Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered design (called design patent in the US). Even if Debian is allowed to distribute registered designs, they would have to go into non-free. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:23:00AM +0100, Claus F?rber wrote: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered design (called design patent in the US). Only if we were distributing cars. One more time: There are no laws against drawing a picture of somebody else's product. There are no laws against taking a photograph of somebody else's product. This is all quite absurd. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:53:32 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature! That's not original clip art. That's an original copy. Of something old enough that the copyright is expired and it's in the public domain. That symbol has been around for centuries. So your point is what, exactly? What law might we be violating by shipping that? Upon what principle of equity or fair dealing might we intrude? Please please please don't start confabulating 'trademark' with 'copyright'. They are not the same thing at all, and are subject to very different legal strictures. With reference to the Freemason's logo, has there ever been a claim by the Masons that this is a trademark? I've seen it used in churches in Scotland, Ireland and Uganda, not to mention the fact that it adorns many masonic web-sites without the requisite copyright or trademark declaration? Daniel.
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered design (called design patent in the US). Even if Debian is allowed to distribute registered designs, they would have to go into non-free. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:23:00AM +0100, Claus F?rber wrote: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered design (called design patent in the US). Only if we were distributing cars. One more time: There are no laws against drawing a picture of somebody else's product. There are no laws against taking a photograph of somebody else's product. This is all quite absurd. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right? You seem to be effectively diluting our list ... :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. Given that your original bug report (#289764) on the question used copyright when trademark or trade dress would have been appropriate, that your comment illegal to distribute in Germany is wrong (as previously discussed on this list), and that those images are provided for end-user use and not to promote a commercial product, I suspect that neither you nor the purported rights owners would have any traction in court. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right? Take your vendetta elsewhere please. We are not creating a competing product with any of these companies, nor are we even implying that they are endorsing us or are connected in any way to us by including these images. We are not using these images to advertise for Debian, so I seriously doubt that this would fall under trademark dilution. For what it's worth, I've had clipart collections for years which have plenty of images of these types, and these collections were distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a far more polite and civilized manner than you've seen fit to conduct yourself. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I agree that this would be a good use of your time. I encourage you to dedicate yourself to this task ASAP. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? Context is everything. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm There's one now. It's perfectly fine to use logos or names of companies. They don't get to take the word out of the English language, or the image out of our visual library, by using it in trade. They merely get to enforce certain rules on behalf of the public -- which are there to prevent confusion, not to stamp out any mention of them. A clip art library like this is a perfect example of where it's just fine to use images of common objects: it's message-free. Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. Rather, somebody who wants to use a picture of a Humvee in some other document will pick up this image and use it. He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. Debian is not an accessory to that act any more than the manufacturer of the Pinto would be. The law does not work like that. On the other hand, Debian has a tradition of supporting freedoms for users, and freedom of expression is a significant thing. Yanking images because they make someone uncomfortable is a bad precedent. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. It is not Debian's problem if you are uncomfortable with legal acts. [Further FUD snipped.] Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. Hi, Kids! _ _ / / \/ |. .| \ / / \ \_/ / \ There. Now it's in your mail archive! Better be civil or I'll tell the Planter's Company about it. You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature! That's not original clip art. That's an original copy. Of something old enough that the copyright is expired and it's in the public domain. That symbol has been around for centuries. So your point is what, exactly? What law might we be violating by shipping that? Upon what principle of equity or fair dealing might we intrude? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. Given that your original bug report (#289764) on the question used copyright when trademark or trade dress would have been appropriate, that your comment illegal to distribute in Germany is wrong (as previously discussed on this list), and that those images are provided for end-user use and not to promote a commercial product, I suspect that neither you nor the purported rights owners would have any traction in court. Michael Poole
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I don't think it's right to distribute other people's trademarked images as merchandise, even if it's free. It's fundamentally different than reviewing the product in a magazine -- which has a purpose. The purpose of this is to market Debian and entice people to use it using other people's trademarked property. I think the press will be interested to know that in this corner case Debian chose to get away with whatever it can get away with until it receives cease and desist letters because it thinks no one will enforce these trademarks so the risk is small. Or as I'm sure someone will say there's nothing wrong here so naturally we can include say the NFL logo, right? Take your vendetta elsewhere please. We are not creating a competing product with any of these companies, nor are we even implying that they are endorsing us or are connected in any way to us by including these images. We are not using these images to advertise for Debian, so I seriously doubt that this would fall under trademark dilution. For what it's worth, I've had clipart collections for years which have plenty of images of these types, and these collections were distributed commercially. Removal of the pacman image is the only one that I can see any case for at all, but this can be dealt with in a far more polite and civilized manner than you've seen fit to conduct yourself. - David Nusinow
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Regarding http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00312.html I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their Trademarked logo and diluting their trademark. I'm also going to write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer. I agree that this would be a good use of your time. I encourage you to dedicate yourself to this task ASAP. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different?
