4 ms·

So, there are licensing terms, they just aren't additional ones from Feather?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
onli 9y ago
I don't think that licensing terms is the right term here. But IANAL. I'd call it licensing terms if you are using the license of the trademark holder to do something with the icon, like marking a product of your own. That's not happening here. Feather is distributing icons of brands (which is legal) or icons that resemble those icons of brands (still legal) to people that may use them to depict those brands (for which one does not require a license).
- wyldfire 9y ago
  Unfortunately, copyrights and trademarks aren't mutually exclusive, so technically logos could be infringing derivative works if copyrighted.
  - onli 9y ago
    Oh, seems like I'm out of my depth there :/ I do understand that copyright might apply, but not how it could make such logos problematic (in US-law, right?). In which way can such a logo be infringing derivative work?
logfromblammo 9y ago
You have fallen into the confusing intersection between trademark and copyright. Files created by Facebook, depicting the trademarked Facebook logo, are copyrighted by Facebook. Files created by Feather, depicting the trademarked Facebook logo, are copyrighted by Feather. If the latter is freely licensed, with no restrictions on use, you may use that image in whatever manner you please. If you use it in a manner that generates brand confusion with Facebook's business, Facebook may, as a trademark enforcement action, order you to stop using the image in that way. They cannot make additional copyright claims. It is likely they will anyway, under the assumption that no one but Facebook would create files from scratch for corporate logo images, when the company itself distributes gratis images of its logo to anyone who wants to put one on their website. But if they didn't make it, they can't impose prior restraint on what you do with it via licensing terms. Facebook may impose copyright licensing terms on its own images that support its defense of its trademarks, but those terms have nothing to do with the image by Feather, or any other clean-room implementation of the Facebook logo.
- otterley 9y ago
  What about the derivative works right? Although not a literal copy, one could argue that making one's own similar version of the logo could constitute a derivative work that could be construed as infringing.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    In this example, the copyright interest is in the digital file, not the subject matter of the image. As long as you do not use Facebook's own file, such as by wrapping a PNG downloaded from Facebook in an SVG, there is nothing to derive. But if you did do that, there would also be nothing transformative either, so your new image file would not be eligible for protection. If it seems stupid and counterintuitive to separate the property interest in the file from the property interest in the image described by the file, that's because it is. But some people wanted to be able to have copyrighted digital image files based on artworks that have been in the public domain for centuries, so here we are.
    - otterley 9y ago
      > In this example, the copyright interest is in the digital file, not the subject matter of the image. That's not my understanding of what the derivative works protection covers. What else is to prevent me from making a new Star Wars film using Lucasfilm's (now Disney's) characters?
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        The Star Wars proper nouns are trademarked. Characters, vehicles, planets, etc. That is all. You can make a Star Wars styled film that makes no mention of any existing Star Wars trademarks (an intellectual property minefield) and Disney couldn't touch you (legally). They could still smother you with their massive business negotiating leverage, by threatening to blackball anyone that screens your movie. It's called pastiche.
        9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

onli 9y ago

I don't think that licensing terms is the right term here. But IANAL. I'd call it licensing terms if you are using the license of the trademark holder to do something with the icon, like marking a product of your own. That's not happening here. Feather is distributing icons of brands (which is legal) or icons that resemble those icons of brands (still legal) to people that may use them to depict those brands (for which one does not require a license).

wyldfire 9y ago
Unfortunately, copyrights and trademarks aren't mutually exclusive, so technically logos could be infringing derivative works if copyrighted.
- onli 9y ago
  Oh, seems like I'm out of my depth there :/ I do understand that copyright might apply, but not how it could make such logos problematic (in US-law, right?). In which way can such a logo be infringing derivative work?

logfromblammo 9y ago

You have fallen into the confusing intersection between trademark and copyright. Files created by Facebook, depicting the trademarked Facebook logo, are copyrighted by Facebook. Files created by Feather, depicting the trademarked Facebook logo, are copyrighted by Feather. If the latter is freely licensed, with no restrictions on use, you may use that image in whatever manner you please. If you use it in a manner that generates brand confusion with Facebook's business, Facebook may, as a trademark enforcement action, order you to stop using the image in that way. They cannot make additional copyright claims. It is likely they will anyway, under the assumption that no one but Facebook would create files from scratch for corporate logo images, when the company itself distributes gratis images of its logo to anyone who wants to put one on their website. But if they didn't make it, they can't impose prior restraint on what you do with it via licensing terms. Facebook may impose copyright licensing terms on its own images that support its defense of its trademarks, but those terms have nothing to do with the image by Feather, or any other clean-room implementation of the Facebook logo.

otterley 9y ago
What about the derivative works right? Although not a literal copy, one could argue that making one's own similar version of the logo could constitute a derivative work that could be construed as infringing.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  In this example, the copyright interest is in the digital file, not the subject matter of the image. As long as you do not use Facebook's own file, such as by wrapping a PNG downloaded from Facebook in an SVG, there is nothing to derive. But if you did do that, there would also be nothing transformative either, so your new image file would not be eligible for protection. If it seems stupid and counterintuitive to separate the property interest in the file from the property interest in the image described by the file, that's because it is. But some people wanted to be able to have copyrighted digital image files based on artworks that have been in the public domain for centuries, so here we are.
  - otterley 9y ago
    > In this example, the copyright interest is in the digital file, not the subject matter of the image. That's not my understanding of what the derivative works protection covers. What else is to prevent me from making a new Star Wars film using Lucasfilm's (now Disney's) characters?
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      The Star Wars proper nouns are trademarked. Characters, vehicles, planets, etc. That is all. You can make a Star Wars styled film that makes no mention of any existing Star Wars trademarks (an intellectual property minefield) and Disney couldn't touch you (legally). They could still smother you with their massive business negotiating leverage, by threatening to blackball anyone that screens your movie. It's called pastiche.
      - 9y ago