Keith Urban Sues Keith Urban

[AlwaysShocked]

Maybe Keith-the painter DOES do his painting as a hobby and that is why he put that on his website.

I have to agree that Keith-the-singer sure seems to be poor husband material. I expect to see Nichole dump him after he's been out of rehab for a "decent" interval. Poor woman!

 

[Mabel]

Does Keith Urban the singer, state on his website that he is not Keith Urban the painter? Or Keith Urban my ex husband's boss? Or any of the other hundreds of Keith Urbans in the US?

 

[southcitymom]

Does Keith Urban the singer, state on his website that he is not Keith Urban the painter? Or Keith Urban my ex husband's boss? Or any of the other hundreds of Keith Urbans in the US?

No, but he also doesn't link his site to the sites of other Keith Urbans in an obvious attempt to capitalize on their notoriety. (ie. The musician Keith Urban doesn't link to the the artist Keith Urban's website in hopes that people will then buy more of his albums because they think he IS the artist Keith Urban).

 

[JanetElaine]

No, but he also doesn't link his site to the sites of other Keith Urbans in an obvious attempt to capitalize on their notoriety. (ie. The musician Keith Urban doesn't link to the the artist Keith Urban's website in hopes that people will then buy more of his albums because they think he IS the artist Keith Urban).

I didn't see anything on Keith-the-painter's site where he linked to Keith-the-singer's site. The ads on top are placed there automatically by Google. They can't be controlled. If I was Britney Spears, rocketscientist and made a site like that, Google would probably plaster ads for Britney Spears, poptart all over it.

 

[southcitymom]

I didn't see anything on Keith-the-painter's site where he linked to Keith-the-singer's site. The ads on top are placed there automatically by Google. They can't be controlled. If I was Britney Spears, rocketscientist and made a site like that, Google would probably plaster ads for Britney Spears, poptart all over it.

I know they are placed by Google, but you can create the website in such a away that controls/influences that. As I stated in an earlier post an argument could be made that this is what the site's creator did.

 

[Floh]

Keith Urban is following Tom Cruise's lead, maybe:

Tom Cruise continues net crusade

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/31/tom_cruise_crusade/

 

[Mabel]

I know they are placed by Google, but you can create the website in such a away that controls/influences that. As I stated in an earlier post an argument could be made that this is what the site's creator did.

The only thing the site creator did was use his own name. He should be allowed to do that.

 

[southcitymom]

The only think the site creator did was use his own name. He should be allowed to do that.

Of course he should be allowed to use his own name, but that is not the only thing he did - there are other elements at play to include two links to the musician Keith Urban's works.

Patent and trademark laws regarding websites are still relatively new. Of course, the musician Keith Urban's attorneys would not have brought the case if they did not think they had evidence to prove their contentions.

When I look at the website in question, I can see how it could be construed as misleading. Will a Judge see this and will case law support it? Who knows!

 

[Mabel]

there are other elements at play to include two links to the musician Keith Urban's works.

What other elements do you see? What do you feel Keith Urban the painter did, other than use his own name on his site, to generate the Google ads?

 

[southcitymom]

What other elements do you see? What do you feel Keith Urban the painter did, other than use his own name on his site, to generate the Google ads?

Two other elements I see - beyond his name, but that you seem to be discounting - are the two separate links to the musician's site.

I understand that Google generates those, but he didn't have to put his site on Google. Whether he wanted to generate those ads or not, I do not know. Whether he intended his site to be misleading, I do not know. But it is surely fair to say that those two links could be conceived as misleading.

 

[JanetElaine]

Two other elements I see - beyond his name, but that you seem to be discounting - are the two separate links to the musician's site.

I understand that Google generates those, but he didn't have to put his site on Google. Whether he wanted to generate those ads or not, I do not know. Whether he intended his site to be misleading, I do not know. But it is surely fair to say that those two links could be conceived as misleading.

Well then Keith-the-singer might wanna sue Google instead.....

 

[southcitymom]

Well then Keith-the-singer might wanna sue Google instead.....

Google only does what someone asks it to do. The crux of this issue will be the artist Urban's intentions.

 

[Mabel]

Google only does what someone asks it to do. The crux of this issue will be the artist Urban's intentions.