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:16:24AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? Context is everything. - David Nusinow
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm There's one now. It's perfectly fine to use logos or names of companies. They don't get to take the word out of the English language, or the image out of our visual library, by using it in trade. They merely get to enforce certain rules on behalf of the public -- which are there to prevent confusion, not to stamp out any mention of them. A clip art library like this is a perfect example of where it's just fine to use images of common objects: it's message-free. Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there. Rather, somebody who wants to use a picture of a Humvee in some other document will pick up this image and use it. He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website. How are these different? Without knowing context and intent, we cannot answer; since you have not related that to Debian, I do not wish to go into details. If you want details, various web search engines (popular possibilities not named lest you misinterpret the mention as trademark disparagement or dilution) can find sites written by lawyers that discuss details of coypright law and how purpose and context affect trademark use. Michael Poole
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. It's like this Clip Art package is the kernel and these couple of random images -- they are clearly what they are -- are unaudited contributions by a few people that spoil the whole thing. My intitution tells me that the picture of the McDonalds logo on the BBC website and the inclusion of the FreeMason or Duracell or Rubik's cube are different things. One is a case of journalism or fair use and the other is a case of merchandising - making something more attractive and encouraging you to use it because it's there. But don't flame me, I get your point. I still have a queasy feeling about it, though -- mostly what it represents. It's just not nice to use other people's stuff and there's no good reason for a picture of a rubik's cube to be in there. You should go ask the guy who made the rubik's cube for a picture.
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. Debian is not an accessory to that act any more than the manufacturer of the Pinto would be. The law does not work like that. On the other hand, Debian has a tradition of supporting freedoms for users, and freedom of expression is a significant thing. Yanking images because they make someone uncomfortable is a bad precedent. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. It is not Debian's problem if you are uncomfortable with legal acts. [Further FUD snipped.] Michael Poole
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so whether or not this clip art were nearby. Kind of makes Debian an accessory. Listen, everybody, these images are no big freaking deal. You write the company, they're gonna say who cares? This little thing doesn't matter. No, that's not an accessory. And a typical company will take the approach which generates less billable hours for their very expensive lawyers, and say No, you can't do that. We may not have rights to stop you, but we're sure not giving you permission. The approach -- taking something clearly what it is and using it unless somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather uncomfortable. I can't make any sense out of this sentence, except to tell that you're unhappy. I suspect the problem is in this phrase something clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to stop others from selling batteries which are confusable with Duracell batteries, or from falsely implying that Duracell, Inc. endorses some product or idea. Look, I can even tell you this: I have two batteries, black with copper ends, they say Duracell on them, and I use them to power a Strange and Unusual Device. It's like this Clip Art package is the kernel and these couple of random images -- they are clearly what they are -- are unaudited contributions by a few people that spoil the whole thing. No, we know who drew these, who owns the copyrights on them, and how to contact these people. My intitution tells me that the picture of the McDonalds logo on the BBC website and the inclusion of the FreeMason or Duracell or Rubik's cube are different things. One is a case of journalism or fair use and the other is a case of merchandising - making something more attractive and encouraging you to use it because it's there. But don't flame me, I get your point. I still have a queasy feeling about it, though -- mostly what it represents. It's just not nice to use other people's stuff and there's no good reason for a picture of a rubik's cube to be in there. You should go ask the guy who made the rubik's cube for a picture. I haven't flamed you. You have flamed this list, and made juvenile appeals to authority to cover your ignorance of the law. This is not other people's stuff. This is pictures of other people's stuff. There is no inherent property right to imagery of your public stuff. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: Removal of the pacman image is the only one that I can see any case for at all Even if this were once true (which I doubt), there's no chance that anybody still has a valid trademark on pacman; it's diluted to the point of being common usage. Random example: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-03-04res=l This sort of stuff is common. Now, if you were making a *game* and used it as a character, *then* you might have a problem. Oh, and while we're on the subject of trademarks: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-07-11res=l -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature! That's not original clip art. That's an original copy.
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote: I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. What good would that accomplish? [I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.] Also, is there some reason to represent a Mr. Peanut instead of just a regular peanut? Are we trying to sell those products or something? These are real questions -- some sorts of uses are appropriate for a trademark, and some require that the trademark holder either protest strongly, in a legal sense or lose control over them. The details of this sort of thing depend on the trademark. In other words, if $X is a problem with trademark $a, $X could be completely legal with trademark $b. As an aside, if you want to get some company's logo, usually a google image search of the form `company name logo` will get you a copy. Of course, there are still copyright issues, but if you're just going for a general idea of what typical use is for a specific trademark, google is a good place to start. [But note that this is just a start -- this will only find you pages which have that particular text associated with the image. For example, you'll find ten times as many image hits searching for `square compass` than with `freemasons logo`... not that all of those hits are relevant.] Anyways, if you want to see something packaged which hasn't been, it's usually a good idea to package it yourself. If you want to assert that some use of some trademark is illegal please present a coherent (and accurate) explanation of what sort of problem that use causes for the trademark holder. -- Raul
Re: I'll let the Freemasons know Debian is distributing their trademark
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart. Or Mr. Peanut. Hi, Kids! _ _ / / \/ |. .| \ / / \ \_/ / \ There. Now it's in your mail archive! Better be civil or I'll tell the Planter's Company about it. You've got the Freemason logo in there feature for feature! That's not original clip art. That's an original copy. Of something old enough that the copyright is expired and it's in the public domain. That symbol has been around for centuries. So your point is what, exactly? What law might we be violating by shipping that? Upon what principle of equity or fair dealing might we intrude? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
