> From: Gavin Baker > I don't think there is any serious chance that someone will > see the icon > CC used and mistake it for FreeCulture.org's endorsement or anything > like that.
Logos are a trademark issue. It is obviously not a concern whether the logo image is reused, adapted, remixed, etc. The issue is one of representation. 1) Has FC.o intended the logo to stand as its name? 2) Has the logo become established (recognised) as identifying FC.o? 3) Or even if unintended, have people tended to perceive the logo as indicating FC.o's involvement through frequent association? 4) Has the use of the logo by CC preceded or paralleled FC.o's use of it? 5) Has the logo become associated with CC's 'remix'? 6) Is one logo/association clearly more familiar than the other? Because of an implicit affiliation between CC and FC.o (whether desired or not), there is a likelihood that people may not see distinct uses of the same image as if separate logos. Whoever appears to have the stronger identity with the logo may be inferred as being named/identified whenever the logo is being used. Either people will infer that CC's use of FC.o's logo for their 'remix' icon names FC.o and hence gives people the idea that FC.o are the proponents of remix culture (and CC is endorsing this), or people will assume that the logo always indicates CC's remix icon and that by using it FC.o are the proponents of remix culture (and endorsing CC's remix signifier). Either way, if both organisations use the logo (as identifying FC.o and as a remix icon), then an association between FC.o and 'remix' will be created. Perhaps FC.o's objectives are well served by being associated with 'remix'? Perhaps not. Another discussion. Similarly, perhaps CC would rather not use an icon that people may infer as deliberately invoking FC.o? It is only if the association is not desirable that either or both organisations should choose different images to avoid confusion and association. However, it is very important that this issue is not misrepresented by malicious press as "Two copyleft organisations squabbling over who owns the IP of a logo". This is proper and polite discussion over an overlap in symbolic names (logos), just as two employees in an organisation might come to a polite agreement as to how to distinguish John Smith from John Smith. I'd say that Lego bricks better fitted the idea of remix than free culture. Lego bricks are immutable components (as samples are to some extent) that can be assembled in a variety of ways. Free culture is a far bigger idea and deserves a more sophisticated logo. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
