Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: PanoGoogle: the first VR Panorama search engine

Expand Messages
  • bohonus
    ... Marco, please. This has nothing to do with me, that is your own misperception. But rather Google s own Terms of Service that you agreed to when going forth
    Message 1 of 30 , Sep 29, 2009
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, marco trezzini <3z@...> wrote:

      > Therefore I don't feel I'm stealing google identity for doing big
      > business because
      > IT IS A GOOGLE CUSTOM SEARCH ENGINE nothing else.
      > it's even written in the search field by google as well as in the
      > result pages.
      >
      > Yes I could have called it VRsearch, which probably you would have
      > liked more, but this in my view would be the right
      > name for the project I could not yet realize.
      >
      > As usually people will decide, for now, from the responses and
      > submissions I got it seems you are the only one having a problem with
      > it, in democracy majority wins, and opponents are there to make us
      > think, eventually re-evaluete decisions,
      > but as I said in this case, I like this name, and don't see the problem.
      > It just bothers me that you are having a problem with it, but I fear
      > I will have to live with that for the time being.


      Marco, please. This has nothing to do with me, that is your own misperception. But rather Google's own Terms of Service that you agreed to when going forth with their CSE-

      http://www.google.com/cse/docs/tos.html

      It is clearly stated in section 2.2 that you are not to utilize the name that you have chosen in the manner that you are. It really is just as simple as that.

      I am merely pointing this out to save you the trouble of having to change things further down the road, or even having your use of the CSE terminated by them.

      Like I mentioned previously, a search for panoramic VR images is certainly a welcomed thing. Perhaps this might be something Google themselves may even integrate at some point in the future, who knows? Maybe even with your own involvement if that would even be an option. So with that in mind, what advantage is there really in starting such a partnership (by using Google's CSE) and then violating their own Terms of Service from the very beginning in such an obvious manner? Why even go there, when there is an open road in so many other directions? -as you yourself have often shown with other projects that you have been involved with?

      Really, who cares if "other" sites are "doing it"... Have you looked at those sites? Why even be in that grouping of people doing that?
    • moraféria
      The more simple it gets, the better it is! Pano = Panorama Google = search PanoGoogle = search for panorama - Simple - works Conclusion - If it works, it´s
      Message 2 of 30 , Sep 29, 2009
        The more simple it gets, the better it is!

        Pano = Panorama
        Google = search
        PanoGoogle = search for panorama

        - Simple
        - works

        Conclusion

        - If it works, it´s brilliant!

        Congratulations on the idea, from an outsider!

