I was thinking that Splosh itself is not copyrightable but having it associated with the color and the logo (passing off as?) would be a problem.
Perhaps we could get away with splosh UK if we just keep the forum part?
(Currently you guys are the only ones who can see the other links).
Can you PM me some hosting details Andy? Currently on a dedicated box so is very expensive! I've struggled to find decent hosts who would host adult content although as we would no longer be selling anything it might be easier as I think Bill's issue was normally with MasterCard.
Thanks for all the suggestions everyone.
THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
What about the studio? I have been paying the rent for many months now. it varies from approx £10 to over £1000! Of course I don't pay for "Splosh studio", just for unit 1," Mercatoria Business Centre!" via an agent for the owners, who are somewhere in Liechtenstein.
Bottoms Up!
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
When it comes to the studio, Richard that deal is between yourself and who ever your set up with, nothing to do with me. Just to make it PLAIN and CLEAR.....
regards
Andy and the team.
regards
Andy and the team.
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Ok, finally managed to get in after much wading through capatcha muck (oh-er!)
Thanks to Mucky Pup for assistance.
Site hosting: I do domain and website hosting as a business. As long as the bandwidth wasn't excessive, I'd be willing to host a new forum on the Saturation Hall servers (recently massively upgraded - state of the art hardware in a dedicated co-lo facility), as long as other people were willing to run and moderate it - while I'd like to post occasionally I don't have the time to run something like this. I do .co.uk domains for £25 a year, so if four others were willing to chip in a fiver each (so five "founder members" between us), I'll add the extra fiver and run the domain. Each founder member gets to have one website listed as "Sponsored by" (assuming we'd all be producers).
Re the name, while "splosh" is probably out, "sploshing" is a generic term (and defined in the Urban Dictionary - see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =sploshing ) - however, whether that could be used without trouble will entirely depend on how determined Bill's estate is to bury the whole thing - even if they ultimately lost, doubt any of us can afford what it would cost in lawyers fees to win.
Is there any definitive statement anywhere on the Estate's position? Did they want everything shut down just so there could be a tidy accounting and clearing up of financial, tax, and any outstanding legal issues, or do they actively want to "do away with" Bill's fetish legacy and prevent anyone from resuscitating it?
If the Estate wants it killed completely, then an all-new name would probably be the way to go. Abandon the term splosh completely and go with something WAM based - there are several rather good .uk domains on that line free at the moment. Don't really want to list them in public - how many people have access here at the moment?
Regarding the Free House material: Did Bill explicitly put that into the Public Domain? Unless there is a statement somewhere saying so, then while he may have given it away free, copyright still rests with his estate, meaning no further publication can happen if they say no.
There's certainly no reason why a new forum maintaining the "core values" of the Splosh one can't work complimentary to the UMD. There are two large external wetlook forums (Minx and Graham's one), so there should also be the traffic for an independent messy one too.
- J / DM1.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Site hosting: I do domain and website hosting as a business. As long as the bandwidth wasn't excessive, I'd be willing to host a new forum on the Saturation Hall servers (recently massively upgraded - state of the art hardware in a dedicated co-lo facility), as long as other people were willing to run and moderate it - while I'd like to post occasionally I don't have the time to run something like this. I do .co.uk domains for £25 a year, so if four others were willing to chip in a fiver each (so five "founder members" between us), I'll add the extra fiver and run the domain. Each founder member gets to have one website listed as "Sponsored by" (assuming we'd all be producers).
Re the name, while "splosh" is probably out, "sploshing" is a generic term (and defined in the Urban Dictionary - see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =sploshing ) - however, whether that could be used without trouble will entirely depend on how determined Bill's estate is to bury the whole thing - even if they ultimately lost, doubt any of us can afford what it would cost in lawyers fees to win.
Is there any definitive statement anywhere on the Estate's position? Did they want everything shut down just so there could be a tidy accounting and clearing up of financial, tax, and any outstanding legal issues, or do they actively want to "do away with" Bill's fetish legacy and prevent anyone from resuscitating it?
If the Estate wants it killed completely, then an all-new name would probably be the way to go. Abandon the term splosh completely and go with something WAM based - there are several rather good .uk domains on that line free at the moment. Don't really want to list them in public - how many people have access here at the moment?
Regarding the Free House material: Did Bill explicitly put that into the Public Domain? Unless there is a statement somewhere saying so, then while he may have given it away free, copyright still rests with his estate, meaning no further publication can happen if they say no.
There's certainly no reason why a new forum maintaining the "core values" of the Splosh one can't work complimentary to the UMD. There are two large external wetlook forums (Minx and Graham's one), so there should also be the traffic for an independent messy one too.
- J / DM1.
