Short version of what I was getting at is that putting CM at the end of something may not achieve anything (other than awareness of the issue), wheras putting TM is probably better than nothing and offers at least some potential recourse later if someone else tries to 'steal' the mark.
I mean I guess its ok to just invent and use something like the 'Copy Left' symbol because thats about giving away rights, but the Community Mark idea is not about declaring no rights reserved, just changing the balance, and that requires something with a legal basis , equivalent to how creative commons is made real, in my opinion. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That Community Mark article was great. Im not sure there is any legal > reality in it though, which may make it slightly pointless. Creative > Commons harneses existing legal system and cncepts about intellectual > property, to build a system which should be compatible with existing > legal system, courts, the idea of contracts, etc. > > I dont know if the same could be done with trademarks, if it can be > done then its probably by building on the existing trademark laws. So > a community could create and use something as a trademark, and could > give other some additional rights to use the trademark, subject to > certain terms. > > But unlike copyright, there are additional burdens on the trademark > 'owner' to use it or lose it, so if the legal requirements to > 'protect' the trademark are incompatible with the vision of allowing > some community reuse, there will be a problem, so Im not sure it would > work. > > This and other things leads me to believe that in practical terms, at > this stage having a non-profit looking after the trademark, rather > than relying on a new concept in mark protection that has no legal > basis, is the safer approach. Its a bit like trying to be legally > sound with the concept of 'a community', if the community is not a > recognised legal entity, then its a set of individuals who could fall > out at some point and each claim to be the legitimate community. So > you put a proper entity together, but it costs time & money. > > I suppose there may be another way to handle the trademark thing > without needing an entity to formally registering trademarks. You can > start using something as a mark, create some human-readable rules for > community use of the mark, and not do anything more formal. If someone > else tries to register that mark later, you can try get get the > application rejected, based on existing widespread use of the mark by > yourselves. (As far as I remember, you can put TM on stuff without > formally registering it, its the registered R symbol that you cant use > unless you have the trademark officially registered.) > > Categories of use are another complication. The same marks can be > registered and used by different people/entities if they are in > different categories of use and dont fall foul of any of the rules > about being deliberately misleading. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Eddie Codel" <eddie@> wrote: > > > > Registering as a Community Mark is an alternative worth a look. > > > > http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/01/14/the-case-for-community-marks/ > > > > -eddie > > > > On 7/24/07, Kent Nichols <digitalfilmmaker@> wrote: > > > > > > John, I'm begging you to form a non-profit. Let the awards live > there. > > > It will happen with or without you, and it may as well be with you and > > > your trademark. > > > > > > -- > > > Kent Nichols > > > http://askaninja.com <http://askaninja.com/> > > > http://hopeisemo.com <http://hopeisemo.com/> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
