Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by anon walker, Jul 30, 2012.
So it sounds like M. Auffret is granting everyone permission to reproduce, without any restrictions, the logos and credo that he registered in France.
Ok maybe one restriction:
No unwanted pizza orders.
Do any lawyers around here understand what M. Auffret is talking about? I would have thought a Creative Commons registration would be the way to go.
No doubt M. Auffret is honorable. However the sexy gold digging fiancee he is about to marry is plotting to poison his soup and sell his assets to the highest bidder, namely David Miscavige.
So here's a thought. If he really wanted it to protected for everyone to use, why the fuck didn't he just release it under an unrestricted Creative Commons?
He claims to be in touch with French Anons. One of them should ask him that.
AFAIK, none of french anons here have ever been in touch with him or his team.
Interesting. I have no idea what percentage of french anons use WWP, though.
French anons do keep up with this forum and sometimes contribute.
I thought it was already registered under Creative Commons?
And I read that as "in touch with French Onions." It must be lunchtiem.
Of course. But not all of them. If the poster doesn't know of any (assumably WWP) french anons this guy has spoken to, that doesn't mean he hasn't spoken to one the poster doesn't know. That's the point I was making.
Anyone ask Nono the Clown yet?
That might be a good idea. He isn't exactly an Anon, but might be a good ombudsman if he wants to do it.
I know, right? But he says
By "current case," I wonder if he means his registration of Anonymous logos or some other recent legal case involving a Creative Commons license. If he means his own case... well that seems strangely circular. It's like he said, "Anonymous logos aren't safe from people who might privatize them, so Imma privatize them to protect them!"
If you can trademark something with a Creative Commons copyright, doesn't that make a Creative Commons copyright useless?
I am assuming it is possible to find the headless suit image on a web page with a Creative Commons mark pre-dating M. Auffre's trademark registration.
we need to talk. heh.
The fact that Creative Commons was used doesn't forsake the original creator's ownership rights, it specifies them. My protest photos are under CC, but that doesn't mean someone can come along and use one as their business logo.
I am guessing that M. Auffre did not say anything in his application for trademark about the Anonymous logos being used for several years now all over the Internet and irl under a Creative Commons license.
I'm also guessing that the person handling the application simply queried some large database they have of existing marks, found nothing, and so granted the registration.
Yet there must be a way of notifying the appropriate official that a mistake has been made, that a trademark was recognized that was already in use. This is where I need a lawyer to help me understand this process.
I've just done a lot of searching for a followup to this, but almost all of what turned up was just the old story being repeated.
Thanks for the update, Wrong Guy.
This isn't gonna end well. Nobody is gonna pay the lawsuits that insue, because people know this is bs.
This is hilarious that this even happened. It would be even funnier if they were actually a part of us.
Like hell anyone's gonna take down the anonymous logos, etc, this is gonna be ignored like crazy.
edit: apparently, he filed the copyright, etc, so that nobody else could do it. He said that there is a NO BAN thing on it which means that it is a free to use item. In a sense, he did us a favor.
What's needed here is a shoop of a merge between Troll Face and GF mask
IANAL but I think copyrights can be sold. So the motives of the original person doing the filing may be irrelevant.
And the fact that he said it was free to use doesn't mean he has to stick to that.
this isn't going to go down well.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!