Michael-
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the idea too, of course. But why invite confusion,
I don't think the name invites confusion. It would be quite ironic if the name "commons" became proprietary because "Creative Commons" adopted it. It is not desirable for the term "commons" to be merely associated with a set of licenses, to become in effect a legalistic term, and I think Larry Lessig would agree. It is much more desirable for the image of a commons in the digital age to be firmly etched into the mind of the Internet public as one of a set of content which may be freely used with limited or no restrictions.
Regards,
Erik