No, that's not how it works. Google scans for key words and places the ads WITHOUT consulting the site creator. If you create a site about Scott Peterson, within a matter of days links for Sharon's book will appear. It's automatic.

 

[JanetElaine]

Google only does what someone asks it to do. The crux of this issue will be the artist Urban's intentions.

No, it doesn't. Google sort of scans sites for keywords and then adds the ads Google thinks appropriate. If I made a site and plastered the words Britney Spears all over it, while the site was about knitting, you can be sure Google would put Britney ads on there, without consulting me.

And uhm... which artist do you mean.... painting and singing both are arts.

 

[JanetElaine]

No, that's not how it works. Google scans for key words and places the ads WITHOUT consulting the site creator. If you create a site about Scott Peterson, within a matter of days links for Sharon's book will appear. It's automatic.

Mabel, my apologies for mainly repeating you. I was kicked offline before your post showed up and then I didn't see it before I replied. :silenced:

 

[Mabel]

Mabel, my apologies for mainly repeating you. I was kicked offline before your post showed up and then I didn't see it before I replied. :silenced:

No problem at all. I liked your Britney Spears example much better than my Scott Peterson one.

 

[southcitymom]

No, it doesn't. Google sort of scans sites for keywords and then adds the ads Google thinks appropriate. If I made a site and plastered the words Britney Spears all over it, while the site was about knitting, you can be sure Google would put Britney ads on there, without consulting me.

And uhm... which artist do you mean.... painting and singing both are arts.

By "Google only does what it's told", I mean Google wouldn't have pulled to anything if HE (the owner of the site) hadn't set Google in motion. I know Google is powerful, but it still needs us to get the ball rolling.

 

[southcitymom]

No, that's not how it works. Google scans for key words and places the ads WITHOUT consulting the site creator. If you create a site about Scott Peterson, within a matter of days links for Sharon's book will appear. It's automatic.

See my answer to JanetElaine. I know how Google works...I also know someone has to set Google in motion by creating the site and loading it with key words.

 

[Mabel]

By "Google only does what it's told", I mean Google wouldn't have pulled to anything if HE (the owner of the site) hadn't set Google in motion. I know Google is powerful, but it still needs us to get the ball rolling.

I'm sorry, SCM, but I'm not understanding your point. What did Keith Urban, the painter, do to get the ball rolling?

EDIT:

See my answer to JanetElaine. I know how Google works...I also know someone has to set Google in motion by creating the site and loading it with key words.

Are you saying that, because this man has the same name as someone famous, he should not be allowed to create a site of his own or to use his own name on that site? What key words did he "load" the site with, aside from his name?

 

[southcitymom]

I'm sorry, SCM, but I'm not understanding your point. What did Keith Urban, the painter, do to get the ball rolling?

EDIT:



Are you saying that, because this man has the same name as someone famous, he should not be allowed to create a site of his own or to use his own name on that site? What key words did he "load" the site with, aside from his name?

Hi Mabel,

Sorry if I have been unclear.

A post suggested Google be sued for the way it pulls these ads instead of the painter Keith Urban. I was merely pointing out that someone has to direct Google by making a website. Google didn't just wake up one day and place two singer Keith Urban links on the website because it felt like it. The website had to be created on Google for Google to do its thing. The person that created the website was the artist Keith Urban.

You don't sue a car when it hits someone. You sue the person driving the car. That's the analogy I was getting at when I responded to the "Google should be sued" post.

I never said artist Keith Urban loaded his site with words. I was explaining that I know how Google works.

I have said and will say again that this man absolutely has the right to his site with his name, regardless of who he shares that name with.

My point is that this case is and will be about intent. If you go to www.keithurban.com and read the site in its entirety, I think a reasonable person could get the idea that the artist Keith Urban is trying to profit fom the singer Keith Urban's notoriety. That is the issue at hand -what was artist Keith Urban's intent?

I don't know what the website-owner's intent was. But I do know from some years spent in working in law that lawsuits aren't usually brought in a vaccuum and there is probably stuff going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.

I am not prepared to just say - Keith Urban has a big head and his attorneys just want that domain name. Maybe that is true, but I don't think we have enough information to say that yet. So my jury is out, but I don't think that the case was brought without merit.

Have I made sense?