On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:07:50AM -0500, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> * "or "powered by" statements"
>
> Is this too specific, or are we hoping a judge would understand this as
> referring to a class of statements? E.g. if there was a "FooBar
Inside"
> statement instead of "Powered by FooBar"...
This is just a clarification of what kinds of things absolutely are
not 'Legal Notices'. It isn't meant to be exhaustive, but I did
recently add 'Powered by statements' because that is such a common
form in which I've seen the problematic condition.
When Gerv raised this, I wondered why the word "trademarks" isn't in
there.
When I suggested adding "trademark legends" I'm SURE I had a good reason
not to
add "trademarks," but for the life of me I can't figure it out now. Maybe I
was
thinking about the case where a name is also a trademark, so in the copyright
notice the company name would also be trademark? But that seems a silly thing
to worry might get misinterpreted.
I believe something like that had occurred to me. *Maybe* it would be
silly, but based on past experience I can anticipate *some* critical
readers saying that there's a contradiction (or, worse, a trap)
because you have to preserve copyright notices.
That said, if you'd used 'trademarks or trademark legends' in your
version I suspect I would have used that.
So if no one else can think of a good reason not to say
"trademark," doesn't it
make sense to say "but does not include logos, other graphical images,
_trademarks or_ trademark legends[, or "powered by" statements]." That
will
take care of all the "powered by," "built on," "inside"
statements.
It's a good solution, apart from the concern noted above.
- RF