Celebrity name domains

[March2008]

I have three celebrity domain names (3 of the very biggest female celebrities), in dot com, they have newish websites on them (as fan sites) great traffic, but are not earning a great deal. I've never had any problems with them.

My question is: How to I sell them without advertising the domain name? (for obvious reasons).

I started out with an automated custom script in lots of niches and now I know what works for me I would like to offload those niches that I no longer want. These celebrity sites are sites in a niche that I no longer want. I don't want to sell the sites, just offload the domain names.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[EnricoSchaefer]

I have three celebrity domain names (3 of the very biggest female celebrities), in dot com, they have newish websites on them (as fan sites) great traffic, but are not earning a great deal. I've never had any problems with them.

Dude: You are cybersquatting and exposing yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages under law. Worse yet, you give the industry a bad name and hurt all other domainers by intentionally (apparently fully aware of the law) engaging in unlawful cybersquatting.

Celebrity Cybersquatting: Why Don't Famous People Protect Their Domain Names?

Personal, Celebrity, Politician and Proper Names Protected Under Cybersquatting Act

My advice is the clean up your act, recognize that you hurt the domaining industry and other legitimate domainers when you engage in intentional squatting. This forum is not, as I understand it, a place to get advice on how to knowingly engage in illegal activity.

Oh, and let the domains lapse. They aren't doing much revenue by your own admission. Why would you steal .25 cent candy bars from the corner store? The risk does not seem worth the reward.

 

[March2008]

Thanks for your comments.

I know that now, not when I got them, I'm not proud that I have them.

Kind regards.

 

[EnricoSchaefer]

Cool. I vote dump them. If you go to sell them, you are just providing more evidence of bad faith. Good luck ....

 

[jdk]

He never stated he was trying to sell them to the celebrity. I believe he was asking how to get rid of them without letting them expire to recoop his fees back. There is nothing wrong with one trying to learn about the industry on a forum by asking questions nor should comments be made about whether or not this forum is promoting illegal activities. Let's not forget about typo's, trademarks, and other names that are sold here.

My advice is do not give any lawyer on any forum your domain names when asking for advice. We all know lawyers go around to different forums looking for these types of names being posted and go after them. It is up to you whether or not you want to hold them and create fansites or hand them over. You can even take the the proactive approach and contact the celebrity rep's and see if they have any interest in the name instead of letting it expire. Who knows, they may just reward you for doing a good deed.

 

[March2008]

Thanks jdk, your input is appreciated.

They do have fan sites on them.

As I mentioned before, I have a custom automated script that is great for some niches and crap in others so I would like to offload these celebrity sites, my gambling domains and my porn domains and concentrate on the niches that are working for me. I don't want to sell the script.

I've not decided whether or not to contact any reps, whether to let them drop or whether to just sit on them and see what happens, they are making money and have thousands of hits a month, just not as much as my other niches.

Kind regards.

 

[RustyK]

Dude: You are cybersquatting and exposing yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages under law. Worse yet, you give the industry a bad name and hurt all other domainers by intentionally (apparently fully aware of the law) engaging in unlawful cybersquatting.

Celebrity Cybersquatting: Why Don't Famous People Protect Their Domain Names?

Personal, Celebrity, Politician and Proper Names Protected Under Cybersquatting Act

My advice is the clean up your act, recognize that you hurt the domaining industry and other legitimate domainers when you engage in intentional squatting. This forum is not, as I understand it, a place to get advice on how to knowingly engage in illegal activity.

Oh, and let the domains lapse. They aren't doing much revenue by your own admission. Why would you steal .25 cent candy bars from the corner store? The risk does not seem worth the reward.

I'm not challenging your expertise but just recently the domain name, www.George WBushLibrary.com was in the news. What's your thoughts on this?.

 

[jdk]

I'm not challenging your expertise but just recently the domain name, www.George WBushLibrary.com was in the news. What's your thoughts on this?.

It's on his site. I don't know if he wrote it or if it is getting refults from a feed.

http://tcattorney.typepad.com/domainnamedispute/2008/12/understand-your.html

 

[RustyK]

Thanks Doug

 

[EnricoSchaefer]

contact the celebrity rep's and see if they have any interest in the name instead of letting it expire.

Not worth the risk. Telling them who you have registered the names just puts you in harms way. Most people are cool about it, but you never know if you are going to run into someone who wants to make and example. You are better off letting them expire. Remember, there is significant financial liability to owning celebrity names which have enjoyed some level of revenue, even if you have stopped generating revenue. You can't un-ring the liability bell. Also, the concept that there are lawyers who will use the bbs system against you is pretty remote. If you send a private email to any lawyer (as opposed to a public post with no expectation of privacy) for advice, everything you say is confidential and privileged. They would not disclose the information since they would be disbarred for doing so.

 

[Fatbat]

Remember, there is significant financial liability to owning celebrity names which have enjoyed some level of revenue, even if you have stopped generating revenue.

