In the middle of last year there was a thread here about Squidoo and click fraud. I blogged about it, as you do. thread: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=114869 blog entry: http://www.itamer.com/click-fraud/298/ I "named and shamed" and the guy is somewhat unhappy. Unable to see that he can out seo my little site he's getting all hot and heavy and making legal threats. The share of my adsense earnings he's welcome to! I don't even know why I bother having it on my blog (fills up space I guess). However, how much of a threat is Steve Rayman? I haven't told lies and he's corroborated with my post. Is this the classic "cease and desist" letter that doesn't get followed up but is "worth a try"?
I would not give it any concern. His claim is for a percentage of profits because you talked about him. He has no right not to be talked about without being compensated. I don;t have any idea what legal theory he would pursue on that basis. Simply, that is what every news article and blog does - talk about people or companies, etc. They do not have to pay for the privilege of talking about someone.
Thanks. I wasn't too sure about his claim to "own" his name. I know mine isn't unique and from a quick google it's clear his isn't either. Of course, if he has a registered trademark... but I can still blog about Apple for instance, even though the company has registered their name for that specific context.
He may own his name but that by no means gives him the monopoly on its use - what about all the other Steven T. Dickheads equally entitled to use it? His email confirms that everything you said was accurate, so you've got nothing at all to worry about. Do not be flustered by this fool.
His name would be considered in the "public domain." If what you originally posted was accurate, there's nothing he can do.
I was wondering that too, but it just came to me seeing your post. I assume it stands for Director of Funeral Services - since he owns or runs funeral homes.
The only way he could own his name is if he had it trademarked (names cannot be copyrighted). His lensmaster profile shows he is in the US. He has no registered trademark in the US (the only active trademarks containing rayman are for Ubi Soft - a game company). As far as common law trademarks, that would only apply if his name was famous. I really doubt that if you went to someone on the street and said, "who do you think of when I say Steve Rayman?" that they would answer, "isn't he that mortician from Indiana?" Please. While it has been established in the US that bloggers are not covered by the same protections as journalists, it is well established that people can be reported on while using names (assuming they are not minors). So, his argument about owning the name is worthless. That means all he is left with is libel. However since he freely admits that he put up the lens in his post, and you do not make any claims as to his intentions of doing so; that claim also is meritless.
Steve Rayman: “My corporation owns 5 funeral homes and 3 cemeteries. Currently looking at 2 more cemeteries to purchase by 2007.†What a creep, it's like something from a horror film.
You could also argue that Google Adsense ads were not generated from the keyword "Steven Rayman." If it gets ugly, you could change the name on your blog to Steven R.
Why's it going to get ugly? This guy hasn't got a leg to stand on! And it matters not a jot if the ads are generated from his name or not.
Don't reply. Let the guy get a lawyer that might explain to him his position is completely baseless in law.
That is very solid advice. Wish I had said that! I would never be concerned about a homegrown C & D. When I got one via registed mail from a licensed attorney then I would consider my options. Any idiot can copy and paste one into an email.
Who sent the C&D is much less important than whether the C&D regards a real issue that should be of concern. On this issue, I wouldn't give a C&D from an attorney any more weight. Nor would I discount a legitimate C&D written by a lay person about their own site in other cases. Simply it is the facts not the sender that matter. In this case, there is no case, regardless of who sent the C&D.
Ask him to show you the laws that support his claim that you have to remove his name from your post. That'll screw him.
It appears he is blowing smoke. My first intention if I were in his position would have gone for a lawyer first to serve papers. So I would see he is just bullying you like you have said. My other thought was libel. If he indeed did correct his bad decisions and misakes. Would you still be held libel for you blog post? And indeed what is with the DFS?
No, if he did correct his bad decisions it only reinforces the fact that he made them in the first place. Him retracting his previous statements doesn't alter the fact that he actually made them - as he confirmed in his comments. DFS is a furniture store here in the UK. CountryBoy MDPF (Master of Digital Point Forums )
This thread will now show up in Google for his name. Stuff gets indexed pretty fast around here. My blog fka200.com is still trying to outrank my profile on this damn forum on Yahoo. LOL.