> From: Lawrence Lessig > So I agree with this statement of a general rule. But I don't > get how it is applying to this particular case.
It may well not apply well to this case - if it can be agreed that no confusion can occur over the use of Lego bricks in the FC.o's logo vs CC's remix icon. If it can be agreed that few people would infer that CC remix associates with FC.o then there's no problem. > But plainly, the idea of the second was inspired by the first. Not necessarily plainly - it could be coincidence. However you and/or the artist evidently know the provenance. > So again -- it isn't an issue of cultural freedom under your way of > reading the confusion issue. If you don't see this as an issue of > confusion, then it is only an issue of cultural freedom. The other aspect of truth (other than truth in naming and representation) is truth in authorship. The issue here may only be one of desiring to be respectful in terms of crediting one's references or inspirations - or even of the underlying work. Is CC's remix logo a derivative of FC.o's logo (whether by appearance or actual binary contagion)? As long as you are not claiming or implying original, uninspired authorship of the logo (if this is untrue), then there's no problem either. I don't even believe there's an obligation to give credit or attribute one's sources (except where needed to avoid misattribution). > Again, no disagreement in principle. The only disagreement is about > whether there's "truth" to the claim of confusion. Yes. It's NOT obvious to me whether there's actual likelihood of confusion. And as you or others have indicated, Lego bricks as symbols have almost entered the vocabulary, so to some extent they are a poor choice if a unique logo was desired. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