Have you got some specific examples of people who have had to pay liability for profiting off a celebrity's name? There's certainly no shortage of fan sites out there that have some form of a celeb's name in them, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this and do not feel it is in any way "giving the industry a bad name" unless of course they are slanderous or defaming (if those are the right terms).

If your goal is to simply run a fan site and not try to extort said celebrity for their domain then I don't see what the problem is. You could go one step further and contact these people to seek their permission to run an "official fansite", or alternatively, if they get uppity about it, just offer to transfer them their domains. No bad faith then.

 

[dvdrip]

This is a domainer forum. Please let other domainers to say if they are offended by his actions.
Also you are accusing him of being a cybersquater without knowing all the facts. Is this how you give advice to your clients?

Dude: You are cybersquatting and exposing yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages under law. Worse yet, you give the industry a bad name and hurt all other domainers by intentionally (apparently fully aware of the law) engaging in unlawful cybersquatting.

Celebrity Cybersquatting: Why Don't Famous People Protect Their Domain Names?

Personal, Celebrity, Politician and Proper Names Protected Under Cybersquatting Act

My advice is the clean up your act, recognize that you hurt the domaining industry and other legitimate domainers when you engage in intentional squatting. This forum is not, as I understand it, a place to get advice on how to knowingly engage in illegal activity.

Oh, and let the domains lapse. They aren't doing much revenue by your own admission. Why would you steal .25 cent candy bars from the corner store? The risk does not seem worth the reward.

 

[jberryhill]

This is a domainer forum. Please let other domainers to say if they are offended by his actions.
Also you are accusing him of being a cybersquater without knowing all the facts. Is this how you give advice to your clients?

It's the legal section of a domainer forum, and nobody is stopping anyone else from sharing their thoughts.

Furthermore, things posted here by attorneys are not "advice to [their] clients", and cannot be. For one thing, client advice is confidential, which a forum posting cannot be. For another thing, there can be a large constellation of facts that can influence the outcome in any particular situation. In an actual counseling situation, an attorney can get to the determinative facts, which are often not considered significant by the person seeking advice. The vast majority of postings here do not include enough facts to make any reliable determination of anything, but it is worthwhile to remind folks, "Hey, you can get into real trouble if the facts aren't on your side."

And, yes, it is largely a "domainer" forum and not so much of a "developer" forum. There are all sorts of contexts in which the general notion of "making money from a celebrity name" might be a fair use, e.g. New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).

However, for the purposes of this forum, which largely consists of participants seeking broad-based binary decisions of the type "is this okay?", and in the absence of a totality facts and potential nuances of a particular situation, you might as well flip a coin.

The other thing which is important here is that the attorneys who participate here do so on their own time and, most importantly, using their real names.

On a given question, you might get all sorts of answers from "DomainPimp", "TypoMonger" or any other number of folks who have the luxury of not being identified with the comments they post here.

It's pretty clear that quite often Eric, Brett, Enrico, Marco, and other attorneys who post here may have a different take on the usually vague kinds of questions that are posted in the forum, but whether we all agree, or whether you agree with any of us, is not a reason for telling anyone else not to share their opinion.

 

[dvdrip]

I am sorry but it's the first time I see a lawyer in here saying those things especially so much out of context. Look at what March2008 asked. Is EnricoSchaefer's reply to the question or something completely different?

There is very thin line for lawyers in this forum and he crossed it with remarks like "Dude: You are cybersquatting", "you give the industry a bad name and hurt all other domainers by intentionally", and "intentional squatting".

As for the lawyers here... You participate for the same reason we all participate. To learn things, share opinions and make money. Sorry but I don't see it as a favor, any more that any other member giving me advice. You share, you win.

Again EnricoSchaefer didn't share an opinion. He lectured. And he lectured on a subject completely different that the original question.

As for the username point, I really don't get it. What are you saying?

If you look at the reply you will see that he is replying to March2008 first sentence. (quote)
He does not reply at all to his question.

The reply EnricoSchaefer could apply to every possible celebrity question ever made.

 

[marcorandazza]

I'm going to back Schaefer and Berryhill up here. The initial post pretty clearly was seeking advice on how to break the law.

I'll break with Schaefer on one small issue -- I'd try and hand the domains off to the celebrities free of charge. You will expose yourself to them by doing so, but you don't necessarily wipe out your liability by dropping the domain names. If you violated 1125(d) and 1129, then you violated them. I think that stopping now and dumping them, where they are certain to be scarfed up by an automated registrant, could compound your problems. On the other hand, a letter that says something to this effect may be a good move: "I registered these to put up a fan site, it now seems that I will not be doing so. I would, however, like to present them to you as a gift so that they are not registered by a bot upon being dropped."

And dvdrip, I've got to take issue with your cynicism here:

As for the lawyers here... You participate for the same reason we all participate. To learn things, share opinions and make money. Sorry but I don't see it as a favor, any more that any other member giving me advice. You share, you win.

