CUNY central is still reading the blog and has sent another letter (embedded below) regarding the blog's name.
The removal of the school's logo and the addition of the disclaimer was not enough for CUNY's general counsel. In the letter they sent yesterday, they said we had 10 days to change the name of the blog to something that "does not create the misimpression that it is an official communication of CUNY or the law school. Just as in the last letter, this one suggests "CUNY Law Student's Blog." If we do not change the name, the letter says they will take action to protect their trademark and report us to google.
To quote from the last post on this issue: "[I]n the spirit of community and transparency, we leave it up to the CUNY Law community at-large to decide the issue of any name change. To weigh in on the subject, please either (1) post a comment to this blog, (2) email cunylawblog@gmail.com, (3) stop in the hallway or email or leave a note in the mailboxes of student group leaders, student government members or CUNY Law Blog contributors, or (4) chime in on the new poll located at the bottom of the right column on this blog."
So, what do you think?
Posts
The Harlem Community & Academic Partnership (HCAP), Manhattan HIV Care
Network, East Harlem Community Health Committee Inc., Human Services
Consortium of E...
2 months ago
26 comments:
I wonder why they are so concerned about this complainant's complaint? If the complainant had been injured or if ANYONE had thought that the comment in question was really from that person I suppose the CUNY lawyers would have a more sympathetic audience here.
Intellectual property is theft. Let's reestablish the commons.
That said...The danger is that Google will pull the plug the instant they get a letter from a lawyer, much less a whole building full of lawyers.
So admin will probably win, but you can drag it out. My advice: back up everything, save all the member info (I mean the names and emails of the people that have posted to email and let them know the new site when the old one is offline), then make CUNY admin be the bad guy.
Which they evidently desire to be.
Then keep up the new site while continuing to agitate procedurally through Google for the old one. I wonder what those hearings will be like and what evidentiary rules will be in play?
As for the re-name query:
How about just inserting a negative into the current name:
-CUNY Law Not Blog
-unCUNY Law Blog
-CUNY Low Blog
-CUNY Lawdy Blog
-CUNY Lady Blog
and on and on.
In the name of all that was good and decent about the resistance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Thomas Paine and Mahatma Gandhi do not change the name of the blog!
The CUNY Law bloggers are our contemporary revolutionaries. They have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of tyranny over the mind of man. These bonds of fascist oppression levied by the CUNY administration must be shed if we are able to flourish and be free.
"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act by which one class overthrows another." -Chairman Mao Zedong
Just put 'unofficial' in the name and save everyone time and trouble. The administration is wrong on this, but do you really want to spend time fighting with google over nothing?
Not Lesley Berson
I assure you, Dan really does want to spend time fighting with Google over nothing.
He is a terror.
Blog about CUNY Law
As long as you keep calling it the CUNY Law Blog, you'll always have at least one reader: the CUNY hatchet man making sure you don't drag the school's reputation through the mud.
So for the sake of your readership, keep the name.
Who knows, maybe google will keep the blog up. I'll definitely keep looking to this blog for the concerns of CUNY students, no matter what the name ends up being.
They're being twits, for sure...but, they'll win. The law and google will be on their side.
What about CUNITY Blog: A blog about CUNY School of Law
Keep the name. Ridiculous.
Unless...you can name it after the law school I hope to develop, which will only be known by the acronym-
NFCL. (Not f***ing CUNY Law.)
This could be the NFCL blog.
the disclaimer is sufficient. don't change the name!
let the issue go to google/court. i fail to see the theft of intellectual property in this instance. who owns the name: admin, staff, faculty, students? are we not CUNY?
i would leave the name. who in their right mind would think that this is run by the school? anyone want to do some prelim research regarding any claims we might have?
-megan
You could say "the unofficial blog of cuny law school" or "a blog for cuny law students." There is a CUNY Law Facebook site and MySpace group which seems to be up and running fine. What about the CLAWS- the CUNY Law band. Have they gotten letters from CUNY counsel? You'd think they they'd have better things t'do.
-Lee
I support the CUNY Law Blog keeping its present name. The most cursory review of the site reveals that it is not being run by the institution.
The CUNY Law Blog has quickly become a useful clearinghouse of information regarding myriad administrative issues. I hope it does not fold in response to bureaucratic saber-rattling.
Leave the name. The disclaimer should ease any concerns the administration has RE: misimpression of official communication of CUNY or the law school.
I think before making a decision, the wisest thing to do is research the law. Surely there are some IP people who could give some insight and advice Why risk personal liability without full knowledge of the law?
Here's some beginning research, which seems like you might not be in much risk.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_sued_for_trademark_infringement_on_third_level_subdomain/
Oh, the link didn't come up...but google "Jews for Jesus v. Google". There is no precedent for third-level domains and copyright infringement, so if this did go to court it'd be a case of first impression.
In the Jews for Jesus case, the blogger had a blog called "Jewsforjesus.blogspot.com." It was a site critical of the organization and also had a prominent disclaimer stating it was not in any way affiliated with the org. Ultimately the parties settled - the terms are unknown, but the Jews for Jesus now owns the site.
So, who knows what the law actually is...but, they'd likely sue Google and not you. And who knows if Google would pull your blog or not. Or whether they'd end up settling too.
