Can we use website names without the dot com?

[mporn595]

I would like to reference PornHub and OnlyFans, is this permitted. I know actual website addresses aren't but names should be, no?

 

[AlinaX]

In my Stuffing Before Turkey I mention OnlyFans:
After losing her job early in the year, she'd set herself up on OnlyFans, sharing her body online with hard-core fans.
Wouldn't be surprised if also I've mentioned PornHub at some point.

 

[oggbashan]

You might get the story rejected.

I wrote a story about a sexual use of a named commercial product. It was rejected.

I changed it to a generic term but there is only one real manufacturer. It was accepted but a couple of weeks later someone reported it and it was removed.

The use of website names, or commercial companies, is a contentious area. Links to websites are banned, but the use of website names is iffy.

 

[Areala-chan]

As long as you keep it generic, and it's not an actual web address, you should be OK. "I came home and logged on to Facebook" is fine. "I came home and hopped on my buddy's hentai site at [long web address ending in .xxx]" is probably going to cause an issue.

 

[MrPixel]

Just read a multi-part story with references to OnlyFans in a subplot, so apparently it is allowed under some circumstances. It may well be that social media references are OK since it's hard to avoid them in any modern context. I have doubts that PornHub would be OK, but I could certainly be off-base on that.

I avoid specific branded references in general. The one mention I had of a "brand" of social media in a story was a made-up name that sort of sounded like popular social media site. I'll probably make up similar semi-specific references in future stories since I expect more of it will be important to the story line. "FaceFriends" instead of "Facebook", for example. No need to give multi-billionaires more attention/revenue than they already have.

 

[SimonDoom]

This rule makes no sense at all to me.

I had a story that included an imaginary website, including the toplevel domain .com. My story was not rejected. I cannot imagine how that would violate a rule, because a) it's fictional, and b) it's not going to redirect anybody to another site, because the site doesn't exist. If this IS the rule, then the site doesn't consistently apply it (no surprise there).

I can understand the site prohibiting actual hypertext links in stories. But not the website brand name.

I especially don't understand why the site would prohibit the use of website names like Pornhub or OnlyFans. They are a huge part of the modern day landscape of sex. Authors should be completely free to use these names in their stories.

There is absolutely no intellectual property violation of any kind mentioning a brand name in an erotic story, such as:

"My sister and I ate at McDonalds."

"We had sex at White Castle."

"My mom set up a page at OnlyFans."

"I put my picture on Pornhub."

There's no risk of any kind whatsoever with doing this.

The only case where regulation might make sense would be either a) where you use the brand name in a way that creates the appearance that the company might endorse or authorize your story, e.g., "My OnlyFans Incest Story Contest," or b) where you use the brand name in a way that appears to defame the brand, e.g., "Pornhub secretly supports sex trafficking."

But it's ridiculous in this day and age of sex to have a rule against using "Pornhub" or "OnlyFans" as a term or service that a character in your story uses.

Does anyone know if this really is the rule, and if so why it exists? Does this "rule" appear stated anywhere? Or is this mostly folklore?

 

[KeithD]

I've had a story rejected for even a fake (unused) URL name, without the extension. So, the policy seems to be "no," but apparently it isn't always caught/applied. It was applied in the case of my story until I went totally generic.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've had a story rejected for even a fake (unused) URL name, without the extension. So, the policy seems to be "no," but apparently it isn't always caught/applied. It was applied in the case of my story until I went totally generic.

Was any further explanation given? I can't imagine any possible justification for this. This severely and illogically limits the author's ability to tell the story in a plausible way.

 

[KeithD]

Was any further explanation given? I can't imagine any possible justification for this. This severely and illogically limits the author's ability to tell the story in a plausible way.

The rejection notice merely said that URL names, real or imagined, were not permitted. This was years ago, so I don't have the exact wording. It left no doubt what the story was rejected for, though, and going with the generic, which was difficult as the whole point of the story was the made-up Web site name, got the story through. It's been my only story rejection other than miscalled (by the Web site that doesn't research its claims) underage references in a story. And it's the only story I've had to rework or change in any way to ultimately get published here.

 

[SimonDoom]

The rejection notice merely said that URL names, real or imagined, were not permitted. This was years ago, so I don't have the exact wording. It left no doubt what the story was rejected for, though, and going with the generic, which was difficult as the whole point of the story was the made-up Web site name, got the story through. It's been my only story rejection other than miscalled (by the Web site that doesn't research its claims) underage references in a story. And it's the only story I've had to rework or change in any way to ultimately get published here.