- DungeonMasterOne
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
-
DungeonMasterOne - Posts: 714 [ View ]
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 15:05
- Location: The City Of Goth
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
PS: Ok, I gather only a few people can see this, so here are my domain suggestions (I'm trusting all of us not to grab these for ourselves until a decision forum wise is made):
wamfet.co.uk
wamfetish.co.uk
Which of course can have "forum." added as a subdomain if wished.
Also, anyone with a .co.uk domain should be aware that from this June, people will be able to register straight .uk domains - but anyone who already has a .co.uk gets first dibs on the new names - so if we had wamfet.co.uk now, we could make it wamfet.uk in a few months.
- J / DM1.
wamfet.co.uk
wamfetish.co.uk
Which of course can have "forum." added as a subdomain if wished.
Also, anyone with a .co.uk domain should be aware that from this June, people will be able to register straight .uk domains - but anyone who already has a .co.uk gets first dibs on the new names - so if we had wamfet.co.uk now, we could make it wamfet.uk in a few months.
- J / DM1.
- DungeonMasterOne
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
-
DungeonMasterOne - Posts: 714 [ View ]
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 15:05
- Location: The City Of Goth
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Given that Bill created the term 'Sploshing', I think it would be nice to use that if we can. I had come to much the same conclusion as you - it's a generic descriptive term and, so long as only the forum itself is resurrected, the contents are not Bill's copyright, since it consists entirely of user-generated content.
I think anyone could have set up a public forum at any time with user-generated content called something like "The UK Sploshing Forum" and I don't see that it has any specific connection to anything that could be reasonably claimed as being Bill's copyright. Ditch the logo and maybe the colour scheme (though even that could be changed just slightly and would arguably not be identical) and the job's a good'un! Assuming that no video material is hosted locally (just links to YouTube and the like), I can't see the bandwidth being a major issue.
The domain name could be something like Sploshing.co.uk or UKSploshing.com (whichever's cheaper?) or even what this is now but it wants to be as brief as possible to avoid loads of mistyping. On that score, I recall that 123-reg is usually very cheap for redirection. Might it be worth bagging a few 'near misses' (.co.uk version .com version) and just doing a redirect to the one site where the content is actually located so as to capture those who can't quite remember the correct version of the name, as well as stopping others starting up with nearly identical names and, thus, creating confusion for all? It might be worth doing that with things like wamfet names too and redirecting those here.
I think anyone could have set up a public forum at any time with user-generated content called something like "The UK Sploshing Forum" and I don't see that it has any specific connection to anything that could be reasonably claimed as being Bill's copyright. Ditch the logo and maybe the colour scheme (though even that could be changed just slightly and would arguably not be identical) and the job's a good'un! Assuming that no video material is hosted locally (just links to YouTube and the like), I can't see the bandwidth being a major issue.
The domain name could be something like Sploshing.co.uk or UKSploshing.com (whichever's cheaper?) or even what this is now but it wants to be as brief as possible to avoid loads of mistyping. On that score, I recall that 123-reg is usually very cheap for redirection. Might it be worth bagging a few 'near misses' (.co.uk version .com version) and just doing a redirect to the one site where the content is actually located so as to capture those who can't quite remember the correct version of the name, as well as stopping others starting up with nearly identical names and, thus, creating confusion for all? It might be worth doing that with things like wamfet names too and redirecting those here.
-
Lizzie_Claymore - Posts: 846 [ View ]
- Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 18:16
- Location: North-west England
- Fetlife: Lizzie_Claymore
- UMD: Lizzie_Claymore
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
The problem with using anything that contains the text string "splosh" (either on its own or as part of a longer word) is whether the Estate want it gone or not.
While it might well be possible to prove in court that it's a generic term, does anyone here have access to the several thousand pounds in lawyers and court fees it would cost to win the case if the Estate tried to sue for copyright infringement? Worse, would anyone here be able to pay the ensuing fine and costs (which could easily run to the price of a house or more) if they lost?
So the question that really needs to be answered before any kind of decision can be taken is what, exactly, is the Estate's will in all of this. Short of having actual proper legal advice, we need a clear and definitive and unambiguous answer to that question, else it's all just guessing in the dark.
.com domains are somewhat more expensive at wholesale level, I do those for £30 per year. There are cheaper deals but they're unlikely to offer full service hosting. 123-reg are indeed one of the options for redirects though - but there are still costs involved.
While it might well be possible to prove in court that it's a generic term, does anyone here have access to the several thousand pounds in lawyers and court fees it would cost to win the case if the Estate tried to sue for copyright infringement? Worse, would anyone here be able to pay the ensuing fine and costs (which could easily run to the price of a house or more) if they lost?
So the question that really needs to be answered before any kind of decision can be taken is what, exactly, is the Estate's will in all of this. Short of having actual proper legal advice, we need a clear and definitive and unambiguous answer to that question, else it's all just guessing in the dark.
