Discuss: Logo Violations

brian · Post by **brian** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:37 pm

Isnt method 1 like a "wall of shame" which is against the forum rules and who knows who has already being granted permission for their logo?

AmyStephen · Post by **AmyStephen** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:58 pm

Brian -

How is it a wall of shame post to point out a possible problem? Don't take this the wrong way, but isn't that, in essence, what you are doing with this last post and every other post you make when you question the decisions and policies posted here in Joomla!?

This policy is spelling out a process that we all follow. No one should feel shamed. It's just how we can peacefully go about resolving these possible issues. With this policy in place, community members do not have to engage in vigilante efforts to preserve the community brand. We are instructed to ask in the forums here or via private email.

Why is a public forum option offered? Well, I am guessing that this choice has been extended because some people might believe if there is not a public avenue, favoritism could result and the policy could be unfairly enforced. Therefore, a public means of disclosure is *wisely* offered -- to keep things transparent, if desired.

It's a good move. These questions take time - and they take people off track. It would be good if we start showing good faith and accept some of these policies without more explanation and empower people in their roles. IMO, anyway. For what it's worth. Not a lot, perhaps, but I offer it anyway!

Amy

brian · Post by **brian** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Actualy Amy you are completely wrong the public submissions will me moved immediately on submission to a private "Logo team" only area of the site to avoid the wall of shame. The results of any investigation will not be publicised apart from a reply to the original poster.

I know this becasue I spoke to shayne. I commented originaly becasue he asked me to.

AmyStephen · Post by **AmyStephen** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:10 pm

Even if it's moved, it's still part of the public record and I, for one, think there is value in there - for the reasons I have mentioned.
Also, I think we can show a bit more support and not always have to talk to them or ask about all of these things.

No worries, Brian,
Amy

brian · Post by **brian** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:29 pm

It will be moved to a private section so there wont be a public record. This is essential as its not possible for reporters to know if site A has been granted permission for their logo usage.

As for supporting them there is no them just an us.

AmyStephen · Post by **AmyStephen** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:19 pm

Don't understand about reporters, but that's okay.

Yes - there is "us" - but some of us are responsible to do jobs for the whole of us. Sometimes, we ask "why" when I think we could just say "thanks!"

No big deal. I am certain you understand my general point.

Now - let's celebrate! It's almost 100,000 Forum Members!

manuman · Post by **manuman** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:37 pm

Hey Brian... just remembered why I wanted to move the posts.

Some people have been hesitant in reporting posts as they wished to be as anon as possible. By moving the posts the public record I meant to remove was who had made the post, not who it was about.

Still got the thinking cap on.

Cheers
shayne

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:49 pm

Now I am going to show up all my negativity and suggest a form.

A simple form on the main website:

email
problem
kind of problem (dropdown, logo usage, license violation etc etc etc)
public, private (checkbox)
blah blah blah

The reports would be handled privately til the FG takes a decision.

Keep it as simple as posible

and then, use the forums if needed.

manuman · Post by **manuman** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:28 pm

LOL... I can't see any negativity in that suggestion.

We are doing a review of the Joomla! sites... will pencil that in.

digitaldentist · Post by **digitaldentist** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:54 pm

I would love to see what a LOGO violation is, as it stands a lawyer would easily have a field day with this.

Per your own source package under the LICENSE.php , there is no claim of direct special license of any icons, other than the food icons. The icons would have then been part of your JOOMLA distribution and licensed under the GPL, in which you grant the same liberal use and modification as the very other packages joomla uses

Now if I happened to be Joe End User who used your logo on my site for what ever reason and anyone on behalf of Joomla contacted myself or my host saying i was in some kind of licensing violation, I would simply tell them to read the GPL and that I would happily meet any claim to my gpl'd use of the logo in court and would find any posting of my legal and fair use found on any site saying i was in violation of said such use without merit , grounds for liable and would happily and actively pursue the defense of my good name and the use of GPL'd items as well as damages owed.

brad · Post by **brad** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:00 am

I would love to see what a LOGO violation is, as it stands a lawyer would easily have a field day with this.

I think the logo usage guide is pretty clear and simple to understand: http://www.joomla.org/content/view/259/70/

You may notice the 'TM' on the logo on all official distributions, so there is no confusion about the Logo not being GPL.

brian · Post by **brian** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:00 am

Good point digitaldentist. I think you are probably correct and that there should be a specific note in the copyright.php file indicating that the Joomla logo is not licenced under the GNU/GPL Licence. Sorry Brad but I dont think a notice on the joomla website about the term and conditions for using the logo would be valid as it is not a requirement for anyone installing joomla to ahve ever visited the http://www.joomla.org no is it "reasonable" to expect that someone would check their to see if a file included in a GNU/GPL licenced application is excluded. "Reasonable" is a core legal principle.

Its fairly easy to fix though by updating the licence page at help.joomla.org as this is the page that is accessed by all joomla installs when checking the licence.

Note I suspect that for Joomla! 1.5 a more robust copyright and usage statement will be required to be included in the distribution to avoid misunderstandings.

IANAL

brad · Post by **brad** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:58 am

I have edited my post above to indicate what portion of the question I was attempting to clarify.

..and with that, I'm unsubscribing to this thread. I really must learn to take note of the participants in a thread before I try to offer some helpful comments.

Notice the pattern:
Brian posts, Amy attacks Brian, someone else jumps in and wham yet another thread down the gurgler.... *sigh*

Such a shame, many good point get lost in the quagmire that usually ensues.

ibnhafsun · Post by **ibnhafsun** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:33 am

Not a "field day", sure.

