Facebook: De"face"ing the internet
- Thread starter Empireth
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So why would it this matter to anyone on a day to day basis? Sure it'll prevent anyone from creating a forum or other social networking concept with the the word Face, but it won't mean anything to people simply chatting. For example, I could talk about any brand name I want in a chat room or forum (Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Wal-Mart etc...) and none of them are going to sue me for using their names. This is not quite how copyrights and trademarks work.
You're not banned from using the word in conversation (which is what language is used for 99% of the time), it simply becomes illegal to market a product with the name attached to it. And to be fair, the word Face as a prefix has become synonymous with Facebook in the context of a company name. I simply don't see why I should care that a company is copyrighting a word so that other people can't create a business by piggybacking on Facebook's success.
This has more in common with how you don't see other fast-food chains with Mc as a prefix, even though it's perfectly common in proper names.
You're not banned from using the word in conversation (which is what language is used for 99% of the time), it simply becomes illegal to market a product with the name attached to it. And to be fair, the word Face as a prefix has become synonymous with Facebook in the context of a company name. I simply don't see why I should care that a company is copyrighting a word so that other people can't create a business by piggybacking on Facebook's success.
This has more in common with how you don't see other fast-food chains with Mc as a prefix, even though it's perfectly common in proper names.
Facebook needs to face the fact that face is a common word. This level of idiocy makes me want to slap the owner in the face. I mean face it, everything uses the word "face". You can face something, you have a face, clocks have a face, animals have a face, you have to face the consequences.
This material is entirely worthy of a facepalm.
[HEADING=1]Face![/HEADING]
This material is entirely worthy of a facepalm.
[HEADING=1]Face![/HEADING]
I am aware that the rights would mainly be towards "Face(something)" company names. I've also said face so many times now that it no longer has any meaning. It just sounds weird.
Did you read my edit at all? Or my replies to the others?Zekksta said:
I was exaggerating to point out the ridiculousness of this situation.
Got it?
To quote my edit: "However, that doesn't take away from the fact that trademarking the word "face" would limit quite a lot of other companies from using it. Face is a common word, it would significantly impact business markets to have that no longer accessible to them."
And you're simply looking at the here-and-now aspect. Sure, it won't affect you personally, but the fact is, they're trying to lay claim to the rights to using a common word for their company and only their company. As this behaviour raises in popularity, more and more companies will follow suit. It will get to a point where many major words are simply owned by the big corporations and the smaller businesses will suffer.
That's exactly what it is. As I seem to need to keep restating, the original post was exaggeration of the problem. Why? Because it might not affect you now, but if this goes through, a company will now own a major word in the English language. "Guild Wars", "Bad Company" - those are phrases. Facebook is looking to trademark a word. Sure, "Battlefield" is a word as well, but I somehow doubt it is used nearly as often as "face".Vrach said:
First off: Would it kill you to snip a post that massive? Now that I've got that out of the way, I shall move on:Spot1990 said:
I shall admit, "The" is the weaker part in the "The Escapist" example. However, I was working with a previous example already brought up by another user. My point was, in using that, was that "escapist" is not nearly as popular a term as "face". It wouldn't show the magnitude of how other companies would be affected. "The," however, is a lot more popular than "escapist" and is more likely to be used and affect companies were it trademarked.
Face is not necessarily associated with Facebook. Haven't you heard other people refer to that site as "Creepbook," "Stalkbook," etc? They don't need to mention "face" for you to understand what site they're referring to.
'that's why they're not trying to trademark "book".' Again, did you read the edit in my OP? It appears you didn't. Facebook is also going after "book". This has been made apparent especially with Teachbook.com. Teachbook was created to help share "lesson plans, instructional videos, and online courses" with teacher all around the world. They are not trying to be a knock-off of Facebook. Yet they're still in legal trouble [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7967323/Facebook-sues-Teachbook-over-name-similarity.html].
And I will admit I had been questioning the New Life example, myself. You're right, it doesn't work.
Yet, FaceCash was listed in my source... Though, the quote that was given '"transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter," [in online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards].'WrongSprite said:
doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be for social networking.
What about PlaceBook [http://blog.triptrace.com/press/placebook/]? They were not trying to be a knock-off of Facebook. Heck, they didn't even have a social component to their site. They were merely "a website full of books about location ? there were EcoBooks and TravelBooks and Fitness Books, Address Books, Scrapbooks" [courtesy of their blog, linked above]. And yet, Facebook demanded they change their name.
That's a point! It has been done. However, it seems to be getting more and more common. Think about how, fifty years from now, so many companies will lay claim to common words. I do not envy entrepreneurs in that time.Ldude893 said:
I'm not trying to be anti-establishment. I completely agree that Facebook should be trademarked. It's when it starts getting down to simply words. Common words, at that. It's the limitations that will be set in place for new companies many years down the line that concerns me. I am, you could say, concerned for the welfare of establishments yet to be established.Generic Gamer said:
But no, they're not just trying to save imitations. See above about PlaceBook.
[sup][sup]Also: Congrats on your 3000th post.[/sup][/sup]
No, not misinterpretation, exaggeration. Difference.Sud0_x said:
Though, it does bring out the amount of people that seem unable to read. (I'm omitting those who posted before my edit in this statement.)
Oh, it doesn't matter to people who are simply self-involved and are only concerned about what affects them on a day-to-day basis. You could quite simply ignore this fact and continue on your merry life, until you decide to make a company twenty-three years from now and you realize that the common words you wish to include in your company name have all been trademarked by other companies, following Facebook's example.JamesBr said:
I'm merely concerned with what would happen if so many companies do decide to follow their lead and trademark the vast majority of common terms.
You're completely free to ignore this issue, though.
I don't think people understand what copyrighting and trademarking is. You can't make money from their trademark. Coca Cola or Pepsi or MacDonalds aren't about to sue me because I namedropped their trademark. If I opened a shop, and sold my own product called "Coca Cola", then I would be breaking the law. It's not even that absolute, it varies from country to country. For example, there is a shop in London called Disney, which is a furniture shop, and plenty of hookey Wetherspoons and Lloyds bars in Spain and suchlike.
EDIT: I realise I'm late with this opinion
EDIT: I realise I'm late with this opinion
Well basically this is just to stop other social networking/messages sites and services form trying to leech off facebook's success which is fair enough. This does not mean the word face will be banned from internet use well at least yet.
I would just do what everyone else is doing and post the word face as many times as possible but I really don't think this is reinforceable in any meaningful fashion. How would they claim the money? What makes people pay? Why should I, a Brit, pay an American company with an American trademark for an English word?
It's just some nonsense company-based thing, and if it's not then that's what it'll turn into because there is no way this will affect normal people.
It's just some nonsense company-based thing, and if it's not then that's what it'll turn into because there is no way this will affect normal people.
I think you might be getting mixed up between the website Empireth linked to [http://www.triptrace.com/], now TripTrace due to the threat of litigation, and Placebook Scotland [http://www.placebookscotland.com/], an entirely separate website that does indeed sound like what you're saying. TripTrace is essentially just organising/listing the details and bookings of places you have been or will be going to. It is nothing like Facebook. Maps, bookings, budgetting and hotel details as opposed to photographs and videos. There appears to be very little of a social aspect to it, if any at all.Generic Gamer said:
All I'm saying is that if you opened a fast food joint and called it Mc_____ you would get sued by McDick's and rightly so, due to brand name association. Although I agree that the criteria they are setting forth are vague and should be more specific (eg: not using the word Face as a prefix in the name of a social networking site), I do not disagree with copyrighting the word Face in the proper context. This doesn't make me self-involved, this just means I don't agree with you 100%. Nor do I agree with the Facebook 100%. They are in perfectly within their rights to avoid brand name association by copyrighting Face, they are wrong in the vagaries of their definition under which the word is copyrighted.Empireth said:
I do understand what you are saying, but note that you have just inadvertently called this system - one that seems to me to be more akin to a cross between Google Maps and a hotel chain website than to Facebook - "similar" to it. That's casting a very wide net. Most websites that allow accounts to be created have some rudimentary form of social networking and media sharing by now, even if it is not their main purpose. Does this constitute a violation of the trademark if their name includes 'face'? I can't help but wonder where the line is drawn, because one or two of the examples given in the thread look like they should be/have been on the other side of it, reasonably speaking. Their only similarities to Facebook are that all are companies with a website as their service and a similar name.Generic Gamer said:
You see, Apple is a bad example. Broadly speaking, they make computer and digital equipment. They create and market several defined lines of products. Any company with a similar name and purpose are in the wrong. Facebook, however, is a social networking website. That is their purpose. The fact that they can successfully threaten websites designed for other things is strange. To use your example, it would be as if you founded a book publishing company called Appletree. Or, I don't know, Sapple. You get the idea.
Going to court is a long and costly process for both parties, and few small groups can last against a giant company like Facebook. Correct or not, it's likely a more pragmatic choice to change the name even with the smallest chance of losing.
