Re: one more comment on logos

[Kathrine Henderson <kathrinehenderson@xxxxxxxxx>]

exactly my point Denise, copyright is just one of the many intellectual
property issues we deal with as information professionals, professors etc,
Kat



----- Original Message ----
From: denise tanka
<denise.tanka@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Kathrine Henderson <kathrinehenderson@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:59:51
AM
Subject: Re: one more comment on logos

Let's no confuse trademarks w/
copyrighted material.  (That 'TM' after the Google logo signals a unregistered
trademark-- quite a different matter than copyright.)

*My* $.02

--D

On Jan
28, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Kathrine Henderson wrote:

> Not a lawyer--so this is
not a legal opinion, but I do not believe 107 and 110
> exceptions are
applicable to the use of trademarks like logos even if the
> nature of the use
in non-commercial and educational. I'm not sure who
> mentioned the Latham
Act, but I agree it is what is applicable here.  Although
> attributing is
always a good idea from a plagiarism perspective, I'm not sure
> that it would
make any difference if one was accused of infringing on the
> mark.
> 
>
Although chances are slim to none that a student or professor would be
>
called on the carpet for this kind of use, my view is we still have to make a
> good faith effort to follow whatever intellectual property laws are
>
applicable.  There's a lot to be considered when we use slogans, logos, and
>
other marks and images-- from use of recognized fonts--google's is copyrighted
> by the designer of the font, and one can purchase it in a digital format for
> $100...to use of that famous Nike swoosh or Indiana Jones' face--could be
>
Disney's could be Harrison Ford's rights we are stepping on.
> 
> My $.02,
>
> Kat