I believe that it is the right of the CUNY Law community, representing thousands of students, faculty, staff, administrators, alumni and friends, to maintain an outlet for expression and transparency in the CUNY Law Blog. I consider these harassing letters nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate the CUNY Law community and to stifle its voice. It is no secret that this Blog has begun to demand a new level of transparency and accountability within the school and given a strong voice to the downtrodden and voiceless (e.g. babies) within our community. As such, my vote is to keep the CUNY Law Blog name.
I'm a firm supporter of maintaining the name. The blog embodies the mission upon which the school was built and there has been a consistent attack on that. When deciding whether or not to do something, I always ask myself WWHBD? (what would haywood burns do?). I think we all know the answer to that one with regard to the CUNY Law Blog.
cunylawblog@gmail.com received the following emailed message:
The blog is not for commercial use and it is not for profit. It falls within the scope of fair use under the trademark law. The school has no ground to compel the blog change name.
The fair use defense if it is to be successful must meet the following requirements: (1) the author's use of the mark must accurately describe the trademark owner's product or service; (2) the author must use the mark in a non-trademark manner and not as a source identifier of the author's work; and (3) the author's use must be in good faith.
The following linkage provides a basic explanation of fair use doctrine, though not complete.
http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html
Exactly how much expression are we entitled to under the Constitution these days . . . ?
I would support the title, "CUNY Law Students' Blog" if the group collectively decides to change the name. However, I would be interested in hearing CUNY's argument as to why the previous efforts (removing the logo and providing a disclaimer) were not quite enough.
It would appear that removing the logo (which is clearly their mark), and providing a disclaimer that the comments are not those of the law school would be sufficient. Additionally, the blog is on Gmail and not a cuny.edu site which also distinguishes it from the school since anyone can blog on Gmail, but only authorized users can post at cuny.edu.
Hypothetically speaking, if a person puts a CUNY banner in their car window and then robs a bank would that tarnish the CUNY mark? Would it be associated with the school to such a degree that the school would have to disclaim association with the felon? I doubt it. I really don't see the blog as being far different. Blogs are a venue for subjective expression, and we are CUNY Law students who are entitled to blog if we choose (just as a robber is entitled to drive around with a CUNY banner in his window even if he's not a CUNY student.) While the blog seems to be sufficiently attenuated from CUNY such that a sophisticated user would not conflate it as belonging to the school, adding "students" would not unreasonable, but it also does not seem to be necessary.
With that said, I do not believe that CUNY will have success trying to bully Google to take action against the blog. The government sued Google a few years ago because Google refused to provide it with a list of its users when subpoenaed. The government had been sued by the ACLU for allegedly violating privacy rights, and they wanted to defend by using Google's information (although they made no specific information request, and instead were asking for a blank check to probe.) Google fought the suit in order to protect the privacy of its users, and was one of the only search engines that did so. What exactly will CUNY "report" to Google: that "CUNY Law students" are blogging and calling themselves "cunylawblog"? If Google reviews the site it will: (1) see the disclaimer, and (2) not see the trademark or anything similar to the trademark.
In order to make a trademark claim for dilution, the blog would have to be "using" the mark which is not the case here. Even in the event that CUNY is able to convince a court that the name "cunylawblog" somehow infringes upon their trademark as "CUNY Law School," the law makes it clear that all forms of news reporting and news commentary fail to constitute dilution. A blog could reasonably be considered as news commentary (minus, of course a major news outlet like NBC, CNN, etc.)
A few have suggested that the site use the term "unofficial." I'm not a fan of using the term "unofficial" because it seems to devalue the contributions made on the site. The site represents official comments after all.
If your serious about avoiding confusion, the disclaimer would sit next to the title at the top. And since when did this become a "well, you have to read the fine print!" kind of school? Most students are in favor of shedding light on all areas of society; from government abuse to the injustice rampant in our City.
By clandestinely draping this blog over the entire community as if it represents the students, the school or anyone but the creators and those who choose to participate is solipsism at its worst. It's not surprising, given this generation's ego obsession-see Facebook, MySpace, etc.-but it is laughable for future professionals.
It is no more appropriate to name this blog the "CUNY Law Blog" or the "CUNY Law Students Blog" than it would be for an owner of a grocery business patronized by a dozen CUNY students in Brooklyn, "The CUNY Law Grocery Store."
If you want a suggestion on a name change, how about this: "Dan Monihan's Monument to Himself and Like-Minded Individuals and General Space to Tell People to Fuck Off."
Anonymous, you are right, the disclaimer should be at the top. After reading the comment i put the disclaimer at the top and added "Created to serve as an information clearinghouse and outlet for community expression at CUNY Law. Enjoy!" under the title. I hope these changes once again illustrate that the blog is not meant to represent the university or the entire student body.
Thanks for the suggestions!
"By clandestinely draping this blog over the entire community as if it represents the students ..."
Are you kidding? There's a disclaimer. On the front page. Under the heading 'disclaimer.' That isn't very clandestine.
Perhaps most frustrating with "this generation" is the brazen hypocrisy of those who feel free to hop onto the internets to sling mud at other individuals anonymously. Positions of every bent tend to carry more weight when their drafters have the rocks to sign their names to them. -- Liz Boylan
Liz, et. al, you are absolutely right. I would like to out myself as a previous anonymous poster who said they were going to start their own law school...
keep the name, what the hell.
Post a Comment