Wednesday, 25 July 2007, Fruggo wrote:
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).
We could use it in ways which do not infringe on their trademark rights but which would infringe on their copyright were it not for the free license. For example, a free license would enable it to be hosted in an image database such as Commons, which would not otherwise be permitted, even under the fair use clause.
This is indeed similar to how one cannot images of people to defame them even if the images are free from a copyright perspective.
In reality, most large corporations are still unlikely to release their copyrighted trademarks under free copyright licenses, but if they choose to do so in order to be able to use a copyleft-licensed work, then everybody wins. For me, this hope that others will be persuaded to share equally, for free or for profit, is a much more compelling argument in favour of copyleft licenses than protectionist arguments based on noncommercial ideals.
(I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.)