Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use

Jordan
I did find the page
http://creativeco
mmons.org/policies

Still it does not say which country the trademak applies
to?
Nor there is an indication as to restriction is usage of the
'name'

> what is the copyright situation for the cc licenses -
as you seem well informed
> is there a trademark registration?
> for which countries?
>
> Anyway, I have no problem in call it MY Creative
Commons
>
> unless of course, cc intend to prohibit the usage of
the 'name'
> world wide - which would
> be another intersting story

> Nobody can trademark the name 'commons' afaik - caust
it is a term to
> indicate the public domain
>
> I am pretty confident that we'll meet in court  anyway
one day or another
> what's your jurisdiction btw?
>
> 
>
> pdm
>
>
> On 9/30/07, Jordan S Hatcher <jordanopencontentlawyer.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Sep 2007, at 06:34, paola.dimaiogmail.com
wrote:
> >
> > > So, my cc licenses from now on will have a
'ethical usage', as per a
> > > definition to be finalized. Which means, the
work is licensed under cc
> > > provided the ethical clause is met.
> >
> > As noted by others, if you do so, this is NOT as
CC licence.  This
> > would be the "Paola DiMaio licence" and
not a Creative Commons licence.
> >
> > ~Jordan
> > ____
> > Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
> >
> > jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
> > IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net
> >
> > Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage
organisations
> > <http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007>
> >
> > "The Impact of Free Trade Agreements on
Information Technology Based
> > Business"
> > <http://ssrn.com/a
bstract=984864>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th
> *********************************************
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
> IMHO the "model release clause" should be in
included in the next version of 
> the CC licences, though I m not sure how the
incompatibility issue would be 
> resolved.

What would such a clause say?

The person with the legal authority to sign a model release
is not the
creator of the work, but the person who is depicted. Thus it
clearly
can't be a standard part of the license to include the model
release.

I think this requires a process outside of the license
itself (though
something merely informative might appear in the license
text and the
"deed") to make it more clear that other,
non-copyright legal issues
might exist.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On 1 Oct 2007, at 03:53, paola.dimaiogmail.com wrote:

> Jordan
> I did find the page
> http://creativeco
mmons.org/policies
>
> Still it does not say which country the trademak
applies to?
> Nor there is an indication as to restriction is usage
of the 'name'


See:

"The double C in a circle, the words and logotype
“Creative Commons,”  
and any combination of the foregoing, whether integrated
into a  
larger whole or standing alone, are Creative Commons’
trademarks."

That means that they have a trademark to the name.

You can feel free to educate yourself about the workings of
the  
international trade mark system, but the word mark
"Creative Commons"  
is, for example, a registered Community Trade Mark
applicable  
throughout the EU/EEA. Trade mark Registration No.
003723971


>
>> what is the copyright situation for the cc licenses
- as you seem  
>> well informed
>> is there a trademark registration?
>> for which countries?
>>
>> Anyway, I have no problem in call it MY Creative
Commons
>>
>> unless of course, cc intend to prohibit the usage
of the 'name'
>> world wide - which would
>> be another intersting story
>
>> Nobody can trademark the name 'commons' afaik -
caust it is a term to
>> indicate the public domain
>>
>> I am pretty confident that we'll meet in court 
anyway one day or  
>> another
>> what's your jurisdiction btw?
>>
>> 
>>
>> pdm
>>

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer
.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
http://ww
w.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage
organisations
h
ttp://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On 1 Oct 2007, at 03:39, paola.dimaiogmail.com wrote:

> Jordan
>
> what is the copyright situation for the cc licenses -
as you seem  
> well informed
> is there a trademark registration?
> for which countries?
>
> Anyway, I have no problem in call it MY Creative
Commons
>
> unless of course, cc intend to prohibit the usage of
the trademark
> world wide - which would
> be another intersting story

I don't know why that would be particularly interesting --
companies  
and individuals have trade mark rights throughout the world
all the  
time and even enforce them. There are whole international
treaties  
about trade mark, believe it or not, and while the system
itself may  
be very interesting (at least to me) the idea of one
organisation  
enforcing their trade mark rights within that system
certainly  
wouldn't be novel.

> Nobody can trademark the name 'commons' afaik - caust
it is a term to
> indicate the public domain
>
They don't call themselves 'commons'. The mark CREATIVE
COMMONS is a  
registered trade mark, and (to cut a long legal argument
short) it  
doesn't matter that COMMONS (may) mean public domain.

> I am pretty confident that we'll meet in court  anyway
one day or  
> another
> what's your jurisdiction btw?
>

I certainly hope not.

> 
>
> pdm
>
>
> On 9/30/07, Jordan S Hatcher <jordanopencontentlawyer.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2007, at 06:34, paola.dimaiogmail.com
wrote:
>>
>>> So, my cc licenses from now on will have a
'ethical usage', as per a
>>> definition to be finalized. Which means, the
work is licensed  
>>> under cc
>>> provided the ethical clause is met.
>>
>> As noted by others, if you do so, this is NOT as CC
licence.  This
>> would be the "Paola DiMaio licence" and
not a Creative Commons  
>> licence.
>>

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer
.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
http://ww
w.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage
organisations
h
ttp://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Terry Hancock wrote:


>The person with the legal authority to sign a model
release is not the
>creator of the work, but the person who is depicted.
Thus it clearly
>can't be a standard part of the license to include the
model release.

>I think this requires a process outside of the license
itself (though
>something merely informative might appear in the license
text and the
>"deed") to make it more clear that other,
non-copyright legal issues
>might exist.

