On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +0000, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > > "Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License"
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
> >
> > Clause 4 of the license posted at the start of this thread is, with the
> > execption of whos names it protects, word-for-word identical.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Yes. Clause 3 is the GPL-incompatible non-free one. Clause 4 is standard
> boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being
> written into copyright by default in US law).
Can you please cite what part of US copyright law does that?
To my knowledge, what you're referring to is actually part of the
common-law doctrine of "right of publicity"[1], which I've mentioned on
this list before[2].
In short, you doesn't have to become a copyright holder in the U.S. to
enjoy legal protections against people using your name or likeness in their
advertising without your consent.
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html
[2] Message-ID: <20040512085432.GG18044@deadbeast.net>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html
--
G. Branden Robinson | The more ridiculous a belief
Debian GNU/Linux | system, the higher the probability
branden@debian.org | of its success.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Wayne R. Bartz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature