Mark Mills wrote:
Harry Jackson wrote:
* Darren > Maybe you could use the other badger picture, the one that Andy wanted > originally, instead of the O'Reilly trademarked one?
I mailed Andy ( off list by mistake ) an offer of a badger image that I have been using as a logo. You could use any badger image you want but you would still be infringing their copy right. I remember reading something similar to this about the "Nutshell" names, ie Oreilly own the copyright on them to the degree that its OK to write a book like the "Universe in a nutshell" but you would be gambling by sticking the name on a computer book.
Don't mix copyright with trademark there. Since they trademarked the conflation of Badger and TT2 you can get in to trouble if you do the same to promote your own, published, TT2 work. Technically, the Badger artwork itself probably isn't even copyrighted since they tend to draw from pre-1923 woodcut artworks for their source images. Saves them money and gives them a trademarkable image at the same time. And the same thing with "in a nutshell", to an extent it is a regularly used yet rather weak trademark they employ on many of their products.
Some of the associations that they claim as trademarks seem a little far reaching to me -- the case of "the image of a GNU and the topic of GNU Emacs" springs to mind. Is RMS and the FSF in breach of O'Reilly's trademarks?
Andrew
_______________________________________________ templates mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
