[od-discuss] Fwd: [cc-licenses] Trademark attribution loophole?

Tue Oct 1 22:42:20 UTC 2013

FYI for those not following cc-licenses. Problem in subject will be
resolved favorably. Thanks Herb and Kent for bringing this up!

Mike

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diane Peters <diane at creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Trademark attribution loophole?
To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>

Hi everyone,

Thanks for calling this to our attention, Kent.

I agree with James generally that truthful use of a logo to correctly
identify the source should not be considered an infringing use,
particularly where the owner supplies it with the work.
Notwithstanding, having reviewed this thread and a parallel thread on
the open definition list, we think it best to remove the reference to
trademark from the attribution provision in Section 3(a)(1)(A).  While
licensors may still choose to do so just as some already do under 3.0,
its removal should reduce confusion over the scope of the license (as
limited in Section 2(b)).[FN1]

Thus, the attribution provision would read:

"identify the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and others
designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested
by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated)"

We'll be updating the html in the next day, and this change will be
made across all six licenses.

Thanks!
Diane

FN1:  CC has FAQs on the topic of using CC licenses for sharing
trademarks and the implied license point that Kent raises.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>
> On 14/09/13 03:14 PM, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > But to avoid doubt, it would be better
> > either:
> >
> > * to modify 2(b)(2) to say that trademark rights are licensed to the
> > extent needed to comply with an identification requirement, or
> > * to modify 3(a)(1)(A)(i) to say that the identification condition is
> > waived if "the manner requested by the Licensor" would impose legal
> > liability or additional legal obligations on the licensee.
>
> The former would be better as it would ensure the fewest surprises for
> users.
>
> But I think the latter should be used, as it will ensure the fewest
> surprises for trademark holders of the "waah! Creative Commons stole my
> trademarks!" kind.
>
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

--
Diane M. Peters, CC General Counsel
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
diane at creativecommons.org

______________________________________

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
advice.

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community