Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:38:15 +0200: Why? They could release their campaign as cc-by-sa as well and it would work, right? Regards, Flo -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer

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:

Wednesday, 25 July 2007, Fruggo wrote: 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.) -- Alex Nordstrom http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LX Please do not CC me in followups; I am subscribed to commons-l.

On 7/25/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Or in any way that might indicate affiliation with Virgin, approval by them, or anything of the sort - that's the big other area. -Matt

On 7/26/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote: One thing I should have noted is that most of the pictures used were not actually under copyleft licences (that's the "Share Alike" type ones in CC parlance), just ones like CC-BY. In terms of educating people, making sure that people are aware of the implications of copyleft terms in licences and the protection that they provide over other free licences has got to be near the top of the list. I did find at least one picture used in the campaign which was under CC-BY-SA (the best of the CC licences from a free culture perspective) so now the Virgin Mobile logo is indeed available under CC-BY-SA (or a compatible alternative). The logo remains protected by trademark of course. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

On 7/26/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: Which one? If we can confirm with the author that it was CC-BY-SA at the time we might wish to write to Virgin Mobile congratulating them on demonstrating their commitment to free culture by releasing their logo under a free license. -- geni

On 7/26/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's only a violation if they didn't intend on releasing under cc-by-sa and, as geni says, we have no reason to believe they would violate the license so :) Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]

geni wrote: Right. Which one was it? As I already sent to the list http://www.flickr.com/photos/babasu/289444685/ now has Cc-by-nc-sa. Much more incompatible if it wasn't changed after.