Share your knowledge. It’s a way to achieve immortality. -The Dalai Lama

I can think of a lot better ways to make money than posting here. I have picked up clients here, but more pro-bono clients than paying clients. Posting here *costs* me money. I post here to simply share knowledge and as part of my belief that lawyers should "give back." I'm certain that both Enrico and John can find more financially productive ways to use their time.

Enrico was harsh with the OP, but hopefully many more people read this -- and his sharing of his knowledge benefitted others who might have walked into an ugly liability situation.

The point that John is making about usernames is that he (and the other lawyers on here) post with their real names -- thus they must take ownership of their words. If they make an error, it is here forever. If they are in a crabby mood and make a nasty remark, it remains here longer than the mood. The lawyers who post here risk much, gain little, and I'd hope that you would be appreciative of that enough that you wouldn't impugn their ethics or their motivations.

 

[dvdrip]

I'm going to back Schaefer and Berryhill up here. The initial post pretty clearly was seeking advice on how to break the law.

Well, what if it was? You can't reply by telling him "you are scam and you are a disgrace to all domainers". You can just say "it's illegal to sell them, don't do it". I am sorry but that is what I think. The reply was at least plain rude.

I'll break with Schaefer on one small issue -- I'd try and hand the domains off to the celebrities free of charge. You will expose yourself to them by doing so, but you don't necessarily wipe out your liability by dropping the domain names. If you violated 1125(d) and 1129, then you violated them. I think that stopping now and dumping them, where they are certain to be scarfed up by an automated registrant, could compound your problems. On the other hand, a letter that says something to this effect may be a good move: "I registered these to put up a fan site, it now seems that I will not be doing so. I would, however, like to present them to you as a gift so that they are not registered by a bot upon being dropped."

THIS was an advice.

And dvdrip, I've got to take issue with your cynicism here:



Share your knowledge. It’s a way to achieve immortality. -The Dalai Lama

I can think of a lot better ways to make money than posting here. I have picked up clients here, but more pro-bono clients than paying clients. Posting here *costs* me money. I post here to simply share knowledge and as part of my belief that lawyers should "give back." I'm certain that both Enrico and John can find more financially productive ways to use their time.

Enrico was harsh with the OP, but hopefully many more people read this -- and his sharing of his knowledge benefitted others who might have walked into an ugly liability situation.

The point that John is making about usernames is that he (and the other lawyers on here) post with their real names -- thus they must take ownership of their words. If they make an error, it is here forever. If they are in a crabby mood and make a nasty remark, it remains here longer than the mood. The lawyers who post here risk much, gain little, and I'd hope that you would be appreciative of that enough that you wouldn't impugn their ethics or their motivations.

Hmm... I said three things on why people post here. You concentrated on one. It's costing me money to post here as well. So what? I could just read the forums and not post a single time.

Again I don't get the point with user names. If you want to know who I am you can do it very easily. I don't hide. If I say something, it's here forever too. Lawyers risk the same as anyone (if not less) posting here. It's your choice. Sorry but I don't see lawyers as a whole. I see good and bad lawyers.

 

[marcorandazza]

I said three things on why people post here. You concentrated on one.

Because it is the only one I disagreed with.

 

[jberryhill]

As for the lawyers here... You participate for the same reason we all participate. To learn things, share opinions and make money.

I'm here for the entertainment. This is what I do to unwind. I haven't been here much in the last two months because I've got a backlog of work a mile long, and am not really looking for any.


Posting on forums is not a profit center, and doesn't generate enough paid work to justify the time. That's why only die-hards bother with it on any type of extended basis. People looking for paid work tend to come and go after figuring that out.

I've said a lot of things on dnforum that were off-the-cuff casual reactions to things. I've even had more than one lawyer try to use things I've said casually on forums or blogs as some sort of bizarre "evidence".

But, really, I didn't read the OP in great detail, and often skim a lot when I'm reading forums.

This is not rocket science to figure out here:

How to I sell them without advertising the domain name? (for obvious reasons).

Okay someone wants to sell celebrity names "without advertising" them "for obvious reasons".

What in your mind, dvdrip, are the "obvious reasons" why the OP doesn't want to advertise the names for sale?

I gotta hear this.

 

[marcorandazza]

I've even had more than one lawyer try to use things I've said casually on forums or blogs as some sort of bizarre "evidence".

Guilty

 

[dvdrip]

Because it is the only one I disagreed with.

I don't necessarily mean literally make money. Something you read here might help you in a way in your work. Even a different idea might help you see a case differently.

Okay someone wants to sell celebrity names "without advertising" them "for obvious reasons".

What in your mind, dvdrip, are the "obvious reasons" why the OP doesn't want to advertise the names for sale?

I gotta hear this.

Well, I guess he knows the obvious reasons. He didn't make the post to called a cybersquatter.

I don't understand the point.

Damn. Bring back that edit button!