May be someone should split this post too, keeping the original post locked (for further edition if needed). This way we could discuss some interesting points.

digitaldentist · Post by **digitaldentist** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:51 pm

I believe joomla would be better off removing any reference to every trademarked item through out its code, aka
remove trade marked its from everything and then in your installer, make specific note to an "agree button"

Even then, after you add specific note to the license and remove all references, damage is done. Anyone using your trademarked items
could claim that even though you Trademarked the Logo, you decided to GPL its use.

If you want an example of who has used Trademarked and GPL'd images together, I would look at Suse and Fedora.

AmyStephen · Post by **AmyStephen** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:56 pm

My apologies for the "attack."

Since we are apparently looking for community input on this policy, here's mine: please leave the policy the way it was published by Manuman.

Moving it to a form removes any ability for transparency. The way M&M have stated this policy establishes privacy if people do not want to be public or they want to preserve public posting of the site in question; but, if they feel for some reason they are not being heard, there is an option for transparency. Simple.

Thank you for considering my opinion. But, I have no reason not to entrust this to the M&M team. It's one of dozens and dozens and dozens of decisions we are asking them to make on our behalf and I think they are moving forward in good faith and I appreciate their efforts.

Amy

brian · Post by **brian** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:00 pm

@digitaldentist

I believe that there is an issue with the "agree" button approach. IIRC the legal advice from SFLC you cannot have an agree button got the GNU/GPL License. That was why the installer just has a next button and not a confirm/agre button.

mixed · Post by **mixed** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:46 pm

Shouldn't this extend to the use of the JOOMLA / JOOMLA! word mark as well, without the logo?

I registered the JOOMLA trade mark in Australia as a donation to OSM so it has enforcement rights.

OSM may also want to consider having a more detailed trade mark licence/usage policy to avoid someone setting up a site called Joomla! Communities or JoomlaServer.com that builds up its own community, or which appears to be the official home of Joomla!, in competition with this site (and then diverts advertising revenues and promotes proprietary products)

Of course the risk of having such a trade mark policy is that any distribution of Joomla! in Linux distributions like Debian might end up being called IceOOMLA?

(sorry if you don't get the "in" jokes)

brian · Post by **brian** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:50 pm

Yes I get the joke;) although it is of course a more complex issue

"If you wish to use the logo on any commercial product then your usage of the logo must be approved. In general permission will be given providing that your usage of the logo is not done in such a way as to imply any form of approval of the product by Joomla!"

I would be satisfied If the same was applied to the word

Dont want to go down the debian route with an official logo that no one uses or recognises etc

AmyStephen · Post by **AmyStephen** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Mixed -

Just to understand - are you suggesting that the OSM could assert no one has the legal right to use a domain name containing the word "Joomla" because you have registered it as a trademark in Australia and donated it to the OSM? Commercial and not?

Brian - you have a JoomlaWeeklyNews email address and newsletter with that name. There are advertisements in the newsletter - so, it's commercial (judging from Rafa's definition) Does that fall into this, as well?

Hm. I have a good half a dozen names including JoomlaUserGroups.org and JoomlaUserGroup.org we hoped to use for JUGs for the community. (And, I will donate to the OSM, no problem.)

Does anyone use a non Joomla! name? JoomlaShack.com, JoomlaArt.com, JoomlaTutorials.com, JoomlaResource.com, JoomlaSupport.co.uk, joomladesigns.co.uk, JoomlaTribute.com, Joomla-hosting.com ...

All of the community sites - Joomla.it, Joomla.jp, Joomla.fr, Joomla.fi, ...

Eeek!

Amy

brian · Post by **brian** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:10 pm

Note the use of th words in my quote specificaly "not done in such a way as to imply any form of approval of the product by Joomla!"

As for the advertisements in JWN the payment for those adverts as I have written many times is made directly to OSM and not to me so it is no more commercial than this website

AmyStephen · Post by **AmyStephen** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:17 pm

brian wrote: As for the advertisements in JWN the payment for those adverts as I have written many times is made directly to OSM and not to me so it is no more commercial than this website

I absolutely understand that the newsletter merely facilitates donations to the OSM. That's why I referenced Rafa's comments. He has been discussing the NC clause of the Creative Commons and has shown references which suggest the advertisements on the Joomla! website make it commercial. Where the money goes is not the issue, the advertisements are.

But - either way - this is another enormous can of worms.

mixed · Post by **mixed** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:19 pm

The Australian trade mark only operates within Australia - so it is a matter for OSM whether they wish to obtain protection in other jurisdictions

brian · Post by **brian** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:19 pm

Well as there is no CC licence involved anywhere on JWN it is irrelevant

n2design · Post by **n2design** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:27 am

So is the use of joomla ina doamin not allowed. Like joomlaplugz.com? If not thsi really really sucks!!

kristianwilliams · Post by **kristianwilliams** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:28 pm

I dont believe thats enforceable, an example of a company trying to do just that, lost the case.

http://pipexcommunicationsplc.com/email ... -2007.html

I believe is a good run down on what happened with that.

bobthebob01 · Post by **bobthebob01** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:55 am

i just would like to say one little thing

On a slightly different aspect of the logo violation, you should bring yourself to court. the logo as it is showing now on the home page of http://www.joomla.org is not following the branding guideline. it does not respect the area of isolation explained in your branding guideline.

cheers

julien

brad · Post by **brad** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:00 am

bobthebob01 wrote: i just would like to say one little thing

On a slightly different aspect of the logo violation, you should bring yourself to court. the logo as it is showing now on the home page of http://www.joomla.org is not following the branding guideline. it does not respect the area of isolation explained in your branding guideline.

cheers

julien

We know that.. but we're allowed to do that

The Joomla! Forum™