I sent Laurel a PM asking for clarification and explanation in getting a response. I'm just baffled by your experience. Clearly, this rule is not consistently enforced. There are many, many published stories on this Site that have, for years, mentioned both real and fictional websites. I've read many of them and written at least one.

I'll add that had Lit banned the story I wrote that included fictional Website names, it would have significantly undermined the effectiveness of the story. It just seems weird.

 

[AlinaX]

I guess that Facebook, etc., are known and generic, but if you said such-and-such user at Facebook that could be read as an attempt to direct traffic. A fictional site could also be read as potentially a way to direct traffic to a site that may exist in the future.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I suspect there's an element of deciding whether a company would object to association with Lit at all or given the context. I can imagine a yoghurt company not objecting to a character eating their product for breakfast daily, but not wanting the stuff portrayed as a sexual lubricant.

I'd heard Velcro were hot on protecting their trademark, so when it was recommended in a story I had the character add "or perhaps I should say 'hook and loop fastener, seeing as it's a trademark and all".

One thing that surprised me is there's no rule against using real addresses or contact details which could be of real people. I added a disclaimer to my story which used one, to confirm that the postcode used was defunct, or at least was when I wrote the story. Given rate of building works in the area, converting industrial buildings into flats, it may become a real address sometime soon.

 

[SimonDoom]

I guess that Facebook, etc., are known and generic, but if you said such-and-such user at Facebook that could be read as an attempt to direct traffic. A fictional site could also be read as potentially a way to direct traffic to a site that may exist in the future.

This strikes me as a contrived and minimal risk. Seriously, you mention in your story that a fictional character has an OnlyFans page, and this somehow harms Literotica because it will direct traffic to OnlyFans away from Literotica? How can anyone think that? They're not competitive. It's no different from saying that if your character eats a Big Mac at McDonalds Literotica users are going to be more likely go to McDonalds. It's just that silly. And even if it's true, who cares?

Even if there is some absurdly small risk of this, it is hugely outweighed by the benefit to authors of being able to place their characters in a real world with real brand names that will enhance the verisimilitude and experience for the reader. If this IS the justification, then it's a good example of sacrificing a real benefit for the sake of a contrived and imagined harm.

 

[SimonDoom]

I suspect there's an element of deciding whether a company would object to association with Lit at all or given the context. I can imagine a yoghurt company not objecting to a character eating their product for breakfast daily, but not wanting the stuff portrayed as a sexual lubricant.

They might object, but they would have no case. There's no legal basis for such an objection. It's not a trademark violation, because there's no reasonable basis to believe that a reader is going to think that the yogurt company authorizes or is associated with the author's story. Suppose one's story involves the use of Yoplait as a lubricant. There is no reader, anywhere in the world, who's going to think "This story is authorized and approved by Yoplait." It's a completely imaginary risk.

This objection flies in the face of the experience of real, published fiction. There are a gazillion works of fiction that mention real brand names. There are authors who make a point of using real brand names because they believe, with good reason, that it will enhance the story they want to tell.

 

[windar]

When I've pointed out that many of the rules here are: 1. Not clearly stated in the Instructions to Authors; 2. Silly; and 3. Inconsistently enforced, I've generally been told to STFU that this is Laurel's site and she can do whatever she likes. Fine, but then they should stop advertising "Your story. Uncensored." because that is simply false and Laurel should not be exempt from the rules about false adverstising on other sites.

 

[windar]

They might object, but they would have no case. There's no legal basis for such an objection. It's not a trademark violation, because there's no reasonable basis to believe that a reader is going to think that the yogurt company authorizes or is associated with the author's story. Suppose one's story involves the use of Yoplait as a lubricant. There is no reader, anywhere in the world, who's going to think "This story is authorized and approved by Yoplait." It's a completely imaginary risk.

This objection flies in the face of the experience of real, published fiction. There are a gazillion works of fiction that mention real brand names. There are authors who make a point of using real brand names because they believe, with good reason, that it will enhance the story they want to tell.

I think if you went to your local library and pulled 100 books off the shelf, you'd be hard-pressed to find 5 that didn't mention some brand name at some point. And there is no difference between a brand name and a web address. Ford has ford.com, Starbucks has starbucks.com, etc.

And what about universities-can I say a character graduated from Harvard???

