closed Sharon Stone .net

[domainAddict]

I think Sharon is great actress and Im setting up a fan site. Appraisal Im looking for is based upon popularity. Think this fanclub could succeed with a help of this obvious domain? IMO its great but I need a reality check from you guys

 

[domainAddict]

It gets about 60.000 searches a month on Overture

 

[Manic]

Could work! Why not? She's made quite a number of films... I think you have just as much chance as any fan site out there with a well known celebrity as it's subject.

The negative issues are the TM, and the .NET extension.

 

[TrafficMonsterRRR]

I think you and Sharon should get together first where you should ask her to re-enact the famous interrogation scene just to make sure that she 's still got what it takes to be on one of your web sites! (Otherwise we will be seeing the domain name for auction at the DNFBuck section of this foruwm.... j/k)

CHeers!

 

[domainAddict]

You seriously think this is a DNF$ domain?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by domainAddict
You seriously think this is a DNF$ domain?

Could be. People stay away from regging names like this for a reason. Few people want to spend the time, money and effort putting up a site that is likely to be taken away the instant the trademark owner gets wind of it. Unless you get signed permission from Sharon Stone or put up a site about another Sharon Stone who is a nobody and would not care - you are asking for trouble. I never knowingly gone within a mile of trademarked names.

 

[domainAddict]

Its not really a trademarked name.. Celeb names are in public domain as much as I understand, unless you miss-use it. If you set it up as a fan site, and state that you arent affiliated with her, and that it is not an official website, then it shouldnt be a problem. For instance take a look at RJ`s Tupac.com

 

[Duke]

The fact that some stars haven't shut down sites doesn't mean they can't shut them down. If you are using their likeness on your site - which I think you would have to do if you wanted anyone to visit - you are going to have to have releases to use their photos (or buy them from an agency that has resale rights). You might slip by without getting busted, but why would you want to run a site with that hanging over your head?

As for Tupac.com there are artists that don't mind the attention at all - and this one - which redirects to tupacfans.com, offers licensed Tupac merchandise for sale - which benefits his estate. Sharon Stone might agree to that but it is unlikely. Movie stars are a much different breed that musicians and more sensitive about people using their name without permission. They do almost no licensed merchandising compared to music artists.

 

[President Gringo]

i think someone should tell Dukey that Tupac is dead :laugh:

 

[options]

Elvis too, I think...

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by President Gringo
i think someone should tell Dukey that Tupac is dead :laugh:

But his estate is NOT and as the legal owners of his image they can tear just as big a chunk out of your butt as Tupac himself could have - should they decide that's what they want to do. Whether any celebrity is dead or alive is immaterial. Do you know how many people have been sued by the Jimi Hendrix estate or the Elvis Presley estate?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by options
Elvis too, I think...

No, everyone knows Elvis is still alive. He is working incognito at a Krispy Kreme donut shop down here in Florida.

 

[domainAddict]

Originally posted by Duke of Earl


Could be. People stay away from regging names like this for a reason.

Actually it seems to be a drop, since all other TLDs are taken..

 

[domainAddict]

Originally posted by Duke of Earl
As for Tupac.com there are artists that don't mind the attention at all - and this one - which redirects to tupacfans.com, offers licensed Tupac merchandise for sale - which benefits his estate. Sharon Stone might agree to that but it is unlikely. Movie stars are a much different breed that musicians and more sensitive about people using their name without permission. They do almost no licensed merchandising compared to music artists.

Owner of Tupac.com (-RJ-) has been sued by The Estate Of Tupac Shakur, but he won the trial..

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by domainAddict


Actually it seems to be a drop, since all other TLDs are taken..

Doesn't change any of the facts. A lot of people reg trademarked names because they don't know any better. The name is not going to have any significant resale value because the average webmaster does have some expertise in this area and does not want to spend his money buying headaches. We get enough of those free.

 

[domainAddict]

I appreciate all the feedback and suggestions, keep em comming..

Duke: Youve got a point, but still I believe this domain cant taken away from me just like that.. Anyway, "TM" issues aside. Lets say I can manage that, what do you think of the domain itself? Does .net hurt it?

 

[Duke]

.Net is the second best choice to .com DA. For a fan site maybe not a major drawback - they might even be less likely to hassle you since it's not the .com. You may never be bothered at all - and I hope you're not - I'm just pointing all of this out as people should be aware of the ramifications when they look at names like this.

I don't know the particulars of RJ's case but I noticed there is no web site at tupac.com - it just re-directs to tupacfans.com. Is that his too?

 

[President Gringo]

Originally posted by Duke of Earl


But his estate is NOT and as the legal owners of his image they can tear just as big a chunk out of your butt as Tupac himself could have - should they decide that's what they want to. Whether any celebrity is dead or alive is immaterial. Do you know how many people have been sued by the Jimi Hendrix estate or the Elvis Presley estate?

I just said that coz you were refering to "him" benefitting, and stuff like that.

ANd i hope you know that whoever takes a pic owns the right to it, regardless of who it is. So if i had taken a pic of Tupac, that would be my property and i could sell it if i wished.

As long as its a fan site, and he issues a disclaimer, then he should be ok.

 

[izoot]

If nothing else ( and theres always the legal headaches ) ..... the .net kills it. Only way people gonna find your fan site is if you submit the hell outta it to SE's and find way to have people link.

No way is anyone just gonna typein a .net of this or any other celeb name.

Is this name really worth the time and effort? How ya gonna make money off it?

my 2¢

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by President Gringo
ANd i hope you know that whoever takes a pic owns the right to it, regardless of who it is. So if i had taken a pic of Tupac, that would be my property and i could sell it if i wished.

Which is exactly why I said in my post "you are going to have to have releases to use their photos (or buy them from an agency that has resale rights)." Agency or single photographer is interchangeable. I don't think DA is going to get close enough to Shaton Stone to get the pictures he needs for his site by himself.

And yes I do know something about photo rights. I handle media relations for a company that sells autographed photos from more that 1,000 music, movie, TV and sports celebrities who are under contract to us .