it in the /. post.

I think that the publicity brought by the C&D letter will probably increase Booble's bottom line to the point where they'll be able to fight it in court. A court fight would bring substantial media attention, and Booble's traffic would increase a hundred-fold.

$$Parody

[Tarwn]

Several posts have questioned the difference between a parody making profit and the site in question. Besides the obvious RTFA, there is a rather large gap between the movies/songs suggested and the site in question.

Parody's are allowed to make money, there is no problem with that. The distinction lies in whether the parody makes money (attention, whatever) due to it's own content or due to the content of it's predecessor. A successful parody uses it's predecessor as a starting point but, in order to be successful paradoy, must have it's own message, generally humor.

Example: Song x makes a few million dollars. As a form of art another artist creates song y based on the original song x. People hear song y on the radio (stream, etc) and decide to buy (download, etc) song y because they like it. Or in simplest terms, they purchase/download/acquire song y due to it's own merits, not necessarally due to the merits of the original.

In the case of the site in question, they have used the notoriety of the original to create business for themselves. They are not creating a commentary or derived work to be successful or not on it's own two feet. The goal of Booble is not to make a commentary/etc on Google, but to use the image of Google to sell their own product. The fact that it is Porn meens nothing, it would be no differant than if I started up a searchsite called Wooble, used a very similar front-end, etc. to search for Small Furry Animals.

I would submit that the closest I have seen to an actual google paradoy would probably be elgoog, though even that would be stretching the definition of parody as I see no real commentary in Elgoog, only nifty "See what I can do"-ity.

Re:Movies

[ajs]

The line I would draw (and this probably intersects the law at exactly zero points) is this: does the new work take market-share away from the original due to the original's name-recognition. If you are really parodying, there should be little or no intersection. If you are labeling a competing product with a recognizable play on the competition's name in order to attract business... well, screw you.

Re:This is Really Bad, people

[polyp2000]

While I agree with much of what you are saying regarding phonetically similar words I think / suspect that there is more at issue here than just the name.

The website is quite clearly designed to look like the google site, and additionally may look like it is affiliated in some way to google (eg froogle and similar google tools). Add that to the nature and content of the site its pretty easy to see that google would be rather annoyed about it.

Contrary to what you are saying I believe people while they may not accidentally go to booble, I do think that the design is so similar it could easily be assumed that it was part of the google repertoire.

nick...

Re:Movies

[Lord Kano]

The Booble people hope to capitalise on the marketability of the name; to claim that the name is a parody is a sad excuse. I could, for example, start manufacturing cars, call the company Dorkswagen, and claim that it's 'only a parody of Volkswagen' when challenged about the similarity of the names.

Legally, I believe you'd have a strong case. Financially you'd be dead in the water. Only a DORK would drive a Dorkswagen.

It follows that people looking for BOOBS would use BOOBLE!

LK

Love Hate

[Malicious]

Amazing how meer days ago, Google was one of the heroes in the war against SCO.

One decision since then has vilified them, and suddenly they are the bad guys trying to restrict our rights and freedoms.

Re:If this is the law now...

[JCCyC]

Not to mention MAD Magazine. Hell, they "profit from the marketability" of parodies since the dawn of time.

Now you're forbidden from telling jokes for money?

MikeRoweSoft

[theslashdude]

I think a good example of this would have been Mike Rowe calling his domain name a parody of the Redmond company.

Trademark Infringement

[Rhett]

This has been decided many times in court. The whole reason that trademarks exist is so that someone can't leech off of the hard work that Google has put into building its brand. Booble can not win this case. Parodies can not be repetitive by nature. You can't start an entire business which is a parody. That said, you may want to check out my porn search engine which doesn't infringe on any trademarks: http://www.igetporn.com [igetporn.com]

Re:Movies

[Murdock037]

didd you see the link at the bottom of booble labeled 'sense of humor'

Labeling the site a parody does not make it so.

This case is fairly cut and dry, but Booble is trying to nudge it into a gray area because of the legal protection and goodwill afforded parodies that they otherwise wouldn't receive.

Unfortunately, this arbitrary label doesn't change the fact that they are a business, looking to profit, and doing so by taking advantage of Google's good name and trademarked logo and design.

If you think Booble is "commenting" on Google, what comment is being made?

If Booble were simply a search engine, I could see some merit in their argument. But as many posters have noted, their search sucks, and is beside the point. The Booble page is a storefront.

It's not a parody

[RdsArts]

A parody is something that pokes fun at the various commonalities of something in a humorous way. It's a original work that makes fun of another original work.

This is someone trying to make a business, and copying the look and feel of another, popular entry in the same arena, slightly changing the name and logo, and then wondering why it's getting in trouble.

Imagine if Pepsi made a new drink called 'Bolt.' It's logo is a large, yellow, metal bolt. That just happens to be be bent a little in the middle. And it's got a whole ton of caffiene. Would that be a 'parody' of Coke's Jolt cola?

Re:I hope they lose

[hkmwbz]

If this is such a great parody and they are not making money by ripping off Google and fooling people, then why do they need to hide the owner of the domain behind a proxy?

There's a thread about this in a webmaster forum frequented by adult webmasters, where someone who seems to represent Booble [gofuckyourself.com] writes:

Thanks for all the kudos... Booble IS a parody, and therefore is protected by the first amendment. And, yes, it makes money. That's part of the joke. We have lawyers, too.

The site IS slow and has been since making the papers around the world. People LOVE this idea. We've been slammed with more traffic than we ever imagined was possible and working around the clock to get our service to where it should be.

So... please do visit us again in the next few days while we get our proverbial act together. Click webmasters on the home page. We'll list any sites with affiliate programs; if you don't have an affiliate program, we'll list you for a link back. Or you can just email me at [e-mail]

PS Domains by proxy is offered to those using Godaddy domain registration services. Very low cost. Very nice way of keeping your business private. Don't know where else you can sign up for their services, which so far have been very useful.

Notice how this guy sounds exactly like a regular adult webmaster, trying anything to squeeze money out of "virgin surfers", as they are referred to in that thread?

If it's just a parody, why is making money part of the joke? Why the lawyers? Why use something resembling Google's public image to make money from affiliate programs? Why use a domain by proxy service?

This whole things stinks of adult webmaster trying to make more money. These are the same people who spam you and assault MSIE users with popups and other crap. This is not a parody. It is a massicve publicity move to get hits on the site, to make money from it, and then get the fuck out, as someone in the above thread says.

Autoparodics

[Doc Ruby]

Google is effectively claiming that people are confusing Booble with the original Google, when they search for porn, so Booble is competing with Google and diluting Google's trademark. So Google is claiming the porn search business as essential to their brand image. Not exactly the best ammunition to hand the sniping Microsoft as the search war heats up again, with a Google IPO coming down the pipe.

Does this Google defense demonstrate a new defense from satire fair use? If my website also publishes a weak self parody, can't I just claim that any otherwise legit mockery is unfair competition for my satire customers, and an illegal dilution of my brand? This is better than a "poison pill" to thwart a hostile equity takeover: it's an acid tab to thwart journalists!

profit clause is scary

[ignoramous]

The problem I have with this article has nothing to do with pr0n or google specifically. What disturbs me most is the clause that "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody." I think it could be proven that literally EVERBODY who has ever parodied anything popular has profited from the parody. Weird Al could get his skin sued off according to this rule, and I like Weird Al!