2016-02-12, 00:37
Just to play devil's advocate on the logo. http://www.kaseya.com/
(2016-02-12, 00:37)keith Wrote:(2016-02-12, 00:12)metalkettle Wrote: That is true. Surely some of the Addons in the official repo do not have explicit permission from the source.
The addons in the official repo, as far as we're aware, get their content directly from the source. IE: SyFy streams from their own website and we're not pulling ripped copies off some janky website.
While we haven't got explicit permission, it typically falls under fair use because of the source.
Much of this boils down to 'intent'. Our addon and their website has the exact same intent: to promote media in a safe and legal way, which views are counted by the respective owners of the content and if they are setup correctly, showing the ads associated, just like on the website. We will not allow addons in our repo that intentionally block ads, or put ads over someone else's content they don't own.
I am actually actively on working on reaching out to everyone who has community addons to build relationships and see if they want to help support an official addon.
As an example, VEVO reached out to us to say our addon didn't support ads. We responded it's a community addon and we're using their published API which does not have ads in it, but we'd love to form a stronger relationship in which we are a '1st party addon ecosystem' using the same API's Roku, Fire TV, Android TV, etc use. They never got back to us.
So while we did not get explicit permission, because we're not damaging their brand and receiving content directly from the source (ie, their api/website/etc) they are fine with it.
If you know of another addon in the repo which does not conform to these rules (and its entirely possible a few out of the 1000+ slipped through the crack) please let us know and we'll quick move to remove it and contact the addon dev.
(2016-02-12, 00:41)metalkettle Wrote: I'm not sure which ones would and which ones wouldn't conform to the rules(obviously those with an api are fine, but Addons scraped from the html I'm not sure) but for new users surely you must admit it's confusing. They can watch South Park or Premier League football (which is a subbed service) on one addon but not another.
(2016-02-12, 00:50)TVTips Wrote: I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement
(2016-02-12, 00:52)metalkettle Wrote: As far as new users... the first place they look will be google. The second place social media. I admit that both those sources of information are now flooded with the wrong type of information, but this hasn't happened overnight.
(2016-02-12, 00:52)ClassicNancy Wrote: So let me ask so I know how to go forward. I use Classic Kodi Skins as my title. Not twitter user name by the way. If that isn't allowed can I say Classic Skins for Kodi? Otherwise they could be for anything lol.
(2016-02-12, 00:53)keith Wrote:(2016-02-12, 00:50)TVTips Wrote: I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement
Yes, if you use kodi in its name without the foundation's permission, as per the trademark policy:
http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy
(2016-02-12, 00:58)natethomas Wrote:With all due respect Nate (and I do whole heartedly mean that) you're not making it any clearer lol(2016-02-12, 00:53)keith Wrote:(2016-02-12, 00:50)TVTips Wrote: I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement
Yes, if you use kodi in its name without the foundation's permission, as per the trademark policy:
http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy
To some degree I've felt that is a touch overreach on our part. I personally wouldn't have a problem with our name appearing on a site the same way you see something like macrumors.com, but I think that's an issue that can be solved once the larger issue of massive confusion is dealt with.