I've been wondering about that. AFAIK CC-licenses aren't about trade mark
law. So, anyone else won't be able to use te logo even if it is part of a
CC'd work, since it will be protected as a trade mark. Isn't it the same
discussion as about the moral rights and personality rights? A free
copyright-license doesn't mean you wave moral or personality rights (so,
Virgin can't use the picture they used just by claiming it's CC), nor does
it wave trade mark rights (so, we can't use Virgin's logo even if it would
be part of a CC'd work).
-Fruggo
On 7/24/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/24/07, Florian Straub <Flominator(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote on
Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:38:15
+0200:
> Sadly, this will move people for non-commercial, while ShareAlike
would
stop such
practises too, as we always recommended.
Why? They could release their campaign as cc-by-sa as well and it would
work,
right?
Regards,
Flo
I don't think they are going to release their logo under anything
aproaching a free licsense.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l