Fwd: [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks

Sat Jul 9 21:08:19 UTC 2005

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : Michael Hart <hart at pglaf.org>
> Date : 9 juillet 2005 19:27:27 HAEC
> À : Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com>
> Objet : Rép : [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks
> Répondre à : "Michael S. Hart" <hart at pobox.com>
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
>
>
>> Well, trademark law has limited applications, mainly to commercial  
>> matters. And I don't see how using the 1911 public domain  
>> encyclopedia can infringe the Britannica trademark. They can  
>> pretend it does, but to sum it up, Britannica is a work, the title  
>> of this work and a trademark.
>>
>> Once the work is public domain, anybody is entitled to reproduce  
>> it under under its right title since this title is itself part of  
>> the work.
>>
>> Thus, the trademark only protects Britannica from competitive uses  
>> (like if someone tries to launch a Britannica book collection).
>>
>> Basically, the reproduction Britannica 1911 edition is not using  
>> the trademark Britannica, but the title Britannica.
>>
>> It is always important to remember that Trademark Law is much more  
>> restrictive than Copyright Law.
>>
>> I cc Michael Hart in case he remembers anything about this  
>> settlement with Britannica.
>>
>
> We never had to make any settlement with Britannica, or with Oxford,
> when they complained about "The Oxford Book Of English Verse," as they
> never asked us to.  Oxford *did* blow some smoke about the OED, but it
> was just that, and a decade ago, as I recall.
>
> I think we will post the first page of the original OED, to test  
> the winds,
> esp. since I own a first edition, and can thus prove it is from 1888.
>
> We should be able to publish nearly all of the first edition,  
> except those
> few volumes published after 1922. . .I can send a list, if you like.
>
> I should add that PG has TWO different teams working on the  
> Britannica,
> and the other one mentions the name much more.
>
> I got one message from the ex-CEO of Britannica, whom I know through
> other means, and explained that I had had nothing to do with the  
> second one.
>
> mh
>
>
>
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste Soufron
>>
>> Le 6 juil. 05 à 14:09, Robert Scott Horning a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> I've come across a potential legal issue that has an impact  
>>> across several Wikimedia projects that I'd like to bring up for  
>>> general discussion.
>>> I've been trying to find a home for the 1911 Wikipedia (for more  
>>> details, see the new project page), and I've been attempting to  
>>> move it to Wikisource, with the following discussion at the  
>>> Scriptorium: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource% 
>>> 3AScriptorium#1911_Wikipedia
>>> The larger issue I am seeking input from the regulars of this  
>>> mailing list is in regards to proper use of registered trademarks  
>>> for larger projects. In this case it is how a registered  
>>> trademark can be properly used or avoided when a project is tied  
>>> to something that inevitably has strong references to registered  
>>> trademarks.
>>> In this case it is in reference to the 1911 edition of the  
>>> Encyclopedia Britannica, where a whole sub project is going to be  
>>> based on content from that set of volumes.  This issue could also  
>>> deal with How-to books in Wikibooks or even Star Trek or Star  
>>> Wars trivia entries in Wikipedia, which is again why I'm posting  
>>> this issue here rather than other Foundation lists.
>>> In particular for the Encyclopedia Britannica, this issue already  
>>> came up with Project Gutenberg where Encyclopedia Britannica's  
>>> legal team forced Project Gutenberg into a policy statement.   
>>> Keep in mind that prior to this official statement, Project  
>>> Gutenberg routinely referenced the associated text with the  
>>> Encyclopedia Britannica by name.  What resulted was the following:
>>>    "The Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia is a reproduction of a 1911
>>>    edition of a famous encyclopedia. The text has not been updated.
>>>    Although the text is in the public domain in the United  
>>> States, the
>>>    original publisher still has a valid trademark in the original  
>>> title
>>>    of the encyclopedia. The original publisher offered Project
>>>    Gutenberg a license to use the trademark, but the terms of the
>>>    license were not consistent with the volunteer noncommercial  
>>> nature
>>>    of Project Gutenberg or its primary goal of distributing  
>>> electronic
>>>    text with the fewest possible restrictions. In order to avoid the
>>>    possibility of trademark infringement, all references to the
>>>    original title and the original publisher have been changed or
>>>    deleted. Because of numerous references embodying possible
>>>    trademarks, the entire preface has been omitted. The original
>>>    publisher of the 1911 print encyclopedia was not and is not  
>>> involved
>>>    in any way with the creation, editing or distribution of the  
>>> Project
>>>    Gutenberg Encyclopedia. Any errors which may have occurred in the
>>>    conversion to electronic form can not be attributed in any way to
>>>    the original publisher. In order to avoid possible future  
>>> trademark
>>>    infringements or confusion in the minds of the public, this
>>>    electronic version should be referred to as the Project Gutenberg
>>>    Encyclopedia. The name of the original print encyclopedia  
>>> should not
>>>    be used in any way in connection with this electronic text."
>>> I am suggesting that the Wikimedia Foundation follow the lead of  
>>> Project Gutenberg in this case and try to avoid implied  
>>> endorsement by also avoiding the use of registered trademarks  
>>> when possible.  The real question then is how and in what cases  
>>> should registered trademarks be omitted?  Obviously there  
>>> shouldn't be much of a problem for a Wikipedia article about a  
>>> company, but it gets into grey areas when you get into a  
>>> collection of articles that could be refered to by using a  
>>> registered trademark, such as Ford mussle cars or kinds of SPAM.
>>> Obviously each Wikimedia project will end up having to deal with  
>>> this issue independently on the fine points, but it wouldn't hurt  
>>> to establish some general policy guidelines either.  Any general  
>>> assistance would be appreciated.
>>> -- 
>>> Robert Scott Horning
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>