There's nothing wrong with our logo, but I wouldn't mind having more logos :) Graphics are fun! We can always use more! I would object to abandoning our existing logo simply because Creative Commons came in and hijacked it, though. We've been using it for years, and CC just started using it a few days ago. Surely if one of us must change, it should be them.
I'm not convinced that anyone needs to change anything, though. It's certainly worth noting that FreeCulture.org supports freedoms beyond simply remixing. The "bricks" logo was inspired by Lawrence Lessig's "refrain" from his original "free culture" presentation <http://lessig.org/freeculture/>: * Creativity and innovation always builds on the past. * The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it. * Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past. * Ours is less and less a free society. Surely the freedom to "build upon the past" also includes the right to distribute what you've built! And surely remixing and distributing aren't an exhaustive list of things that we support, including sleeping on the work, etc. It would also be nice if Creative Commons acknowledged where they got the "bricks" logo from. I don't think there's really any other place that particular arrangement of bricks could have come from, they clearly borrowed from us, and it would be nice if they mentioned their source or "attributed" us. Aside from clarifying our wider focus, and CC attributing us, however, I think that things are fine as they are. When FreeCulture.org was just starting, and we purchased the freeculture.org domain, Lessig had not yet published his book "Free Culture". When we heard about the book, we were worried that he would be angry with us for grabbing both "freeculture.org" and "freeculture.net" ("freeculture.com" was already owned by a domain squatter). Would this interfere with his book website? When we wrote to him apologizing for grabbing these domains for the term that he coined, he wrote back that there was nothing to worry about, that he wasn't angry at all. He said that we could take this as an opportunity to show that "trademark confusion" isn't as easy as the lawyers make it out to be, that we could use the same name in our different spaces without confusing anyone. He said that he'd link to us on his book website if we'd link to him, and so we did. We got many of our early recruits from people who visited <http://free-culture.org> and clicked on the link on his front page. I think that we should treat Creative Commons's "borrowing" of our logo in the same way that Lessig treated our borrowing of his term "free culture". I see no reason why friends can't use the same imagery to represent slightly different things, so long as we help spread the word about one another. Peace, ~Nelson Pavlosky~ Co-founder, FreeCulture.org http://nelson.freeculture.org Fred Benenson wrote: > Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that -- then we solve the problem > and get a new look. > > Anyone up for the task? > > F > > > On 2/26/07, *Janet Hawtin * <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > perhaps a FC logo which doesnt use lego(tm) might be a good idea > anyway? > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> > > > > > -- > The content of this email message is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights Reserved. > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
