I read alot about trademarks and recognizable people in photos (well I dont see any articles about 3D models). I am still in confusion. The only thing I understand is that trademark stuff has nothing to do with copyrights. It says you have full copyright of the photo (or 3D object I would assume) however, its use is restricted. Strangely, CC licenses does not speak of privacy or publicity rights. If I understand correctly, in these cases there are two important unrelated cases. First one is endorsement. Second is defamation. In these first case, you require model release (still assuming 3D objects are similar to photos), which is the responsibility of the publisher (not photographer or designer). In second case, I think the only way is to have proof of evidance. Like a brand supporting war openly.

There might also be a second issue but this is addressed differently. If there is an object that subjects to copyrights (not trademark), you need to obtain explicit permission, unless, the object/design in question is not an integral part of the photo and cannot be removed from it without reducing its quality. However, this is not the case for the 3D designs. On the otherhand, I feel like using an object that might be in a scene to be fair use. However, this is totally feeling and I guess we need a lawyer for that.

That art would fall under fair use "Fair use occurs when a descriptive mark is used in good faith for its primary, rather than secondary, meaning, and no consumer confusion is likely to result."

Yeah, but when this stuff's under the GNU GPL, trying to push Fair Use would conflict against the rights provided by the GNU GPL. TuxKart used to have a classroom level with blatant trademarks all over the place under the GPL for example. It wasn't dealt with until it was forked by a more responsible developer.

Official policy statement:

Since trademark usage rules add restrictions above and beyond those imposed by the liceses we accept here, we cannot accept trademarked content.

I've flagged a licensing issue on the item in question.  Hopefully we'll get the trademarked part removed so we can put it back up.

The red cross is a big problem too

In case anybody's left a bit lost with leilei's comment

Short version: "We'd appreciate it if you use a more generic green cross instead."

That one, I'm not so convinced.  It's a red plus sign, but it could be used in an animation to indicate an increasing stat.  As it is, it's not really used in a context that could be directly associated with the red cross.  It's also tiny, and the proportions are clearly different.

actually the red cross is only  an issue if its a red cross on a white background and is protected by more then just trademark

The Red Cross name and emblem are not the property of the American Red Cross as a corporation. The American Red Cross is entitled to use the name and emblem only because it is the officially designated volunteer organization envisioned by the Geneva Conventions to assist the United States government in carrying out its treaty obligations. The treaties anticipate the existence of such an organization in each country bound by the treaties and authorize such organizations to make use of the name and emblem in carrying out the humanitarian activities for which they are established.

As the previous question and answer point out, U.S. prohibitions against the use of the emblem and name come from the federal criminal code. The prohibitions have nothing whatever to do with copyright or trademark law.

@bart: simplicity of a trademark does not make it less protectable. It is for sure not copyrightable, like 90% of company logos, but if its a trademark and used in context without its primary meaning (ie. a ketchup on a table or a redcross on an ambulance) while creating a confusion with the original, its a trademark violation. Trademark laws are significantly different than copyright rules.

Right, I'm just saying.  That icon is just a red plus.  There's no context in the sprite sheet, so it shouldn't trigger anything on its own.  In the case of a red plus, I'd say it's the responsibility of the user not to put it on an ambulance, since there are plenty of non-infringing uses for it.

@bart: using redcross on ambulance is the only case its allowed to use, or also on an hospital, a properly designed first aid kit, etc... These usages cannot be disallowed since its depicting the real use of the logo. Think about making a movie where you have to remove every logo in it. The argument is against using it as hp symbol, where its an incorrect use and still causes confusion (people will understand that its redcross symbol).

The redcross symbol is totally different then normal trademark.

@Botanic: I understood that, I was using it as an example. After all government logos and symbols are not copyrighted or trademarked. They are governed by other rules. In our country, using a governmental symbol creating a confusion is judged as fraud and is a criminal offense.

I thought I was getting free Heinz ketchup, but all I got was some effin' file.  How do I turn this file into foodstuff?  Can I sell the extra foodstuff I make?

pls respond...