Image:Former BSA.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Image
• File history
• File links

No higher resolution available.
Former_BSA.jpg‎ (339 × 327 pixels, file size: 23 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

[edit] Summary

Boy Scouts of America Universal Emblem with universal "no" symbol superimposed, representing U.S. scouts who no longer wish to be associated with the BSA leadership.

[edit] Licensing

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

[edit] U.S. trademark law

The 1916 Act of congress did not create any copyright interests because the Constitution specifies that copyrights may only be granted for "limited times," and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do not claim any copyrights, using the registered trademark (R) symbol alone in conjunction with their logo, and not the (C) symbol.

U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by nonowners for purposes of criticism and commentary. First Amendment considerations override any expressive, noncommercial use of trademarks. "The Constitution is not offended when the [Maine] antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services. ... The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context." (emphasis added) L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987.)

Similarly, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 does not apply to the "noncommercial use" of a famous mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(4)(B). The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose[s] a commercial transaction." Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976.)

The only limit on this right is whether someone might think that the commentary was produced by the trademark owner, and this limit is explicitly defined in reference to Boy Scouts. "[A]n author certainly would have a First Amendment right to write about the subject of the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts. However, this right is diluted by trademark law insofar as that author cannot present her subject in a manner that confuses or misleads the public into believing, through the use of one or more trademarks, that those organizations have produced or sponsored the work in question." (emphasis added) Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1112 at 1121, n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1992.)

[edit] Derivative work based on an image produced prior to 1923

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States, either because it was first published in 1922 or earlier, or for the reason described either above or below this message. Under American copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright work may not be protected under American copyright law. Note: Unless the creator died more than 70 years ago, the work of art is not public domain worldwide. It is still, however, usable on the English Wikipedia, because the servers it uses are located in the United States. This information (Creator, death date, etc) should always be listed if known. This image should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication.

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

• Search for duplicate files
• Edit this file using an external application

  See the setup instructions for more information.

File links