.com domains are somewhat more expensive at wholesale level, I do those for £30 per year. There are cheaper deals but they're unlikely to offer full service hosting. 123-reg are indeed one of the options for redirects though - but there are still costs involved.
- DungeonMasterOne
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
-
DungeonMasterOne - Posts: 714 [ View ]
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 15:05
- Location: The City Of Goth
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Pup - did you get in touch with Dermot on UMD over legal advice? He replied to your post about needing legal advice on this.
-
Lizzie_Claymore - Posts: 846 [ View ]
- Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 18:16
- Location: North-west England
- Fetlife: Lizzie_Claymore
- UMD: Lizzie_Claymore
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Lesley_Claymore wrote:Pup - did you get in touch with Dermot on UMD over legal advice? He replied to your post about needing legal advice on this.
I'd read that post as meaning he had legal experience too, but as it transpired I think it was more just setting up a new forum.
DM1's points are good ones. I suspect Splosh would be proven to be generic (I dont think even Bill had trademark - much to his annoyance)but I don't think any of us fancy a legal battle.
My understanding is that the estate just want his legacy gone rather than doing it just to tidy things up financially etc.
On the plus side DM1's generous offer or even the hosting Andy mentioned looks more like $50 a year as opposed to the £1000+ current cost of the dedicated server. Unfortunately Bill was basically being ripped off by his partner as this is way beyond what this site needs (although actually for the infrastructure available it is a good price)!
I'd obviously be happy to maintain the forum. It could do with a bit of modernising, but it's basically run itself for the last few years.
Anyone know a graphic designer or fet friendly lawyer?
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
-
muckypup - Posts: 1691 [ View ]
- Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 21:22
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Fetlife: muckipup
- UMD: muckypup
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
muckypup wrote:DM1's points are good ones. I suspect Splosh would be proven to be generic (I dont think even Bill had trademark - much to his annoyance)but I don't think any of us fancy a legal battle.
Indeed - I think you're right about Splosh being generic but I think SploshING is even more generic and not even the same word (only its root ... but that's like saying that Hoover could sue you over the word hoovering ... which they can't - it's a generic description of an act, not a use of a registered trademark (not that Bill had even gone that far, as you say)).
Copyright exists automatically in a published *work* (not just a word) or artwork (e.g. the logo). That's why I suggested that you'd need to remove the logo, pictures and stories. However, since Bill had not registered the word Splosh as a trademark, they couldn't actually do you for the use of the word. They certainly couldn't do you for calling it The SploshING Forum as that's merely a forum talking about the act of sploshing. I think there's a degree of irrational panic setting in here!
If you think about it, anyone anywhere in the world could set that up without even knowing about Bill's previous work now that it's all gone and it would be impossible for anyone to claim that doing so was violating the wishes of Bill's executors, as it was a completely independent act. Since it would be an open forum of user-generated content only and with no connection to any existing material of Bill's and no financial gain based on his prior work then there would be no connection with his estate or the wishes of his executors and I don't think any solicitor would even consider a case against it as it wouldn't stand a chance of success in court.
The government's Intellectual Property Office is a useful source of info.
Details of Copyright here: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htm
Details of Trademark here (which would have applied to the word Splosh *if* he'd registered it): http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm.htm
From that page on Trademarks:
Trade marks are not registrable if they:
- describe your goods or services or any characteristics of them, for example, marks which show the quality, quantity, purpose, value or geographical origin of your goods or services;
- have become customary in your line of trade;
- are not distinctive
On the subject of domain names, the IPO says:
Being the owner of a registered trade mark, does not automatically entitle you to use that mark as a domain name. The main reason being, that the same trade mark can be registered for different goods or services and by different proprietors. Also, someone may have already, and quite legitimately, registered the domain name, perhaps with its use being connected with unregistered goods or services.
The opposite also applies, if your domain name has been properly registered, it does not automatically follow that a similar trade mark will satisfy the requirements for trade mark registration, and/or it may be confusingly similar to someone else’s earlier trade mark.
Since TradeMarks can only be protected if registered (which Bill hadn't), you can see that, whilst the word Splosh has become a customary generic description of all sorts of substances used in sploshing, it couldn't now be registered anyway. It is, therefore, unprotected. Even more so,the word SploshING is a word that describes any characteristic of the act itself and usually describes the purpose of it as well as being customary throughout the WAM community and, therefore, not distinctive. Similarly, the IPO explanation of domain names does point out that, so long as you have registered the domain name, it may well be confusingly similar to someone else's earlier trade mark ... and he hadn't even applied to register it as a trade mark! Thus, there is nothing to stop it being called sploshuk.co.uk as it currently is, or sploshing.co.uk (or .com) or whatever.
