GagaFans.com The domain doesn't say "Lady Gaga" and the word "gaga" has been around long before Lady Gaga came around, so what do you guys think? Thanks.
Unless a name of a person is trademarked (99% of the time it isn't), then you're fine, even if it was "LadyGagaFans.com".
This statement gives me heartburn. Please, the issue is far more complicated than this post makes it seem. Do not relay on this statement taken out of context.
Well go into some research, maybe contact your local copyright office and see if that is a registered trademark.
My immediate impression was that gagafans.com was clever, and MIGHT even pass the smell test. However, domain names and trademarks are a very complicated legal issue as the many posts on the subject in this forum will attest. There is no 10 word answer to any of these questions. They are situational and fact based. Further, the courts in the U.S. have been nearly unanimous in protecting the rights of trademark holders to associated domain names. While the domain name does not say "ladygaga" would anyone doubt that the domain name gagafans is trying to profit from ladygaga's brand name? Further, courts do not just look at the domain name, they also look to the total use of the domain name (i.e. the site.) What is the site going to look like? What is its purpose? Are you profiting from LadyGaga's brandname? Are you using her brand name on the site? All of these questions bring up other legal questions that need to be addressed. As I said, this is a complicated issue and I suggest you seek legal counsel concerning your total use of the domain name.
I think most of the time if you make a fan site, even with someone's name attached, you'll br okay so long as you're very strict about the content. I.e. don't say, or let anyone else say, bad things, especially libelous comments about them. Fans don't dis their idols, so fan sites shouldn't either or they wouldn't be 'fan' sites. Also don't steal other people's text and photos to put on there (putting silly disclosures about unintentional use of copyrighted material won't help). Basically if you're making the subject look good they are likely to mind, and in some cases they might be pleased and contact you if you're lucky. The above only applies to full-on bone fide fan sites though, not hastily built five page smutty image galleries with a bit of rewiritten wikipedia text ads everywhere.
The domain is "gagafans.com", which most likely would be used as a fan page (hence why it has "fans" in the domain). The domain wouldn't be negatively portraying Lady GaGa, therefore it is not defamation. The OP wanted advice from an internet community, and I gave advice based on prior experience. If they wanted a definite legal answer, then the OP should hire a lawyer.
Who posted anything about "defamation"? The issue here is trademark infringement - and it depends on the actual site content and whether or not it is a commercial site (runs ads, charges for membership, etc). Practically speaking, it is going to depend on whether or not the artist wants the site to remain up. The legal costs to defend an infringement suit puts the vast majority of people at a huge disadvantage. Even those who have a few hundred thousand to throw away by seeing a lawsuit through the court system aren't going to do it to keep a stupid fan site. The biggest problem with "fan" sites is usually the images used on the site. The artist rarely owns the rights to them and using artist images with permission or paying a royalty to the photographer is more than likely is going to cause any legal problems.
You're definitely right. It's probably best to just avoid the whole thing together to avoid any confusion.
The one band to avoid is the Rolling Stones. They will come after after anyone making money off their name. I'll bet Lady Gaga would welcome a fan site. I would search around the legal beagle sites if gaga has taken action against anyone on the net.
yes the word gaga has been around for some time, actually here in the philippines the word "gaga" is like calling someone "stupid"