last night I saw a piece about google banning anti Move-On.org ads. I have no opinion to discuss here in the political aspect and after seeing the ads do think they indeed violate the no 'brand name' part of the tos. I have however seen anti Bush image ads and wondered if by using an image you by-pass the check or does someone review those personally?
i only skimmed one of the articles, but i think the reporter and the people involved bypassed the step where you can contact google to appeal it. looks like they got blocked by the adwords system automatically, then figured that was it.
I saw it on the news and it's nothing more than uniformed advertisers making a big deal over nothing. Google enforced the same TM policy they do for everyone else. The person/company that setup the moveon . org ad should have spent a few minutes reading about the AdWords TM policy before they created the ad(s).
I think it will be a big deal, here is a link to a blog post, http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/11/why-did-google-ban-anti-moveonorg-ads but does anyone know about the image ads though, does a human review those?
It's won't be a big deal - maybe it will be a hot topic in political circles but nothing will come out of it., at least from a how Google handles trademarks point of view. Google's already won every TM case thrown at them over the last few years. This is simply uniformed advertisers using their platform to criticize something that was clearly a violation of the AdWords TM Policy. And Yes, image ads run on the content network and are reviewed by people before going live. The anti Bush ads you've seen don't violate any trademarks - different issue all together.
Google does not allow advertisers to use trademarks of other companies if they request protection. It doesn't matter if you're a business partner of that company, a reseller, and informational site, or a "I hate X company" website - if the advertiser requests trademark protection, you can't use their TM in their ad. Google isn't singling anybody out, they aren't giving preference to MoveOn, this has nothing to do with the DMCA. Google has its own program policies, and if people don't follow the policies, their ads won't show. Simple as that. People should quit whining.
Michelle Malkin is idiot. This is only another example of her idiocy. Nothing more! There's really nothing to see here. Google doesn't allow advertising that includes any trademark that is on their protected list. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics from Google's standpoint.
It's uninformed news outlets in general that are trying to turn this into a story. They care more about headlines than they do facts.
You're damn well right about this one as everything should first be weighed and scaled properly before it came out and they failed on this part, that's why they suffered for it. BIG mistake.
ok, so if the same ad that was not allowed was written in an image that ad would be rejected too. Zibblu, good point, I forgot that. bush is a public figure and not subject to same
A TM is a TM...image or text doesn't matter. Google won't allow an advertiser to use a protcted TM in the ad copy/image. You can bid on TM'd terms, you just cant use them in the ad.