Whatever the domain name ends up as, I really don't see any problem in heading the site as The Sploshing Forum. (You could even put a strap line such as "The Sploshing Forum - for those into all aspects of WAM"... or whatever). I think that this, in itself, will help to give it a distinctive feel from US-based sites where, within the community, it is more often referred to as WAM but, outside the community, sploshing seems more often to be the act recognised as a fet by the vanilla press. It would also help to maintain Bill's memory - he was always particularly keen that we should refer to the act of sploshing rather than wamming. I think that without something incorporating the word, it will fall into disuse completely and everything will just become WAM. If that happens, this site could become swamped by all the US-based sites where WAM is the main term. So long as wam and wamming are in the searchable descriptive terms then people will find it but it will still 'feel' a little different, in much the same way that Bill had always managed.
-
Lizzie_Claymore - Posts: 846 [ View ]
- Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 18:16
- Location: North-west England
- Fetlife: Lizzie_Claymore
- UMD: Lizzie_Claymore
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
I pretty much agree with all of Lesley's points above, but for one issue: In legal events, it doesn't matter who is right, only who can afford the best lawyers. Fighting and winning legal cases is expensive. I ask again, as serious questions:
1. Is anyone here willing to pay out the several thousand pounds in lawyers fees and court costs it would take to defend a copyright action should one, however meritless it might be, be brought?
2. Is anyone here willing to take the financial risk of possibly losing such a case and having to pay tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of pounds in fines/damages?
In my case the answer is a firm No to both questions. Hence my extreme caution on the subject. It may be that the Estate are perfectly happy for us to keep the community going under the Splosh or related name, in which case no problem. But we should find out first.
1. Is anyone here willing to pay out the several thousand pounds in lawyers fees and court costs it would take to defend a copyright action should one, however meritless it might be, be brought?
2. Is anyone here willing to take the financial risk of possibly losing such a case and having to pay tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of pounds in fines/damages?
In my case the answer is a firm No to both questions. Hence my extreme caution on the subject. It may be that the Estate are perfectly happy for us to keep the community going under the Splosh or related name, in which case no problem. But we should find out first.
- DungeonMasterOne
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
- http://www.gungemaster.com - Visit Saturation Hall, the UK's messiest stately home!
- by my hand and seal, as Lady Jasmine commands.
-
DungeonMasterOne - Posts: 714 [ View ]
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 15:05
- Location: The City Of Goth
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
andy250 wrote:When it comes to the studio, Richard that deal is between yourself and who ever your set up with, nothing to do with me. Just to make it PLAIN and CLEAR.....
regards
Andy and the team.
Yes Andy,
I am well aware that the studio is a completely separate subject from that about the forum but the forum has always been the medium of contact between all of us of like mind. Although I am proud to be able to do my bit to assist Sammy-Jane in saving a piece of our history, I would be pleased if someone else would also feel able to contribute.
Regards
Richard (aka Sotonude)
Bottoms Up!
Bottoms Up!
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Sorry Andy, but I must return to the future, if any, of the studio! I have been paying the rent for the building for a long time now and I am rapidly exhausting my savings. I have only my Old Age Pension to live on. My partner and I have no other means of support so I will need to cease all further payments. I don't want to do this because it will be the end of an era unless someone or perhaps a consortium take over the responsibility.
I must again pay tribute to the real hero without whom we could never have got this far; Sammy-Jane!!!! She has always been ready with advice for me as well as lots of other help.
Cheers,
Richard (aka Sotonude)
I must again pay tribute to the real hero without whom we could never have got this far; Sammy-Jane!!!! She has always been ready with advice for me as well as lots of other help.
Cheers,
Richard (aka Sotonude)
Bottoms Up!
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Why are you asking myself, about a business deal I have nothing to do with, or will have anything to do with in the future??? Unless you are seeking advice from myself, then my words are below....
You need to take that matter up with the people you where prepared to invest in, ie Sammi-Jane etc. I'ts down to them to make the situation work on site, Ie The Studio and finances at St. Lens.
regards
Andy and the team.
You need to take that matter up with the people you where prepared to invest in, ie Sammi-Jane etc. I'ts down to them to make the situation work on site, Ie The Studio and finances at St. Lens.
regards
Andy and the team.
Re: THE FUTURE OF THE SPLOSH! FORUM
Andy, I am not asking you about anything. I merely put "Sorry Andy" to indicate that it was nothing to do with you but you seem to be very worried in case I was appearing to ask your advice whenever I mention the studio. I do not want your advice, but if anybody would like to put their hand in their pocket as I have done with mine it would be appreciated.
p.s. To Andy ' that does NOT mean you; you have already made your position clear!
p.s. To Andy ' that does NOT mean you; you have already made your position clear!
Bottoms Up!
66 posts
• Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests