hobophobe
07-22-2007, 02:59 AM
Back in March I sent a private message via this board to the CEO of Revision3 (Jay Adelson), and more recently I sent an e-mail intended for Revision3's management via the e-mail 'abuse@digg.com'
Both were ignored and there is no listed contact information for Revision3 on their pages (aside from a press contact and a advertising contact). I'm using this thread as a last resort before I contact the Creative Commons organization directly.
Here's the deal: on the sidebar on most Revision3.com pages you see a copyright notice including a Creative Commons-owned button that says 'some rights reserved.' There is no indication of what content is intended by this image/notice, and there's no link or indication of a specific Creative Commons license intended either.
The works distributed by and created for Revision3 do not have specific license/copyright information included on their sectional pages. Some videos (specifically Totally Rad Show) do contain copyright notices at the end of the show, others contain no notices.
We do know, however, that digg.com and can assume their sister company Revision3 take pains to police their own intellectual property in the form of Trademarks. [Hey, look at that, their luxurious forum software censors the use of a certain domain name that rhymes with 'pig crown.' Gotta love that. Just hope they don't censor this post too.]
We can safely assume that domain name is violating the digg.com trademark, but whether there were also issues related to the distribution of Revision3 owned content it's not clear.
What is painfully clear is that the Revision3 use of the Creative Commons image violates the Creative Commons licensing policy. I will quote that now:
Creative Commons Public Copyright License Marks: Creative Commons licenses the use of its trademarked CC logo in the context of its Public Copyright License Marks (shown immediately to the right) on the condition that licensee use the mark solely to point to a Creative Commons license or Commons deed on the Creative Commons server or otherwise uses it to describe the Creative Commons license that applies to a particular work; and provided that, to the extent the licensee is using the mark in an online environment, licensee does not alter or remove the hyperlink embedded in such logo as made available on Creative Commons webpage. Creative Commons retains full, unfettered, and sole discretion to revoke this trademark license for any reason whatsoever or for no specified reason. Creative Commons is particularly likely to revoke said license if, in its full, unfettered, and sole discretion, it finds that licensee’s use of the mark is likely to bring disrepute to licensor or its mark.
If you're using the Creative Commons license you must say so explicitly, and you must say which content it applies to. I'd love to see Revision3 update their site and content to tell me what rights they reserve and what rights they grant. Without doing so we all must assume they grant no rights to distribute, rebroadcast, etc.
I hope this will be the last effort I must take in this matter. Misrepresenting your content as Creative Commons is bad form. Ignoring fans of your content that try to bring attention to the problem is bad as well.
If you expect others to respect your trademarks I believe fully that you should respect the intellectual property of others. Currently you aren't doing so and the next action I'll take if this isn't rectified is to contact the Creative Commons organization.
They may decide it's not worth their trouble, but I suspect they will. It shouldn't require their intervention to solve a very simple and straightforward problem, but if it does then I guess that's more billable hours for your lawyers (and theirs if they aren't pro bono).
Please correct this problem at your earliest convenience,
Adam
Both were ignored and there is no listed contact information for Revision3 on their pages (aside from a press contact and a advertising contact). I'm using this thread as a last resort before I contact the Creative Commons organization directly.
Here's the deal: on the sidebar on most Revision3.com pages you see a copyright notice including a Creative Commons-owned button that says 'some rights reserved.' There is no indication of what content is intended by this image/notice, and there's no link or indication of a specific Creative Commons license intended either.
The works distributed by and created for Revision3 do not have specific license/copyright information included on their sectional pages. Some videos (specifically Totally Rad Show) do contain copyright notices at the end of the show, others contain no notices.
We do know, however, that digg.com and can assume their sister company Revision3 take pains to police their own intellectual property in the form of Trademarks. [Hey, look at that, their luxurious forum software censors the use of a certain domain name that rhymes with 'pig crown.' Gotta love that. Just hope they don't censor this post too.]
We can safely assume that domain name is violating the digg.com trademark, but whether there were also issues related to the distribution of Revision3 owned content it's not clear.
What is painfully clear is that the Revision3 use of the Creative Commons image violates the Creative Commons licensing policy. I will quote that now:
Creative Commons Public Copyright License Marks: Creative Commons licenses the use of its trademarked CC logo in the context of its Public Copyright License Marks (shown immediately to the right) on the condition that licensee use the mark solely to point to a Creative Commons license or Commons deed on the Creative Commons server or otherwise uses it to describe the Creative Commons license that applies to a particular work; and provided that, to the extent the licensee is using the mark in an online environment, licensee does not alter or remove the hyperlink embedded in such logo as made available on Creative Commons webpage. Creative Commons retains full, unfettered, and sole discretion to revoke this trademark license for any reason whatsoever or for no specified reason. Creative Commons is particularly likely to revoke said license if, in its full, unfettered, and sole discretion, it finds that licensee’s use of the mark is likely to bring disrepute to licensor or its mark.
If you're using the Creative Commons license you must say so explicitly, and you must say which content it applies to. I'd love to see Revision3 update their site and content to tell me what rights they reserve and what rights they grant. Without doing so we all must assume they grant no rights to distribute, rebroadcast, etc.
I hope this will be the last effort I must take in this matter. Misrepresenting your content as Creative Commons is bad form. Ignoring fans of your content that try to bring attention to the problem is bad as well.
If you expect others to respect your trademarks I believe fully that you should respect the intellectual property of others. Currently you aren't doing so and the next action I'll take if this isn't rectified is to contact the Creative Commons organization.
They may decide it's not worth their trouble, but I suspect they will. It shouldn't require their intervention to solve a very simple and straightforward problem, but if it does then I guess that's more billable hours for your lawyers (and theirs if they aren't pro bono).
Please correct this problem at your earliest convenience,
Adam