You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit, Inc. brand and logo are intellectual property that are protected by law. DO NOT USE THEM.
One small addendum to your post, @intelliguy (CC: @offgridlife).
It is allowed to make use of the steemit logo under the fair use policy. So basically, when writing about news.
Plagiarism specialist, Jonathan Bailey, has written more about the topic here. Most important to remember are the four conditions which need to be met to fall under fair usage:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Check out his further elaboration on the topic, as well as the differences between copyright and plargiarism, in this article.
As a reporter, I love fair use. It's awesome.
It is, and as a reporter, you must understand the differences. Many new users just starting out in as a blogger, running contests, making neat t-shirts, and just having fun may not.
Yes, I cover intellectual property law, so I understand it pretty well. While I understand your desire to be "better safe than sorry," isn't it better to educate people on proper fair use rather than calling for a blanket ban?
Your interpretation is that I called for a "blanket ban".
If you'd like to educate people on proper fair use, that's your option. Feel free to write an article, and link to it in this reply thread if you like.
I, on the other hand, am not qualified to teach others on proper fair use, and if someone takes my advice and gets sued, I could be liable for giving incorrect advice since I am not a lawyer.
In this case, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'm less likely to be sued for telling people "it's easier to avoid fair use", than it is, to pretend I am qualified to give advice on fair use.
Dude, relax. I didn't quote nor "misquote" you. Enjoy your evening.
Wait wait wait, it should be the opposite logically. You cannot be sued because you are in fact not a lawyer. This would be logical. If the legal system is saying otherwise then that's very interesting! Because I always wondered how we are tied into a contract with the State?
There's a thing called CAPITIS DIMINUTIO or name in all caps. That's why you are INTELLIGUY0 on your creditcard. It's a fake strawman without any rights. But if they call you and say "are you INTELLIGUY0" and you say "yes" the courts have tricked you into representing this legal fiction! I'm not sure if this is strawman is your incorporated birth certificate, where they made essentially a security out of you, but it's a non-binding contract since you or your parents are not aware, or is your natural person. Details details!
Yes, I did link to "fair use" in the article, and I did make reference to the fair use usage.
Surely people will need to do research.
In my personal opinion, it's easier "just not to use it, if possible".
Oops, apologies. I have overlooked that, probably still short in caffeine this morning. Or I saw a werid cached version because there was also only one comment on the article so far. :/
I disagree with that tho, if it news-based reporting (often good condition for the fair use doctrine to apply) it is usually rather simple to know whether you can use something or not.
As long as it's only an element of the content created. This article, for example, could very well have done with the new logo and that without creating any legal pitfalls. :)
Perhaps.
I deliberately chose not to... and I won't. Their logo is their business, and I'm really not interested in using it "AT ALL" ... even for fair use purposes (which I am at the moment).
The mere fact I mentioned Steemit (and will continue to do so) is a violation of their brand, unless of course, I'm using it for Fair Use purposes.
...but to include the logo is even worse. I have other things I'd like to talk about.
See, under the old STEEM logo, it was just too easy (and fun) to use it in as many variations as I liked, without having to worry about Fair Use..
Under the NEW steemit logo, it's no longer easy (and fun) anymore, unless I double check all components of my article meet fair use criteria. (and I mean the whole thing).
If I NEVER EVER DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE STEEMIT LOGO to my computer, I never have to worry about whether or not I accidentally used it for non-fair use reasons by re-uploading it as an image.
As I said, it's just easier to avoid using it, period.
I understand that stance, license issues are often a fickle thing.
Btw, it is important to know that with each page visit your device (more specially its browser) downloads all files required. In this case that includes the image files, which are most often even cached in your browser.
Btw, Steem Inc. hasn't updated the license for Condenser, the open source software which is the Steemit interface, yet. :D
Yet. We'll see that soon if it carries the logo. I haven't checked it.
I deleted it from my Blog post and will not use it again... if I make 40 cents from people upvoting then I am making a commercial gain. The same with any Steemit post.
This is exactly the wrong outcome. We have provisions for such uses, the Fair Use doctrine.
If this entry results in people deleting the logo, while they used it legally, this article has become FUD.
We shouldn't live, and react, because we fear. As @joshpeterson said, education is better than inactivity [paraphrased]. Any article writing about the redesign, with the logo integrated, will be covered under Fair Use. Even if your article makes money of it. Even if you write a design analysis of the logo only and tear it to shreds. In the latter case, having a similar content archive may help, but it isn't required.
What commercial use isn't allowed? Write a Steem news site and use the new Steemit logo in your own logo. That is now explicitly outlawed.
Yes - I over reacted. My mistake.