Preface: I isn’t no lawyer.
Tonight I was reading over at StockPhotographer.info an article about Featurepics new Blog Use License. But what caught my attention was the immediate assertion of these words as a Trademark. Now, I’ve trademarked my own company name. I did that myself, so I’m at least a little familiar with the process. I immediately checked out the USPTO, and sure enough, this is a live trademark. But even as someone who values intellectual property rights, this one just pisses me off. First, this seems like three (too) generic words, and not something unique enough to designate as a specific source of origin for a product or a service. It’s merely a name for a type of contract, like someone trying to trademark the term “Automobile Sales Agreement”. Furthermore, doesn’t a license (contract agreement) need to contain an exchange of value? I recall some court ruling that said a model release wasn’t a valid contract unless there was an exchange of value, and specifically offering someone free prints in exchange for signing a release didn’t constitute an exchange of value. Featurepics is offering free photos, in exchange for a credit line.
Isn’t this just a modified Creative Commons Non-Commercial By Attribution License in sheeps clothing?
I shudder to think that no individual photographer will ever be able to offer their images to people with a “Blog (common Noun) Use (common Verb) License (Type of Contract)”. Perhaps I better get on with trademarking my “Media Rights Usage Agreement” (TM), or my “License for image use on Weblogs” (TM), or my “Use License for Weblog Display”(TM), or my “Blog Photo Usage Agreement”(TM). Heck, they better not even think about getting near my “Print Use Only License” (TM). Gee, if only I sold images as RF… quick, somebody out there who does should trademark the the phrase, “Royalty-Free Use License”.
And you’re right, I didn’t link directly to featurepics. My Bad, so sorry.
Feature Pics is really bad. Curious about how their upload system worked (Was still waiting for Alamy Uploads to go live at the time) I uploaded two images there a while back as RM, well when they got approved somehow they were labeled as RF. I quickly wrote a scathing message to the management there and had them remove my account immediately. To their credit, they said they would comply w/ my wishes and apologized for their “mistake”. The images didn’t sell thank god.
Gary – even though the person made an application for a trademark is not yet trademarked. There is not even an attorney assgned. see info at uspto
Deftiion: A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name.
There would seem to be ample reason to oppose this broad use of everyday terms for a mark which does nothing to distinguish there goods from anyone elses. People already issue “licenses for blog use”
Gary, your post clearly belongs to rants and raves on craigslist. People may even look past the grammar. There is absolutely nothing wrong with registering a trademark such as “blog use license” I have seen people registering names which may seem even more odd or common to you. As a test when typing in google “blog use license†result pages solely refer to the photo company you had mentioned. As far as the “value” aspect of the contract you must refer to the term known as “consideration” which does not equal money. The case you referring to would be useful in a situation where a cute person on the street takes your photo and with her pure charm makes you sign a release without any real consideration to you. Blog image licensing seems to be fairly new trend to me, thus, probably, the reason why that company chose to trademark this particular name combination when promoting it. Good luck.