the mudpond

It's good to let things breathe in your imagination because often your initial response to it is not the best thought-through response. I savour little glimpses of life. Mine and those of people who turn me sideways and around. Friend or stranger. Even a child. (the world looks different from down there) Sometimes an author, photographer, artist. I let things saturate and incubate here. Hopefully, deeper meanings can percolate up and flower.

Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A stray cat.


Vis: What's A Blog Worth?

JAMES HAS A well-informed take on the Visa case. And Jordan, commenting in James' entry raises an interesting point about blog names. [Btw, is MACVAYSIA also a trading name?]

"Good thing there's only one MACVAYSIA

Now, I have a couple, no several (maybe silly) questions to ask. Would some kind soul care to enlighten me vis:

I notice that most blogs seem to have assumed copyright of their contents under that Creative Commons License thingy. But what about the blog itself? If you deem your blog content worth protecting under the Intellectual Property Act, is it not also worthwhile to register your blog name? Can you register a blog since it's not a business entity and is not for profit? Or with Adsense, is the blog 'for profit', after all?

Like, for instance, is
Screenshots registered? Do it have a TM (trade mark) pending? Should our femes blogs register themselves with the Trade Mark Office? Can they? Imag

What's to stop one from setting up a mirror site with a closely similar name like say, Screenshot (in singular)? What if no profit is involved but it compromises or corrupts the integrity of your blog, and perhaps, by extension the blogger's reputation? Imagine a sweet, sweet minishot blog loaded 100% aspartame content... Is not your 'reputation' worth protecting? ;P

I am feeling somewhat dim about this issue. Can anyone shed some light?

While it may very well be not worth Blewtooth's while to hang on to the domain name, perhaps there is an overarching issue (is there, you think?) of what a blog is worth?



Anonymous Anonymous said...

the blog, the blog name and the blog content.

Most important of which I think, is the content. That's copyrightable. But copyright law doesnt provide for registration. And I havent convinced myself that the Creative Commons Licence applies to us.

Blogname - can't be registered as a Trademark. Only marks the MacDonalds golden arch. So "Screenshots" the name can't be registered as a TM.

the blog itself, ie the website. other than the content, the only other thing that you can protect is the design of the blog (if it's original). The Blogger ones which use the standard templates don't count.

hope that helps a bit.


5:30 PM  
Blogger Kamigoroshi said...

Creative Commons License doesn't apply to us. Nor does the EFF Legal Rights to blogging. It's simply because Malaysian laws can only go so far as to protect the country rather than the individual bloggers.

Anything else, we're on our own.

5:50 PM  
Blogger thquah said...

Even if the blog is protected under copyright and if someone use it what can we common folks do.Sue the other party for it's going to be a long, long battle.Is it worth it? To me it's not my battle.Just my 2 cents...

11:57 PM  
Blogger percolator said...

Creative Commons - then why the gulping regurgitating fiscakes so many bloggers displaying the plug? To impress neophytes like me? lol!

thanks for the input. I'm just wondering just as news is a cultural resource, so can opinions be. Oh, I mean not the 'how well can you cuss/shock/flame/cook-up' stuff but 'citizen/participatory media' blogs like screenshots (actually more the collective opinions of his readers) do have significant influence. Is not influence of value, albeit intangible.

exactly, until there is acknowlegement or some ground is broken here, all (victim) bloggers can do is cry foul thus: 'plagiarism! plagiariser! shame! shame!' boo!
Ends up sounding kinda impotent, unfortunately. Who's ever gonna take that seriously?

9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mudpond - you're welcome! :) my name is spot, btw. I do have a blog, but I'm not too keen on publicising it. :)

there is a mistaken assumption that displaying the Creative Commons Licence means your blog content is protected. not true.

the creative commons licence is exactly that - a LICENCE. the effect of having one on your site is you're saying to the world, "I own the intellectual property contained in this site. BBUT, I am giving a limited licence to the world at large to use my works as long as ..(depending on the terms of the Licence)".

what the CCL doesnt address, is, what happens if someone does copy your work or images or whatever without telling you or abiding by your licence? you can't go complaining to the CCL ppl. they are not going to act as police or lawyer for you.

the CCL is intended to be used as a BASIC TOOL.

as for opinions, that's not copyrightable either under copyright law. sorry ah, but to explain would entail going into the basic principles of copyright space lah!

influence is certainly of value, but as you correctly say, it's intangible, and may I add, transient. influence today can be easily wiped out tomorrow. again, influence is not Intellectual Property, hence not capable of protection.

as for the point raised by TH, well, that applies to every kind of suit right, whether accident case (seriously takes almost too long time to bother) or wrongful dismissal?

at the end of the day, as I always tell clients, going to court always requires careful consideraton of the balance of money, endurance and patience against "rights".

wah..sorry ah, so long..


10:15 AM  
Blogger percolator said...

You must be a rarity, not wanting your blog known. You've got me intrigued now ;)

Anyway, writing on the fly, I seem to tangled myself in the overlapping issues. Trademark and copyright are 2 diff things. One has to do with original works of authorship, the other, indicates source of goods/service.

Transient as the influence may be, look at the impact it has on public opinion, on customer communications and media relations and some say, ROI.

It would seem blogs have potential leverage commercially as well. Why else would people integrate blogs into their marketing strategy? Unless one believe blogs to be a passing fad, I still think there's ground-breaking to be done.

12:38 PM  
Blogger Spot said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oops. had to delete earlier comment bcos i accidentally published in my Blogger details (it's automatically filled in).

heehee. well, now you have a picture to the name.

copyright deals with protecting original works. trademark deals with marks associated with a particular person/brand. eg, Nike's swoosh sign. Apple Inc's apple logo.

agreed that there are potential uses for blogs. but what i'm saying is that the blog itself (not the content, not the design)is a medium. like a newspaper, magazine, "today's specials" board. there are no IP rights attaching to the medium itself.

as you have said, it's an intangible concept. i think the nearest comparable thing is goodwill. if say a mega corporation wanted Jeff Ooi to sell thm the rights to his domain name and the content and integrate his blog as part of their product, they would have to pay him for the goodwill attached to his site (which is the value you are talking about).

3:53 PM  
Blogger percolator said...

dang! I missed it.

7:05 PM  
Blogger thquah said...

spot: Wow you are very well verse in this matters.Great insight.thks.Btw my humble blog is not worth to have But percolator needs the copyright patent, she rights beautifully.Maybe spot you need to have copyright too.

8:41 PM  
Blogger percolator said...

your humble blog has ORIGINAL ideas.. a slice of life. UNIQUE. You are a humble blogger. This is a RARE quality for a blogger. No can copy Heheh! :D

9:09 PM  
Blogger Spot said...

thq - thank you for your kind words. i got advantage lah. legal profession. :)

percolator - clever detective you are. there was a reason for the specific anonymity here...given your readership. :)

9:41 AM  
Blogger percolator said...

Given my pathetic (or exclusive...hahah) 'readership', this mousy business is getting...

"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice in Wonderland.

(bad engrish is forgiven in Bloggieland, I reckon) :P

9:58 AM  
Blogger Jordan F. MacVay said...

The CC license and logo are just a way to say to the world that what you read in my blog is (unless otherwise stated) mine, and that usage of my work (whether words or pictures) is subject to certain conditions. Obviously, if someone copied my writing and tried to pass it off as their own, my legal options might be somewhat limited; but the fact remains that my stuff is mine and others can't use it unless they abide by the conditions laid out in the CC license, and if they do use it without abiding by those conditions, they're going to take heat for it. Maybe not legal action (certainly an option), but definitely public shaming.

10:09 AM  
Anonymous adidasi said...

copies worldwide ... everything is just a false today

5:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by