        moraféria



        2009/9/29 marco trezzini <3z@...>

        >
        >
        >
        > On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:17 AM, bohonus wrote:
        >
        > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > marco trezzini <3z@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > On Sep 28, 2009, at 9:25 PM, bohonus wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > marco trezzini <3z@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:59 AM, bohonus wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com<PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > marco trezzini <3z@>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Hi to all,
        > > > > > > > just a few lines to announce a new site:
        > http://www.panogoogle.com
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > How does Google feel about you using their trademark for this?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > Good question, I really don't know. There's an ongoing endless
        > > legal
        > > > > > discussion about if or not to google has become a verb or not,
        > > > > > at some point, when the majority of people uses a brand name to
        > > > > define
        > > > > > a common action, there's no way to enforce it anymore...
        > > > > > question is if that time has already come....
        > > > > >
        > > > > > In any case, if they are bothered , they will tell me and I will
        > > > > deal
        > > > > > with it at that time.
        > > > > > Consider that I'm using Google CSE, they have all the infos
        > > about
        > > > > what
        > > > > > I'm doing in their databases.
        > > > > > In addition there are tons of sites using google in their domain
        > > > > name.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > the most extreme example is an ad (unfortunately I don't find
        > > the
        > > > > link
        > > > > > to it anymore, it was really funny) for microsofts new search
        > > engine
        > > > > > bing.com I saw a few months ago, it states google every 3
        > > words, and
        > > > > > to my knowledge nothing happened even there ...
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You seem very worried about the new "big brother"
        > > trademark .... is
        > > > > > anything bothering you ...?
        > > > >
        > > > > I guess with all of the great imaginative projects you have
        > > created
        > > > > in the past, why even go this particular route of relying on
        > > another
        > > > > companies trademark to identify and bring traffic to yet another
        > > > > search-result-filler site filled with Google ads?
        > > >
        > > > After VRWay, VRMag, Vartist, ----
        > > > It has become a trend, PanoGames, PanoDigg, PanoGoogle ..... maybe
        > > > next will be panobohonus ;-)
        > > >
        > > > if u would have read the Q&A as I suggested you would already had
        > > the
        > > > answer, but since you prefer be polemic for the pleasure of being it
        > >
        > > Your Q&A mentions nothing of the answer to my question actually.
        > > Which was-Why do you feel it is necessary to utilize another
        > > company's trademark in such an obvious manner? I don't see how that
        > > is being polemic in the slightest.
        > >
        > > Did you feel that coming up with a different new name for the
        > > project was insufficient?
        >
        > I believe this name is appropriate, because it states very clearly for
        > everybody what it is.
        > And that''s exactly the point. I try to make myself clear with another
        > example: Panodigg.
        > behind the surface Panodigg is nothing else then a modified digg
        > clone, and it's name
        > is doing the opposite then trying to hide it. In my view this is a
        > transparent way to not
        > pretend to have created something new when you have done nothing else
        > then copied an idea.
        >
        > When I create something new, a concept, a site etc ... I give it a new
        > name, (think vrway, vrmag, arounder and all the others)
        > because it deserves it, it might be that at some time have others will
        > be using this new brand name in new names of projects.
        >
        > Panogoogle is a google custom search engine, restricted to only VR
        > sites manually entered, which is nothing so special,
        > just time-consuming ;-)
        > BUT it works fine and is a useful tool, especially when all VR sites
        > will be in the index.
        >
        > Therefore I don't feel I'm stealing google identity for doing big
        > business because
        > IT IS A GOOGLE CUSTOM SEARCH ENGINE nothing else.
        > it's even written in the search field by google as well as in the
        > result pages.
        >
        > Yes I could have called it VRsearch, which probably you would have
        > liked more, but this in my view would be the right
        > name for the project I could not yet realize.
        >
        > As usually people will decide, for now, from the responses and
        > submissions I got it seems you are the only one having a problem with
        > it, in democracy majority wins, and opponents are there to make us
        > think, eventually re-evaluete decisions,
        > but as I said in this case, I like this name, and don't see the problem.
        > It just bothers me that you are having a problem with it, but I fear
        > I will have to live with that for the time being.
        >
        > >
        > > > here's the simple answer:
        > > >my vision and dream since several years is a
        > > > human edited vr search engine, a project and concept I could never
        > > > convince to get the required funding to do so, so I did nothing
        > > until
        > > > one day, playing around with CSE I realized that even if far from
        > > what
        > > > I wanted to do, it was still better then nothing... so I did it,
        > > > that's all.
        > > > CSE comes with ads, only with the entreprise CSE version very
        > > > expensive if a lot of queries happen can be free of ads.
        > >
        > > Sure thing, a way to search the net for panoramas would be great of
        > > course- if more photo sharing/database sites would include panoramic
        > > imagery in ways that it could be easily found and viewed that would
        > > be even better. I have seen many include VR panoramas within
        > > Flickr's site, but it is more of a kludge. It would be much better
        > > for sites like that if it was more integrated no? Same goes for
        > > YouTube, etc etc. There certainly is always a need for more "vr
        > > panorama evangelism" to get folks turned on to this stuff.
        >
        > the problem lies in the viewing technology, before it was .mov, could
        > be anything, image video etc.. now flash, even worse ...
        > tagging could solve but only if everybody, also retroactively, would
        > use a common standard, very hard to achieve since
        > the vr community could never agree even on a common name for these
        > revolving things ....
        > Don Bain suggested we all use VR panoramas, I agree with him. would we
        > all do so, you would just need to search regular google site for VR
        > panorama and get vr pages.
        >
        > >
        > > After so many years, there still just seems to be not much of a
        > > "home" (both online and even in mindset) for these types of images
        > > that all of us spend so much time and effort to create other that
        > > what we make for ourselves, and I must admit, it is a bit of a
        > > bummer. Especially now that even Apple has even cut us off from the
        > > new Quicktime. I just know that all of these VR images that everyone
        > > has done will be of great value many years from now.. They are
        > > pictures and history after all. And that hopefully, they will not
        > > fall into obscurity- like stereograms did.... :(
        >
        > You are damn right, but if only a portion of the passion intelligence
        > and effort put into content creation would have been used for
        > creating a strong global vr photographer/developer alliance pushing
        > and endorsing projects like the one discussed above,
        > we would be many steps ahead of where we are now. In this all the VR
        > associations have completely failed their job,
        > and I believe we have to blame ourselves as community, too.
        > there's always time for endless discussions ... lots of ego, jalousy
        > etc ... which makes it really difficult ...
        >
        > all the best
        > your
        > marco
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mihai Stanescu
        Excuse me but i ve read section 2.2 Can you pin-point exactly the phrase that says he cannot use google name? On the contrary..... *Brand Features* shall be
        Message 3 of 30 , Sep 29, 2009
          Excuse me but i've read section 2.2 Can you pin-point exactly the phrase
          that says he cannot use google name?
          On the contrary.....

          ""*Brand Features*" shall be defined as the trade names, trademarks, service
          marks, logos, *DOMAIN NAME*, and other distinctive brand features of each
          party, respectively, as secured by such party from time to time. Google
          hereby *GRANTS* to You a nontransferable, nonsublicenseable, nonexclusive
          license during the Term to display Google's Brand Features for the purpose
          of promoting or advertising that You use the Service and for the purpose of
          fulfilling Your obligations under Section 2.3 below."

          Section 2.3

          *2.3 Attribution*. The Search Box shall conspicuously display a graphic that
          indicates that the Service is provided by Google. Google�s branding
          guidelines at *http://www.google.com/cse/docs/branding.html*provide a set of
          graphic options available. The graphic shall link to the Google site located
          at *http://www.google.com* or such other address as Google may designate
          from time to time during the Term.

          Which the website clearly is conforming with...i can see its powered by
          google custom search.

          Am i missing something?

          On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM, bohonus <bradford@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > http://www.google.com/cse/docs/tos.html
          >
          > It is clearly stated in section 2.2 that you are not to utilize the name
          > that you have chosen in the manner that you are. It really is just as simple
          > as that.
          >
          > I am merely pointing this out to save you the trouble of having to change
          > things further down the road, or even having your use of the CSE terminated
          > by them.
          >
          > Like I mentioned previously, a search for panoramic VR images is certainly
          > a welcomed thing. Perhaps this might be something Google themselves may even
          > integrate at some point in the future, who knows? Maybe even with your own
          > involvement if that would even be an option. So with that in mind, what
          > advantage is there really in starting such a partnership (by using Google's
          > CSE) and then violating their own Terms of Service from the very beginning
          > in such an obvious manner? Why even go there, when there is an open road in
          > so many other directions? -as you yourself have often shown with other
          > projects that you have been involved with?
          >
          > Really, who cares if "other" sites are "doing it"... Have you looked at
          > those sites? Why even be in that grouping of people doing that?
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • bohonus
          ... Yes you are. Read the LAST SENTENCE of section 2.2 please- At no time during or after the Term shall You challenge or assist others to challenge the Brand
          Message 4 of 30 , Sep 29, 2009
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Mihai Stanescu <mihai.stanescu@...> wrote:
            >
            > Excuse me but i've read section 2.2 Can you pin-point exactly the phrase
            > that says he cannot use google name?
            > On the contrary.....
            >
            > ""*Brand Features*" shall be defined as the trade names, trademarks, service
            > marks, logos, *DOMAIN NAME*, and other distinctive brand features of each
            > party, respectively, as secured by such party from time to time. Google
            > hereby *GRANTS* to You a nontransferable, nonsublicenseable, nonexclusive
            > license during the Term to display Google's Brand Features for the purpose
            > of promoting or advertising that You use the Service and for the purpose of
            > fulfilling Your obligations under Section 2.3 below."
            >
            > Section 2.3
            >
            > *2.3 Attribution*. The Search Box shall conspicuously display a graphic that
            > indicates that the Service is provided by Google. Google's branding
            > guidelines at *http://www.google.com/cse/docs/branding.html*provide a set of
            > graphic options available. The graphic shall link to the Google site located
            > at *http://www.google.com* or such other address as Google may designate
            > from time to time during the Term.
            >
            > Which the website clearly is conforming with...i can see its powered by
            > google custom search.
            >
            > Am i missing something?


