[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

Tue May 2 22:34:29 UTC 2006

--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> On 5/2/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When each project has very limited fair use,
> pictures like logos or
> > screenshots should not be an issue, Gerard. As
> I've argued before,
> > there are going to be very, very few cases where a
> company will agree
> > to license their logo under something like CC-ND.
> Imagine such a
> > proposal being sent to Nike. "Dear Nike, we'd like
> to use your logo,
> > could you please license it under Creative Commons
> No-Derivatives"?
> > Corporate lawyers are all about risk minimization;
> seeing no benefit
> > in such an arrangement, most of them would flat
> our reject the idea, I
> > think.
> >
> The benefit would be that they get their logo in the
> Wikipedia article
> on Nike.  For logos, though, companies would
> probably insist on some
> sort of "educational use only" restriction.  CC-ND
> is just an example.
> 
> Of course, they'd only get that benefit if Wikipedia
> decided not to
> use their image if they didn't give permission.  So
> there'd be a risk
> there, but personally I don't think the Nike article
> would be any
> worse without a picture of that swoosh.
> 
> > The use of CC-ND for logos would actually be
> dangerous as it could
> > prevent us from looking for a better solution.
> 
> How would it do that?  And what better solution is
> available now?
> 

Couldn't someone just take a photograph of a sign
outside a company's headquarters?  I don't see why we
have to show the exact graphic of the logo, when we
can show it used in context and under GFDL.  I have
not followed this issue before so forgive me if this
has already been throughly discussed.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 