Chris B wrote:
> I'm not an expert in US law, but:
> 1.  I think McDonald's rights over their trademark and copyright artwork 
> extend beyond just others trading against it.

IANAL. However, my understanding is for copyright, you have the right to 
prevent others from copying it. For trademark, you have the right to 
prevent others from using marks that would confuse consumers into 
believing the marks came from McDonalds.

I'm sure their logo is both trademarked and copyrighted, so yes, 
technically you couldn't paint it yourself and hang it up. But you'd be 
violating copyright, not trademark.

And, of course, they can afford to sue the pants off you if they wish.

> 2.  In the case of this question - to publish on the POV-Ray Object 
> Collection you need to be able to grant rights over the work to others 
> according to the terms of the CC-LGPL.

That's certainly a point, yes.

>> You're not implying anything about the light, nor that you got it 
>> anywhere.  The whole topic is pretty irrelevant.
> 
> I think the phrase "I copied a trademark" is 'implying' something :-)

Hmmm.

>> If you hand-painted the McDonald's logo as a work of art and hung it on 
>> your wall, McDonald's wouldn't have anything to say about that either.
> 
> If it showed RM in a compromising position, then I suspect they would be in 
> court before the paint dried. 

Again, I was speaking of trademark, not copyright. Trademark is solely 
an indication of where the goods came from, which is why goods from 
non-confusingly disparate domains can have the same trademark. (E.g., 
it's why you can have both a Vax computer and a Vax vacuum cleaner 
without having trademark problems. Or Apple Computers and Apple Records, 
until Apple Computers started playing music.)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message