This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: Disney Owns Everything: From YKTTW
: Removed this:
- The Libreria Editrice Vaticana has fifty years of papal writings (including encyclicals) protected by copyright and, in 2006, started to take aggressive steps to enforce those copyrights (i.e. suing newspapers such as La Stampa after publishing Pope Ratzinger's Dictionary).
Because it is about copyright not trademark.
: Should we have a mention of Bee Movie
? The idea of the bees being able to sue Sting over using the name "Sting" (and thus marketing himself by a bee-related name) fits right in, I think.
Does the fourth point in the "proper use of Adobe trademarks" page means that we cannot
photoshop use Photoshop(r) to enhance
an image if it could be considered (or outright is) obscene?
And, if so, would it be a good example of trademark abusing? (I mean, for what someone pays for the program, we should be able to use it as we wants)
If so, maybe we should add it as a specific example after the generic line about it.
If it's not, (for both the first and the second point) could someone explain why not to me? maybe I am not getting the point of that rule.