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.)
--
Alex Nordstrom
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LX
Please do not CC me in followups; I am subscribed to commons-l.