http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: trademark - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:20:25 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/187#post-360 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:12:43 +0000 bwhughes 360@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>Two other women and I are starting a nonprofit organization dedicated to global peace. A large part of our endeavors will be around a new SYMBOL that one of my partners has developed. We will use this symbol as part of our logo, but we also want this symbol to be freely shared, with people being able to use it for commercial purposes only with permission. This symbol is one that could potentially be "universal" in the sense that symbols like the peace sign, the Christian fish, etc., are known throughout the world and understood. We think it is that important.</p> <p>I realize that a CC license can give us the "protection" we want of being attributed and having some control over its commercial use. But we are struggling with the issue of whether or not we should trademark this symbol.</p> <p>From what I have read, the spirit of what we want to do with this symbol can be served by applying a CC license. But one of us is strongly in favor of trademarking. None of us has a legal background or experience in these issues. The one who is in favor of trademarking has heard from several other people who she has questioned about it, who all say that we should trademark our symbol. But I have countered with the argument that not that many people even KNOW about Creative Commons.</p> <p>So I know that a CC license has nothing to do with trademarking. The question is, if our goal is to "protect" the symbol, which WILL be our logo but which we also want to have freely available for others to use, and if we want it to be ASSOCIATED with our organization, with its commercial use by anyone other than us being possible only with our permission, then is one of the CC licenses going to do this for us?</p> <p>Or is this something that we SHOULD trademark?</p> <p>Bear in mind that it is our strong desire to NOT have to put a TM or circle-R on our symbol. So if this is something that we SHOULD trademark, must we include those symbols on OUR symbol? Or can we trademark without showing those symbols?</p> <p>Thank you for any and all replies! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-297 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:17:53 +0000 danq 297@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I am calling it "the fine print" because of the use of the Creative Commons logo on every page, with the logo linking to the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 page, when if you look at only one page you will see there is a catch.</p> <p>I am questioning the legality of Meg's actions because the Creative Commons license specifically forbids making exceptions outside of a signature in writing, which the "fine print" does not take into account. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-296 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:36:23 +0000 FruWikiMeg 296@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>As Danq has taken upon himself to misrepresent what's going on at FruWiki and make clearly LIBELOUS statements about me personally (e.g. "Frugal Scam Artist"), I thought I would clarify some things.</p> <p>I am not "planning on commercializing the material". While that may someday be the case, that is not and was never what this was about. I simply announced on the front page of FruWiki that I am "considering" changing the CC license to one that allows commercial use since it may at some point allow us to share content with other wikis with that license or possibly even GDFL -- something that would benefit readers much more than me since it would also mean that I would no longer be (possibly) the only one who could commercialize the material. I also added a link to the copyright information talk page encouraging discussion as I investigate the legalities. </p> <p>The "fine print" that Danq refers to is a clear, simply written copyright information page that is linked to at the top of the General Disclaimer page and is also listed at the "Disclaimers and Policies" page that is linked to at the top of the homepage -- where I clearly state: "If this is your first time here, please take a moment to check out the disclaimers and policies here." The copyright information page is hardly "fine print". It is a few paragraphs written by a non-lawyer in the belief that that would be sufficient and perhaps a much better alternative to legal obfuscation. </p> <p>You can see for yourself what I have written on the "Copyright information" page here: <a href="http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information</a> . I have never tried to hide anything there. And please, if I have said something that I shouldn't have, please let me know. And please let me know if the CC change is a possibility. I am not a lawyer, nor do I have the money to hire one. I am just a private citizen who is first and foremost on FruWiki trying to create a useful resource for others. And if you run a wiki, you probably realize how laughable the thought is that a scam artist would choose, of all the ways to make money unethically, to set up a frugal wiki site to rip off contributors by using their contributions. </p> <p>Thank you for your time. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/147#post-284 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:36:30 +0000 danq 284@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>The Web site <a href="http://www.fruwiki.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com</a> claims to be licensed under BY-NC-ND 3.0, though fine print claims that the submissions to this wiki do not fall under BY-NC-ND 3.0 when applied to the Web site's owner, only to its visitors and contributors (<a href="http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information)" rel="nofollow">http://www.fruwiki.com/index.php?title=FruWiki:Copyright_information)</a>.</p> <p>The owner is planning on commercializing the material on the page, essentially ripping off contributions from myself and the other contributors.</p> <p>It is my understanding that any waivers to BY-NC-ND 3.0 must be signed in writing.</p> <p>Are per-user applications of the license allowed? It is also important to note that the Creative Commons logo and metadata are present on the wiki's pages, which could suggest inappropriate use of Creative Commons trademarks. </p>