[jmh2002]

Good, let's hope that is the outcome.

[sarbes]

A quick search turned up that the word "Mediathek" (used in my Add-ons) is protected until 2017 (https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details.../006110101). Funny sidenote: it is registered under "Goods of paper and cardboard, namely towels of paper, napkins of paper, filter paper, handkerchiefs of paper, goods of paper for ornamental purposes, included in class 16, toilet paper, babies' nappies of paper."

If it is really a problem, we could use other names (like "NBC Videocenter").

[MetalChris]

chinese spam threads from new users (which kodi refuses to block)

There's yet another wave of those coming through now. Isn't there requirement of 10 posts before a user is able to start new threads? If not, maybe there should be. Probably wouldn't stop this completely though, but might slow it down. Perhaps there should also be a limit on how many threads can be started within a specified period of time?

[Ned Scott]

It wouldn't be the first time :grin: I don't know, there is a lot to be said for intent and these add-ons do nothing but facilitate the use of said official services...

Seriously though, this opens up a can of worms. If the Foundation agrees then there is a lot of cosmetic work that would need doing to a lot of the add-ons in the official repo. And where do we drawer the line? Logos? I mean, somewhere in the name needs to tell you what official sources the add-on is accessing. ah you've answered this before I could reply.

I just wanted to say, I was a bit too harsh in my original message. No one here is "dead wrong", and I'm sure as heck no expert about the matter. I do think that it is very easy to underestimate a situation like this, though. Common sense seems to disappear when it comes to trademarks, sometimes ;)

It's also entirely possible that nothing will actually happen, and it's all in my head. Either way, it's not something I would loose any sleep over.

[scott967]

Fair use is a copyright argument. You can't use "fair use" for trademarks. Many things that are trademarked aren't even eligible for copyright, but are still fully protected by trademark law.

At least in the US, for federal (Lanham Act) trademarks, there is a doctrine of fair use, and in the 9th US circuit a doctrine of "nominative use" which seems most applicable here. It makes sense, though, to require a standard disclaimer in any add-on distributed through Kodi acknowledging the marks used in the add-on (whether words or graphic elements), particularly since Kodi expressly approves add-ons for inclusion in its repo it might be subject to vicarious liability for infringement due to "confusion".

IANAL and the foregoing should not be considered to be legal advice of course. For that one should consult a lawyer ™.

scott s.
.

[Ned Scott]

Yep, I'm all for nominative use. There's certainly a sort of "middle ground" that will be reasonable/fairly-easy.

[natethomas]

FWIW, guys, trademark isn't like copyright law. We aren't required to try to comply before being asked. We are only required to comply with a trademark when the trademark owner asks us to. The frustrating thing with all the pirate boxes isn't that they existed at all. It's that they refuse to go away even after we ask them to stop.

[learningit]

FWIW, guys, trademark isn't like copyright law. We aren't required to try to comply before being asked. We are only required to comply with a trademark when the trademark owner asks us to. The frustrating thing with all the pirate boxes isn't that they existed at all. It's that they refuse to go away even after we ask them to stop.

Of all this comments in this thread, this is just about the only correct one.
For armchair observers, law is neither intuitive nor is it common-sense, it is interpretive. Though it's fun to guess about what is a violation, it's quite different to actually understand what is and what is not a violation, and even more difficult to understand what required to enforce an action against an alleged violation.

For the add-ons that I have in the repo, I have tried to use public domain logos for here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page which at least addresses the copyright issue. The comments about NBC and HGTV logo usage are off-base as the logos are from the public domain, are from the original authors and do not contain trademarks. What I haven't done in the past is cite the source for those images, which I am doing in the readme files as I update the add-ons.

Does that eliminate the trademark issue? In some territories yes, in some territories no, subject to interpretation. What @natethomas states about compliance is about as universal as it gets.

[jsergio123]

FWIW, guys, trademark isn't like copyright law. We aren't required to try to comply before being asked. We are only required to comply with a trademark when the trademark owner asks us to. The frustrating thing with all the pirate boxes isn't that they existed at all. It's that they refuse to go away even after we ask them to stop.

Of all this comments in this thread, this is just about the only correct one.
For armchair observers, law is neither intuitive nor is it common-sense, it is interpretive. Though it's fun to guess about what is a violation, it's quite different to actually understand what is and what is not a violation, and even more difficult to understand what required to enforce an action against an alleged violation.

For the add-ons that I have in the repo, I have tried to use public domain logos for here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page which at least addresses the copyright issue. The comments about NBC and HGTV logo usage are off-base as the logos are from the public domain, are from the original authors and do not contain trademarks. What I haven't done in the past is cite the source for those images, which I am doing in the readme files as I update the add-ons.

Does that eliminate the trademark issue? In some territories yes, in some territories no, subject to interpretation. What @natethomas states about compliance is about as universal as it gets.

So what you guys are saying is it's OK to infringe until you are asked to cease and desist?

[learningit]

So what you guys are saying is it's OK to infringe until you are asked to cease and desist?

No, more to the point - what is your basis for assuming that there is an infringement?

[jsergio123]

FWIW, guys, trademark isn't like copyright law. We aren't required to try to comply before being asked. We are only required to comply with a trademark when the trademark owner asks us to. The frustrating thing with all the pirate boxes isn't that they existed at all. It's that they refuse to go away even after we ask them to stop.

So what you guys are saying is it's OK to infringe until you are asked to cease and desist?

No, more to the point - what is your basis for assuming that there is an infringement?

Im not saying there is an infringement but Nate's previous statement seems to be suggesting that one doesn't have to comply with trademark laws unless asked to by the trademark owner and you seem to agree.

[learningit]

Im not saying there is an infringement but Nate's previous statement seems to be suggesting that one doesn't have to comply with trademark laws unless asked to by the trademark owner and you seem to agree.

Let's not turn the forum into a legal conversation, I would be more than happy to have an off-line about it with you - I actually have a law degree and have practiced corporate law.

[EDIT] Sorry, I meant to finish with: even with a law degree, I don't feel competent to discuss the ins-outs of trademarks and copyrights - it's a highly specialized area of law.

[Ned Scott]

If they honestly don't think they are infringing, then yes. I might not agree with it, but my interpretation is different, and there is no way to say who is right 100% until a complaint comes in.


That being said, I think it would be more ... respectful to do this preemptively. Among other reasons. This is less about the letter of the law, and more about what is right and reasonable.

A major side effect of this is that it would make a far better first impression with companies/sites, considering the strong desire to have more of these add-ons become official, to do so.

Given what they've learned for their own trademark, the Kodi project should know better than to claim ignorance, and it's a bit insulting to "just get away with it" because that's what the law seems to allow. Treat others as you want to be treated. Wouldn't it be better if sites (that abuse the Kodi trademark) didn't wait to be contacted before cleaning up their act?

"Surely this doesn't apply to us." "Common sense says people will know the difference, even if we're using someone else's name." "Our use is too small to matter" "We aren't trying to hurt anyone". Those are the kinds of responses I got when I would tell people they couldn't use the Kodi trademark. People thought we were silly to suggest otherwise. They had a hard time even believing there was an issue, let alone that they should change what they were doing. Sound familiar?

A simple change in naming conventions is all that is needed. There is no burden, there is no downside, but there is a lot of potential positives.

[Ned Scott]

And if you're wondering "boy, isn't that an overly strong option/reaction to have about something so minor, Ned?", you would be correct. See, this is the kind of thing people might have as a semi-passive thought. Writing it down and posting it seems to give it more "weight". On the list of things to worry about, this is probably dead last. Unfortunately, the forum software lacks any kind of markup/formatting to indicate "that's just what I think, and I'm passing time while sitting on the John".

Also, I'm kind of an asshole.

I have much stronger feelings about the sound icon that YouTube uses. It looks like a damn lamp and not a speaker. Change for the sake of change. Get off my lawn.

[learningit]

...A simple change in naming conventions is all that is needed. ....

Really? To solve what issue?