JimmyBarnes.com.au
- Thread starter neddy
- Start date
Snooks
Top Contributor
I think if he made a fan site about Jimmy that he would probably be ok....or am i wrong? lol
JB would probably appreciate a bit of promotion and perhaps you can make some affiliate sales off music, downloads, ticket sales for his concerts if its via one of the big affiliate agenscies.
JB would probably appreciate a bit of promotion and perhaps you can make some affiliate sales off music, downloads, ticket sales for his concerts if its via one of the big affiliate agenscies.
neddy
Top Contributor
Jimmy Barnes or his management used to own the site. If you look at archive.org, you will see that the domain used to resolve to JimmyBarnes.com
The .com site is still in operation.
So I would say someone forgot to renew it, and as soon as they find out, a complaint will probably be made to auDA. (Though I might be wrong).
Then the onus will be on the new registrant to prove a "close and substantial" connection. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the policy.
Yes, you could probably do a fan site and argue that is a legitimate use. But if you try and monetise it, then under current policy you will lose the domain name.
So I guess as I often say - "why would you bother?". Who would want the grief and the bother? (Unless your name is James Barnes).
The .com site is still in operation.
So I would say someone forgot to renew it, and as soon as they find out, a complaint will probably be made to auDA. (Though I might be wrong).
Then the onus will be on the new registrant to prove a "close and substantial" connection. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the policy.
Yes, you could probably do a fan site and argue that is a legitimate use. But if you try and monetise it, then under current policy you will lose the domain name.
So I guess as I often say - "why would you bother?". Who would want the grief and the bother? (Unless your name is James Barnes).
Honan
Top Contributor
I agree that a fan site would not break any rules providing the site only monetised merchandise from Barnsey
e.g. Amazon ads selling Barnsey Cds and DVDs
and the registrant is in the business of monetizing domains
EDIT: On reflection, this may indeed fall foul of current domain monetisation policy - Clause 4.3 (b)
neddy
Top Contributor
Joe, with respect, I disagree.
If it is monetized - and taking into consideration who the new registrant is - it would fall under the current domain monetisation policy.
http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2008-10/
4. DOMAIN NAMES REGISTERED FOR PURPOSE OF DOMAIN MONETISATION
4.2 If a domain name resolves to a monetised website then auDA is entitled to regard the domain name as having been registered for the purpose of domain monetisation under this policy. auDA is also entitled to take into account a pattern of conduct on the part of the registrant in determining whether or not a domain name was registered for the purpose of domain monetisation under this policy.
(And this is the killer)
4.3 In addition to their obligations under auDA Published Policies and the Registrant Agreement (domain name licence), domainers must comply with the following conditions of use:
b) the domain name must not be, or incorporate, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.
snoopy
Top Contributor
How about if the registrant legally changed his name to "Jimmy Barnes" or even called his dog that? Or how about if the domainer who catches it just happen to also run a barn construction company called "Jimmy Barnes"?
......C'mon guys let's just say it how it is, the name is a legal sinkhole, no amount of trying to justify the name will change things.
......C'mon guys let's just say it how it is, the name is a legal sinkhole, no amount of trying to justify the name will change things.
Honan
Top Contributor
Yes, I am wrong
I forgot about 4.3 b)
Now I really do not understand why they rejected James Wester's complaint about someone else registering his name
Thanks for correcting me, Ned
Will you edit out my previous response so as to not mislead others later
neddy
Top Contributor
Yeah Joe - it's all crap isn't it. Different rules for this; different rules for that.
I would say that the current registrant of JamesWester.com.au doesn't fall under the current domain monetisation policy (because he isn't a domainer); so 4.3 (b) doesn't apply to him.
But I do wonder what reason he gave when queried as to his "close and substantial" connection to the name? Can't see how he could possibly justify that. If you look at the WhoIs you can see what his name is - and if you look up his ABN it relates to a company called Commercial Automatics Pty Ltd.
It's these sort of inconsistencies that drive people potty.
At the end of the day, regardless of technicalities or other reasons, I don't believe anyone should register any other persons name.
neddy
Top Contributor
I wanted to clarify this statement. I mean first name, last name domains that identify a particular person.
Imo, there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a first name domain e.g. richard.com.au or nancy.com.au; or most single word surnames. To me these are basically generic.
However, as some on here will testify, if you are deemed to fall under current "domain monetisation", then even these names are not safe if someone called Richard or Nancy complains!
Crazy.