True... the more I think about it the more I agree that it
is difficult to have any model release as part of the
licences.

Nevertheless, there are two alternatives:
(a) Have as Terry suggests some sort of additional
information on the CC site or introduce a step in the CC
licence wizard to ensure that these non-CR related aspects
have been considered by the licensor when CC-licensing a
work.
(b) Include a separate standard model release as an
additional CC legal tool that any licensor could use to
ensure that such problems will not surface. I understand
that some may object to yet another legal instrument added
to an already complex CC system that was originally supposed
to reduce complexity, but such a solution would at least
inform people and give a ready-made tool for those that wish
to use it.

Thank you
pRo


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important
electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/le
gal/disclaimer.htm
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Sunday 30 September 2007 10:44 pm, paola.dimaiogmail.com
wrote:
> Hi PT
>
>  Though
>
> > desirable, such clause raises a series of problems
as many of the
> > discussants have already indicated. I m summing up
some of them:
>
> well, the lack of such clause is going to raise even
larger problems
>
> > - you cannot just add such a clause or make
changes to the CC licensing
> > terms by yourself.
>
> Yes I can. Watch me.

A bit combative there huh? And not overly concerned with the
views of the 
community you wish to be a part of?

Why would you do this? Do you want to deceive? Do you want
to throw a monkey 
wrench into the mix?
>
>  You cannot not in the sense that it would be illegal,
but
>
> > in the sense that it would place your
"customized" licence outside the CC
> > system, i.e. it would render it impossible to
interact with the SA
> > licences. - most legal problems CC licences have
relate to the
> > interpretation of terms such as
"non-commercial" which are not used by
> > national Copyright Laws.
>
> Not necessarily. If the change is straighforrwad and
just adding a
> condition it does not change any part of the agreeent
itself. i say
> that the change that I propose will not affect the
compatibility

It will certainly affect the compatibility of all SA
licensed works.

snip...

all the best,

drew
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Monday 01 October 2007 01:14 am, Karl Ebener wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
> imho the restriction "BY" is not only there
to enforce parts of the
> European moral rights (don't want to open debate on
principles...) , but
> is due to a analogy to open source licensing, where
attribution is a
> very important part of participation. You join, you
contribute and thus,
> you are named. It is an (=one of more) incentive for
contributing...

BY is much more than that - more akin to the old BSD
advertising clause.

Why do I say this? Watch / think:

This seems like a good place to do this...

Would someone make up a 15 minute to 1 hour
"example" music radio show playing 
BY amd BY-SA music where the songs have gone through 5 to 10
generations. 
Assume 3 minute songs. (You can leave the actual songs out
naturally and just 
record the Jock or whatever other way you choose to put in
the BY and the 
licenseing info needed to comply with the license.) Also
assume this is a 
broadcast only station with no internet presence.

So, once again, I will repeat my call for making BY optional
and further for 
the option of a NOBY at least for SA works.
>
> Cheers,
> Karl

all the best,

drew
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:
> On Sunday 30 September 2007 10:44 pm, paola.dimaiogmail.com
wrote:
>> > in the sense that it would place your
"customized" licence outside the CC
>> > system, i.e. it would render it impossible to
interact with the SA
>> > licences. - most legal problems CC licences
have relate to the
>> > interpretation of terms such as
"non-commercial" which are not used by
>> > national Copyright Laws.
>>
>> Not necessarily. If the change is straighforrwad
and just adding a
>> condition it does not change any part of the
agreeent itself. i say
>> that the change that I propose will not affect the
compatibility
>
> It will certainly affect the compatibility of all SA
licensed works.

It would break compatibility.

As has already been mentioned, the licenses state that they
are the  
entire agreement. We cannot add extra conditions. We can
state how we  
expect the agreement to be interpreted, but we cannot bolt
on extra  
restrictions.

- Rob.


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

drew

> >
> > Yes I can. Watch me.
>
> A bit combative there huh?

well, when it comes to defending 'my rights' yes, I admit I
am ready to fight
I think it is called 'litigious' or 'itchy'
I do get in that state only when I feel some lawful rights
are being
denied tough


And not overly concerned with the views of the
> community you wish to be a part of?

of course I am concerned, otherwise I would not be asking
the community opinion
but by denying me you are legal right to place a condition
upon my
work that's need to be challenge

> Why would you do this?

do what? I am saying that it is legal to modify a contract,
and it is
legal to add waivers and riders to any commercial and
intelelctual
property contract

my reply is 'yes I can '  - are we understanding each other
on this one?

cheers



> >
> >  You cannot not in the sense that it would be
illegal, but
> >
> > > in the sense that it would place your
"customized" licence outside the CC
> > > system, i.e. it would render it impossible to
interact with the SA
> > > licences. - most legal problems CC licences
have relate to the
> > > interpretation of terms such as
"non-commercial" which are not used by
> > > national Copyright Laws.
> >
> > Not necessarily. If the change is straighforrwad
and just adding a
> > condition it does not change any part of the
agreeent itself. i say
> > that the change that I propose will not affect the
compatibility
>
> It will certainly affect the compatibility of all SA
licensed works.
no it will not

Not all modifications will cause incompatibility  (some will
and some not)
I am saying that adding an ethical clause , or, making the
cc license
conditional
based on an separate contract (pre agreement on ethics say)
will not
cause an incompatibility with other licenses at all . it
will however
cause an incompatibility with the proposed usage which is
unethical -
which is exactly what I am trying to achieve with this

please correct me where you think I am wrong
>
>
>

paola
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses