[Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit (was: Wikibooks for sale)

[Anthony]

On 7/4/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/4/2006 2:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wikilegal at inbox.org writes:
>
> > This is  especially true when an
> > employee of the foundation implies that playing it  safe and assuming
> > the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a  publisher is
> > somehow a violation of trademark  law.

> To be perfectly clear, Anthony, I stated that our name (and logo) are
> trademarked.

You stated that Lulu press was infinging upon the foundation's
trademark ("A third party, Lulu Press, is using the trademarked name
of the Foundation to sell a book. While I believe that they are doing
this unwittingly,  it nonetheless infringes on our trademark.") and
you said that "using the name of the Foundation without the explicit
permission of the
Foundation" infringes upon the foundation's trademark.  The first
statement is disputable.  The second is outright false.

> The books were listed as being created the Foundation, yet we had no knowledge of it.

The foundation was listed as one of the copyright holders.  There's
certainly a legal argument that that's a true statement.

> In other words, the publisher used
> our trademarked name on a book without the agreement of  the Foundation.

They used your name *in* a book, not *on* it.  It's certainly not an
indisputable legal fact that such use is trademark infringement.

> While I am not assuming malicious intent, that is  clearly unacceptable.

It's not at all "clearly unacceptable".  If Wikimedia wants to be
credited, then its name has to be mentioned.  Right now
[[Wikibooks:Copyrights]] *still* says that trademark law "does not
prevent you from giving either Wikibooks or Wikimedia credit for the
work by name".

> Don't twist what I said.
>
You said that Lulu was violating your trademark.  Again, I'll quote
you directly: "A third party, Lulu Press, is using the trademarked
name of the Foundation to sell a book. While I believe that they are
doing this unwittingly, it nonetheless infringes on our trademark."

Anthony