[Foundation-l] Foundation logo : pain and suffering

[geni]

On 11/16/06, ATR <alex756 at 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 that does not mean that trademark law cannot superseded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.

-- 
geni