On 11/16/06, ATR alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
First, if something is so generic that it has no real content, i.e. a closeup of a sunflower and a set of brackets, it cannot be "released into the public domain" because it is already uncopyrightable; IMHO any such "license" is irrelevant as a matter of law.
The creative elements would be the angle from which the photo was taken and the lighting
How is anyone going to know if one photo of a sunflower close up is the same as another?
We manage: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sunflower
Can someone copyright a set of brackets?
Under some conditions yes
I don't think so, that seems silly to me, there is no real creativity there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript
Not everthing we do is protected by copyright law, so you cannot PD something that can't be PD, or if you want to suggest that it is PD that does not mean that trademark law cannot superseded by copyright law and people can use it in violation of trademark law just because someone said, "hey I released this into the public domain because I was just a volunteer for the organization that is now using it."
Copyright and trademark are two different areas. One does not supersed the other since they are not dealing with the same issues.
Putting together those two elements creates a logo, and a logo is covered by statutory & common trademark law. The basis principle of trademark law is that the trademark belongs to whomever uses it, here it has been in use by the Wikimedia Foundation, it was created on its servers and it belongs to it, anyone, even board members of the WMF cannot suggest that it belongs to them or can be transfered to some kind of "public ownership" because they are not using it "in commerce" and never did. Correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise it is Wikimedia Foundation that "owns" the logo, and all the underlying intellectual property rights to said logo, whatever such rights may be notwithstanding whatever anyone says or whatever they might have did, i..e., declaring such logo as being "public domain."
Not at all. The foundation owns the trademark rights. No evidence it owns any of the other potential IP rights.
Creating a logo for "public domain use" is an absurdity,
Several major religions would disagree with you there
You appear to be useing the word logo when you mean trademark.