Use of LGPL Image as Logo
July 10, 2007 12:38 PM Subscribe
Can I use this image (LGPL'd) as a logo for my website? I'd like to modify it to change the color but otherwise use it unchanged. I'm unsure about the licensing issues though.
Response by poster: Does a logo need to be trademarked? Will the modified image be trademark-able?
posted by GregX3 at 1:36 PM on July 10, 2007
posted by GregX3 at 1:36 PM on July 10, 2007
I doubt you will be able to trademark a copyrighted image that is not yours.
posted by rhizome at 1:47 PM on July 10, 2007
posted by rhizome at 1:47 PM on July 10, 2007
Your modified logo will be a a derivative work of the LGPL'ed icon. Under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License, you can distribute your logo under any terms you wish, so long as the terms must allow "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Note that this means someone else could use your modified logo as the logo for their own website or as the icon for their application.
If this doesn't bother you, than sure, you're free to use the icon so long as you comply with the terms of the LGPL. In particular, you have to give "prominent notice" on your website that the modified logo is based on an icon from the LGPL'ed Crystal Clear theme, link to GPL/LGPL, and include Crystal Clear's copyright notice wherever you have your own copyright notice.
posted by RichardP at 1:49 PM on July 10, 2007
If this doesn't bother you, than sure, you're free to use the icon so long as you comply with the terms of the LGPL. In particular, you have to give "prominent notice" on your website that the modified logo is based on an icon from the LGPL'ed Crystal Clear theme, link to GPL/LGPL, and include Crystal Clear's copyright notice wherever you have your own copyright notice.
posted by RichardP at 1:49 PM on July 10, 2007
No, you dont have to trademark it. Considering you dont own the image nor its copyright I would think its would either be untrademarkable or easily defeated when challenged.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:51 PM on July 10, 2007
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:51 PM on July 10, 2007
Does a logo need to be trademarked?
You are under no legal obligation to trademark your logo.
Will the modified image be trademark-able?
Yes. The USPTO does not require a trademark holder to own the copyright to the image used to register a mark. However, there would be little point (other than discouraging a competing registration) — one usually registers a trademark to prevent one's competitor from using similar marks, however under the terms of the LGPL you can't distribute your logo under terms that restrict this use, so you'd be required to license your trademark to everyone to whom you distribute your logo.
posted by RichardP at 2:13 PM on July 10, 2007
You are under no legal obligation to trademark your logo.
Will the modified image be trademark-able?
Yes. The USPTO does not require a trademark holder to own the copyright to the image used to register a mark. However, there would be little point (other than discouraging a competing registration) — one usually registers a trademark to prevent one's competitor from using similar marks, however under the terms of the LGPL you can't distribute your logo under terms that restrict this use, so you'd be required to license your trademark to everyone to whom you distribute your logo.
posted by RichardP at 2:13 PM on July 10, 2007
Copyright != trademark
Let me say that again:
Copyright != trademark
Under the LGPL you can 1) copy and 2) distribute either a) the original work or b) a derivative work so long you comply with the terms of the license.
Using a derivative work as a logo on a website is probably NOT "distribution" within the meaning of the LGPL. (Distribution of a copyrighted work generally involves a transfer of possession or ownership - note that the LGPL usess the term "convey")
If you used the logo in a way that it became a source identifier for whatever services you offer on your website, then you may acquire common-law trademark rights in the work even without registration.
You may acquire statutory trademark rights if you plunk down the cash to register the mark with the USPTO. (If you were going to do that, you might as well pay for a custom logo.)
Could you, if you registered the mark that used this image, prevent others from using it as well? The answer is... maybe. (And if not, then what's the point of claiming trademark rights?) That gets us into the whole body of law involving what is and is not a protectable mark - a whole semester of law school unto itself.
PS - if you want to use this for business purposes, why haven't you hired yourself a lawyer? You need to.
posted by mikewas at 3:14 PM on July 10, 2007
Let me say that again:
Copyright != trademark
Under the LGPL you can 1) copy and 2) distribute either a) the original work or b) a derivative work so long you comply with the terms of the license.
Using a derivative work as a logo on a website is probably NOT "distribution" within the meaning of the LGPL. (Distribution of a copyrighted work generally involves a transfer of possession or ownership - note that the LGPL usess the term "convey")
If you used the logo in a way that it became a source identifier for whatever services you offer on your website, then you may acquire common-law trademark rights in the work even without registration.
You may acquire statutory trademark rights if you plunk down the cash to register the mark with the USPTO. (If you were going to do that, you might as well pay for a custom logo.)
Could you, if you registered the mark that used this image, prevent others from using it as well? The answer is... maybe. (And if not, then what's the point of claiming trademark rights?) That gets us into the whole body of law involving what is and is not a protectable mark - a whole semester of law school unto itself.
PS - if you want to use this for business purposes, why haven't you hired yourself a lawyer? You need to.
posted by mikewas at 3:14 PM on July 10, 2007
Response by poster: It's just for a small web application I'm working on. It could have business/commercial value but most likely not. I don't really want to spend too much money on it for paying lawyers and such before I know if it will be sucesfful.
posted by GregX3 at 5:32 PM on July 10, 2007
posted by GregX3 at 5:32 PM on July 10, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by cmonkey at 1:35 PM on July 10, 2007