The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Is TSO operating without a license to enforce copyright for PRINCE2?"

TSO have no formal arrangement to enforce copyright

skeptic — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:32:00 +0000

APMG have a formal licence to enforce trademark rights, as per the quote above.

I'm not sure what formal arrangement TSO have to enforce OGC copyright and in fact I know of instances where they just refer it back to the OGC lawyers. They may in fact have none. These are hectic times, my fact-checking is slipping. Not to be confused with the large amount of material TSO have generated for which they hold the copyright themselves (all of the ITIL Live site, for example)

confused trademark and copyright

skeptic — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:30:00 +0000

Duh, you're right - I have confused trademark and copyright. i can only plead post-Xmas fatigue :)

of course that doesn't change the situation that OGC seem to have no IFTS delegation for anything but ITIL

IP Rights

Matthew — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:54:36 +0000

There is also a difference between copyright and trademark licenses. For ITIL, TSO are responsible for the copyright license and APMG for the Trademark Licenses - though APMG seem also to be able to confer a copyright license if you want a trademark license at the same time.

Looking at what you've turned up for Prince2, say this would suggest to me as a non-lawyer, that people are free to use the Prince2 copyright material but must apply for the Prince2 trademark license. i.e. you can copy the Prince2 stuff but if you sell it on commercially you can't claim it is Prince2!

Work for the lawyers I'd suggest.

Terms of the contract

kengon — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:47:56 +0000

Skep,

It seems to me that it all depends upon the terms of the contractual relationship here. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the responsibility to enforce Crown IP rights would be delegated to a licensee. I could see this limited to the purposes of administering the certification programs or conformance with the terms of an agreement with a sub-licensee. I think that makes sense. Then again, it's all down to what's in the contract, eh?

For example, the Service Management Society (the "Society") has an official license agreement for the Universal Service Management Body of Knowledge (USMBOK), which the Society has adopted as its Body of Knowledge. In all cases, the original content owner retains his IP rights. It's not up to the Society to enforce those. Consequently, the Society is able to use the USMBOK to fulfill any legitimate corporate purpose consistent with its charter. The Society is responsible for ensuring proper use and protection of the licensed IP.

That being said, if the content owner doesn't take action to protect their rights, it could have a negative impact on anyone who licenses (or sub-licenses) the content. If the content is really worth anything, it's worth rigorous efforts to safeguard it, because it impacts the entire community who has a stake/investment in it as a whole.

kengon