Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: CC & other forms of IP -- puzzled

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: CC & other forms of IP -- puzzled
  • Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:35:41 +0000

On 4 Jan 2005, at 16:31, Johannes Ernst wrote:

Here are some options:
1) explicitly state that CC licenses only deal with copyright, and no other IP rights are affected (e.g. no license is granted to trademarks, patents)
2) add another configuration category for other IP rights, with choices such as 1) no rights are granted, 2) non-commercial use of trademarks, patents 3) use of trademarks, patents but only if ShareAlike, 4) commercial use, ...

1. To be honest, this kind of confusion of copyright with a patent "right" and a trademark "right" (and a database "right", etc.) is exactly why "Intellectual Property" is such a bad label. The CC licenses are copyright licenses. They do not need to exclude "other IP rights" because these are unrelated. WIPO needs reform here, not the CC licenses. :-)

2. I'm sure the Science Commons will handle patents and trade secrets, and GPL 3 is going to tackle patents much more robustly. Those licenses will be more appropriate for most work that can involve patents. So that leaves database right (which I'm not going to touch with a bargepole), trade secrets (which probably shouldn't be open :-) ), trade dress (which I don't know that much about) and trademarks/Service Marks.

IMHO it *would* be good to see a (separate) CC trademark license for a number of reasons. Characters in stories, novels, cartoons and media franchises are often both copyright and trademark (or still trademarked even after their original stories have entered the public domain!) . Being able to license those for well-defined non-infringing use would help the law around fan fiction, with great benefits to fans *and* the markets they grow for content creators.

There's an interesting bit of IP ju-jitsu using copyleft and trademark licensing known as the d20 license, which is used to license a particular brand for role-playing games. You essentially "pay" for use of the d20 brand in contributed Open Content. This kind of thing could be useful for building distributed communities or commercial projects, but it does demonstrate the main potential pitfall of mixing trademarks or patents with open licenses; the ability to exert downstream control.

A CC-TM license would mean that Adbusters could CC their "Black Spot" brand (rather than just emulating the centralised micromanaged global brands they are trying to critique). I'm sure real social projects could benefit as well.

So there's lots that could be done with creative Trademark licenses. But TMs and other "IP Rights" still shouldn't be factored into the main CC *copyright* licenses IMHO.

- Rob.

--
http://www.robmyers.org/ - A decade of art under a Creative Commons license.
http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/ - Art, aesthetics & free culture weblog.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page