Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Video of the FSUK talk from the 19th February

[Andy Halsall]

Hello again,

Wrt the two licenses you mentioned, I was more going on the basis that they 
seem no closer than the CC licenses to what I would consider free software 
licenses (i.e. with freedoms 0-3), as opposed to being inherently better.  
Frankly I'd be happy to have this stuff released under almost anything, the 
particular license chosen seemed the most appropriate, although happily it 
has led to some debate and discussion and forced me to take a closer look at 
the licensing landscape. 

On to the CC logo, Creative commons exists to provide a license that is 
permissive.  Attempting to force restrictive clauses on its users by way of 
trademark enforcement would be counter to that aim.

the terms surrounding the use of the logo are fairly clear: 

"Creative Commons licenses the use of its trademarked corporate logo ... on 
the condition that the trademark licensee use the mark to point to the 
Creative Commons homepage, http://creativecommons.org, and only to the 
Creative Commons homepage. Creative Commons retains full, unfettered, and 
sole discretion to revoke this trademark license for any reason whatsoever or 
for no specified reason."

As far as I am aware, you may use a trade mark to refer to someone else's 
product's or organisation or services as long as you don't use it in relation 
to goods or services which are identical to those for which the mark is 
registered
 or
use a trademark or similar mark if there exists a likelihood of confusion 
(including association or an indication that the holder of the mark endorses 
something).
or
where the use of the mark, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, 
or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade 
mark.

In short, afaik trademarks are not like copyright, you can use them as long as 
you are not using them in a way that is prohibited.  Using a mark when 
referring to a product or service that is provided by an organisation is 
generally seen as OK.

As for estoppal, I would say it is reasonable given the CC's role and services 
and the license under which the mark is licensed, that I as a plaintiff in 
any trademark dispute, relied on the expectation that I had a license to use 
the mark in a reasonable manner (which I have) and done so within existing 
law and would suffer detriment if that expectation were found to be false.

Again, I'm not legally trained or qualified in any way, but I do have the 
probably false belief that in the UK at least, the law and how it is enforced 
does rely in someway on common sense.
>
> Why?  I can't see that CC have ever given us an expectation that their
> logo (and probably name - isn't that a trade mark too?) can be used
> without limit and I thought that was required for it to be estoppel.
> That trade mark policy has said it can be revoked at any time since
> fairly early on IIRC.
>