 

[SimonDoom]

I think if you went to your local library and pulled 100 books off the shelf, you'd be hard-pressed to find 5 that didn't mention some brand name at some point. And there is no difference between a brand name and a web address. Ford has ford.com, Starbucks has starbucks.com, etc.

And what about universities-can I say a character graduated from Harvard???

Yes, of course you can. Your character graduated from Yale, and works in the Empire State Building, and wears Cole Haan Shoes, and uses Yoplait as a lubricant, and has a Facebook page, and eats at Arby's and wanks off in their bathrooms. All of these things pose no risk of liability at all, because they've been done a million times already in fiction. These aren't uses of a trademark like a trademark. There's no risk of confusion. They're examples of using a brand like an every day object that people use all the time. And it's even more true of authors who are anonymous and publishing without compensation at a Site like Literotica.

But above all, it makes no sense at all to regulate the use of imaginary website names. That truly is silly.

 

[SimonDoom]

This morning I sent a private message to Laurel asking about what the rule was and the explanation for it. Here is the reply I just received, just a little over an hour after I sent my message:

"Hello,

Thank you for writing and I hope you are well.

There is no rule against mentioning website names, commercial product names, etc. (We're not trying to make Literotica look like Repo Man, haha.) If we feel that the use is an attempt to drive traffic to a website or account on a website, then we may send it back.

If you've had work rejected for this reason, then please let me know the specific work and I will take a look."

So, there is no per se rule against the use of brand names or website names. If your story has been rejected for this reason, then my guess it's the result of a cursory review, and you'd stand a good chance of getting the rejection reverse if you send them a message.

So, if I understand correctly, you should feel free to use brand names like Pornhub and OnlyFans and McDonalds in your story, or to come up with your own website name. Just don't make it appear that you are trying to direct traffic to a real website.

 

[AlinaX]

Like I said.
(ETA: The tl;dr of the reply I was actually writing.)

 

[windar]

Yes, of course you can. Your character graduated from Yale, and works in the Empire State Building, and wears Cole Haan Shoes, and uses Yoplait as a lubricant, and has a Facebook page, and eats at Arby's and wanks off in their bathrooms.

But if they use Arby's fryer grease as a lubricant that should be forbidden on health grounds...

 

[KeithD]

Yes, of course you can. Your character graduated from Yale, and works in the Empire State Building, and wears Cole Haan Shoes, and uses Yoplait as a lubricant, and has a Facebook page, and eats at Arby's and wanks off in their bathrooms. All of these things pose no risk of liability at all, because they've been done a million times already in fiction. These aren't uses of a trademark like a trademark. There's no risk of confusion. They're examples of using a brand like an every day object that people use all the time. And it's even more true of authors who are anonymous and publishing without compensation at a Site like Literotica.

But above all, it makes no sense at all to regulate the use of imaginary website names. That truly is silly.

Just to be clear, the experience I had in a rejection for use of a fictitious URL notwithstanding, this "you can use it all" position is the same one I've been counseling here for a decade and a half.

I've found the bottom line is that the submissions process doesn't fully justify its rejections before rejecting and that the acceptance criteria here isn't fully consistent. More often that not a rejection, when pursued, can result in posting as originally written.

 

[SimonDoom]

Like I said.
(ETA: The tl;dr of the reply I was actually writing.)

I read your response to mean that the use of "Facebook" per se could be interpreted as an effort to direct traffic, and I take Laurel's response to be that this is not true. My understanding of her rule is that use of website names is forbidden only if the specific circumstances of the use in the story justify this inference. If that's not what you meant, then I was mistaken.

 

[JoRay]

But if they use Arby's fryer grease as a lubricant that should be forbidden on health grounds...

They used hot Arby's fryer grease as a lubricant... But since they enjoyed it, in spite of the third-degree burns, it was okay. The couple is currently recovering at the Mayo Clinic burn ward (see there, a real place name was used and not censored).

 

[ElectricBlue]

I read your response to mean that the use of "Facebook" per se could be interpreted as an effort to direct traffic, and I take Laurel's response to be that this is not true. My understanding of her rule is that use of website names is forbidden only if the specific circumstances of the use in the story justify this inference. If that's not what you meant, then I was mistaken.

She bounced a story of mine that mentioned "a Tumblr blog."

I took out the specific reference to Tumblr, it passed Go. Keep it generic, unless it's Makkas, seems to be the best guidance.

 

[NightPorter]

Anyone ever tried to put a #hashtag in a story?