            Yes you are. Read the LAST SENTENCE of section 2.2 please-

            "At no time during or after the Term shall You challenge or assist others to challenge the Brand Features of Google (except to the extent such restriction is prohibited by law) or the registration thereof by Google, nor shall You attempt to register any Brand Features (including domain names) that are confusingly similar in any way (including but not limited to, sound, appearance and spelling) to those of Google."
          • marco trezzini
            ... Dear Brad, Sorry I answer only now but was busy with work.... I appreciate your concern, even if I have hard to understand why you are so worried for me to
            Message 5 of 30 , Sep 30, 2009
              On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:10 PM, bohonus wrote:

              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, marco trezzini <3z@...> wrote:
              >
              > > Therefore I don't feel I'm stealing google identity for doing big
              > > business because
              > > IT IS A GOOGLE CUSTOM SEARCH ENGINE nothing else.
              > > it's even written in the search field by google as well as in the
              > > result pages.
              > >
              > > Yes I could have called it VRsearch, which probably you would have
              > > liked more, but this in my view would be the right
              > > name for the project I could not yet realize.
              > >
              > > As usually people will decide, for now, from the responses and
              > > submissions I got it seems you are the only one having a problem
              > with
              > > it, in democracy majority wins, and opponents are there to make us
              > > think, eventually re-evaluete decisions,
              > > but as I said in this case, I like this name, and don't see the
              > problem.
              > > It just bothers me that you are having a problem with it, but I fear
              > > I will have to live with that for the time being.
              >
              > Marco, please. This has nothing to do with me, that is your own
              > misperception. But rather Google's own Terms of Service that you
              > agreed to when going forth with their CSE-
              >
              > http://www.google.com/cse/docs/tos.html
              >
              > It is clearly stated in section 2.2 that you are not to utilize the
              > name that you have chosen in the manner that you are. It really is
              > just as simple as that.
              >
              > I am merely pointing this out to save you the trouble of having to
              > change things further down the road, or even having your use of the
              > CSE terminated by them.
              >
              > Like I mentioned previously, a search for panoramic VR images is
              > certainly a welcomed thing. Perhaps this might be something Google
              > themselves may even integrate at some point in the future, who
              > knows? Maybe even with your own involvement if that would even be an
              > option. So with that in mind, what advantage is there really in
              > starting such a partnership (by using Google's CSE) and then
              > violating their own Terms of Service from the very beginning in such
              > an obvious manner? Why even go there, when there is an open road in
              > so many other directions? -as you yourself have often shown with
              > other projects that you have been involved with?
              >
              > Really, who cares if "other" sites are "doing it"... Have you looked
              > at those sites? Why even be in that grouping of people doing that?

              Dear Brad,
              Sorry I answer only now but was busy with work....
              I appreciate your concern, even if I have hard to understand why you
              are so worried for me to spend all this time
              with this discussion.
              As I said before let's see what will happen, I'm curious about that.
              I will keep you updated if something happens.
              all the best
              your
              marco




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net
              Just because a word becomes common parlance, it still might be a trademark. If you start a company containing the word xerox you better expect a call from
              Message 6 of 30 , Oct 1, 2009
                Just because a word becomes common parlance, it still might be a trademark.

                If you start a company containing the word "xerox" you better expect a call
                from xerox lawyers.

                (note: "xerox" is synonymous with "photocopy" in the usa)




                Jeffrey Martin
                www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality
                tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin


                Re: PanoGoogle: the first VR Panorama search engine
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/message/33155;_ylc=X3oDMTJzM2h1ZTRoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MjI3ODQ4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNjQ5NgRtc2dJZAMzMzE1NQRzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMjU0MjMzODc5> Posted
                > by: "Keith Martin" keith@...
                > <keith@...?Subject=+Re%3A%20PanoGoogle%3A%20the%20first%20VR%20Panorama%20search%20engine> the1keith
                > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/the1keith> Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:35 pm (PDT)
                >
                > Sometime around 28/9/09 (at 22:17 +0000) bohonus said:
                >
                > >Why do you feel it is necessary to utilize another company's
                > >trademark in such an obvious manner?
                >
                > Personally, I think the phrase "to google something" has been in
                > common parlance for quite some time now. Is it important? I mean, to
                > people other than Google's lawyers? :-)
                >
                > k
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net
                http://gizoogle.com/ ... Jeffrey Martin www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin [Non-text portions of
                Message 7 of 30 , Oct 1, 2009
                  http://gizoogle.com/

                  :-D




                  Jeffrey Martin
                  www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality
                  tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.