[Clipart] Firefox trademarks

[Jon Phillips]

OK, I've added this to the guidelines, but don't know how we can check
this but visually by a human once someone has uploaded a graphic. But,
maybe we should note in the pool that all images uploaded are pending. I
don't think it is a good idea to hide submissions until someone can
review, but just make it obvious that they are pending. Do you all
agreew with this?

Jon


On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 23:01, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> Yes, I do think we should be explicit about it.  Folks would want to
> know why their submission was rejected if there were rules about it.
> 
> Perhaps we could say, "No trademarked images" with the upload tool, and
> then define it in more detail in the guidelines.
> 
> Bryce
> 
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jon Phillips wrote:
> 
> > I agree...nothing that is not placed in the public domain explicitly.
> > Companies will sue for identity.
> > 
> > Should I add this to the File and Style Guidelines? What do you all
> > think? I think we should be explicit about this. Also, should this be
> > placed on the main page, or just the guidelines? Thoughts?
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 19:59, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> > > > Bryce Harrington <bryce at bryceharrington.com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, logos and other trademarked items tend to have a lot of
> > > > > conditions attached to them, and I wonder if it wouldn't be safer to
> > > > > simply exclude all trademarked images.  I'd assume they're not
> > > > > placed in the public domain anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that it would be safest to exclude images with significant
> > > > trademark issues from the collection.
> > > > 
> > > > I have no idea whether Wilbur is a trademark.  He's a logo and a
> > > > mascot, but I never investigated his legal status.  I've never been
> > > > very clear on the FSF's stand on trademarks, though I think I have a
> > > > fair idea what their stance on patents is.  I poked around on gimp.org
> > > > and didn't find anything about this.  Unless someone knows, maybe we
> > > > should ask.
> > > > 
> > > > Any image related in any way to Mozilla.org is almost surely
> > > > trademarked, for historical reasons having to do with Netscape.
> > > 
> > > Regarding whether or not open source app logos are trademarked, I think
> > > the BEST thing we can do for the community is to treat them as if they
> > > were.  I think if we were to pick some app's logo and declare it Public
> > > Domain, regardless of whether it was trademarked, could cause harm to
> > > that project.  
> > > 
> > > Plus, the situation with non-trademarked logos is murky.  Unlike the
> > > GPL, where the copyright is _explicity_ and unchangeable, with a
> > > non-trademarked logo, we don't know for certain what the status is, nor
> > > can we be absolutely certain that the trademark is "in progress" and
> > > might show up later.
> > > 
> > > Thus for all these reasons together, I think a blanket "no logos and no
> > > trademarked items" policy would be safest for everyone.
> > > 
> > > Bryce
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > clipart mailing list
> > > clipart at freedesktop.org
> > > http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
> > 
-- 
Jon Phillips
Graduate Researcher
Visual Arts Department

PO BOX 948667
LA JOLLA, CA
92037
USA

cell.858.361.2811
jon at rejon.org
http://www.rejon.org