[Owasp-leaders] Suggestion of better brand guidelines

johanna curiel curiel johanna.curiel at owasp.org
Mon Jun 20 18:17:36 UTC 2016


>>Is it worth discussing whether the 3rd guideline should specify that the
supporter badge be used by members rather than the general OWASP logo when
denoting membership or support in order to avoid the appearance of OWASP
endorsement?

>>I think we need a second set of policies to publicly explain how
infringement is to be handled.

Definitely

We should work towards creating a page like this:
http://www.isaca.org/about-isaca/licensing-and-promotion/pages/ip-guidelines.aspx

Note the following:

What are the basic rules for usage of ISACA’s trademarks?

To the extent that a name or logo does not appear on the above list this
does not constitute a waiver of any of the intellectual property rights
that ISACA has established in any of its products, service names or logos.

ISACA trademarks may not be used by individuals or organizations to promote
events such as conferences, review courses, consulting services or
commercial products and services. Such use of these trademarks may falsely
imply an endorsement or approval of the product or service by ISACA. For
fair use (under trademark laws) or other truthful references that are not
likely to cause confusion as to any association, sponsorship, affiliation,
or endorsement by ISACA no permission is required. Requests to use ISACA
trademarks should be directed in writing to IPinfo at isaca.org. Requests will
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
May an ISACA member use an ISACA logo to promote his/her company?

Generally no, with the exception for certifications described below. Please
note that an individual’s membership in ISACA does not include or accrue to
his/her company. A member’s use of the logo in connection with his/her
business may cause people and organizations receiving the member’s
promotional materials to believe mistakenly that the member’s company and
its products or services are affiliated with or endorsed by ISACA. Such
statements misrepresent an individual or enterprise as having a
relationship that does not exist.

Projects like Top 10 and Benchmark have been misrepresented, so up to a
certain level, we should also imply that using OWASP project's  to promote
a company is not done. Vendors should not use OWASP logo's or OWASP
projects to promote their companies, consulting services any form that
implies any kind of endorsement.

With the introduction of the 'supporter logo' it should be also strictly
defined in which form this should be used

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tiffany Long <tiffany.long at owasp.org>
wrote:

> Johanna,
>
> The Brand and Marketing Discussion page
> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Talk:Marketing/Resources> would be a
> great place to talk about use case scenarios.  It has our current rules and
> as a community it is a great forum to discuss any updates we might be
> interested in.  I think the guidelines are pretty hearty, but for example,
> we have a supporter badge now.  Is it worth discussing whether the 3rd
> guideline should specify that the supporter badge be used by members rather
> than the general OWASP logo when denoting membership or support in order to
> avoid the appearance of OWASP endorsement?  That is a conversation with
> nuance that might be important to discuss. This conversation needs to be
> had for any project marks we decide to trademark as well.
>
> I think we need a second set of policies to publicly explain how
> infringement is to be handled.  It should cover who should be notified with
> the complaint and what their first steps should be as the complaint
> escalates.  This will prevent inadvertent ad hoc approaches when the
> situation crops up and is required to prove that we defend our marks (and
> thus actually need them).  I don't know where that conversation should take
> place, but we soon begin it as soon as we move forward with the trademark
> process.
>
> Does that answer your question?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:19 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tiffany
>>
>> Are there any specific activities towards defining clear policies using
>> the OWASP logo?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Tiffany Long <tiffany.long at owasp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Larry!
>>>
>>> I totally understand your concerns.  OWASP is an open source community
>>> dedicated to the results of our projects and outreach.  Anything that takes
>>> away from this would not be serving the community.  That is why I propose
>>> that we update our guidelines and simply make sure that our codified
>>> process for protecting our brand represents our needs and protects the hard
>>> work of our volunteers.  With this in place the work of defending our brand
>>> will be less time consuming as we will have legal protections and a process
>>> that will reach for the law after several other steps have been taken.
>>> Right now we don't actually have trademark protection and our marks can be
>>> used unscrupulously until we do.
>>>
>>>  Furthermore, as you have seen from the co-branding work done by Kelly
>>> Santalucia having our brand out there and recognized helps evangelize our
>>> message as well as bring new volunteers into our fold. Over all this
>>> process will help lead to further engagement and mitigate the risk of our
>>> volunteers work being used improperly or diluted by less quality products
>>> branded improperly.
>>>
>>> As to your enumerated questions:
>>>
>>> 1) No, absolutely not.  Branding helps us bring visibility to projects
>>> and should a corporation use the marks inappropriately it helps us protect
>>> them. The trademark does not interfere with licensing.  Think of it as
>>> allowing us to protect our art and names. The actual product is not
>>> affected except to allow us to ensure that the name is not used
>>> incorrectly.
>>>
>>> 2) I do not yet know the budget that will be allotted, but the cost will
>>> depend on what we choose to TM, and where we choose to do it.  For the
>>> first steps we will only require the cost of fees to apply for a TM and
>>> time from me, a paid employee.  We do not need a lawyer for the concrete
>>> steps I suggested. Volunteer input in the process will also be necessary to
>>> make sure we accurately reflect the needs of the community.  We will do our
>>> best to strike a balance to make the effort as productive and efficient as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> -Tiffany
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:58 AM, johanna curiel curiel <
>>> johanna.curiel at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Larry, Dirk
>>>>
>>>> I offered my support for this part to define clear policies with no
>>>> cost at all. I have access to legal support and can help provide this.
>>>>
>>>> The steps took by the Stephany are the right ones toward protection of
>>>> the brand but it is necessary to define better policies and process towards
>>>> protection of brand abuse.
>>>>
>>>> In the end is about misrepresentation. Do we want vendor's to use OWASP
>>>> logo in a way that should indicate endorsement?
>>>>  I don't think so especially when we proc;aim, being vendor neutral and
>>>> using the OWASP logo in commercial vendor activities to promote business or
>>>> commercial activities should be clearly stipulated to avoid this:
>>>> http://www.acunetix.com/blog/articles/owasp-top-10-2010/
>>>> e <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVO0vmSW4AAgZ6M.png:large>specially
>>>> this:
>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVO0vmSW4AAgZ6M.png:large
>>>>
>>>> and a page that cannot be found after Dirk mention the abuse on twitter:
>>>> https://twitter.com/drwetter/status/733744181340962816
>>>>
>>>> While I agree with many things you mentioned regarding lack of
>>>> engagement, I think at this point of time OWASP has a brand to protect and
>>>> should not really worry about lack of engagement and should establish clear
>>>> policies regarding this.
>>>>
>>>> Protecting a brand when there has been clear abuse cases is not a waste
>>>> of time, on the contrary, if we allow abuse, our vendor neutrality claims
>>>> will go down the drain and loose credebility
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Larry Conklin <larry.conklin at owasp.org
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this really an issue that we need to drive time, and money
>>>>>> towards? We have some much publicized cases in the past of abuse of OWASP
>>>>>> name and branding being used by a commercial security vendors. This is not
>>>>>> what we want as a community when we put volunteer hours into something and
>>>>>> then have a commercial enterprise try to make money for themselves. I
>>>>>> appreciate and support not wanting this type of abuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My fear is that we are over reacting to brand abuse with a knee jerk
>>>>>> reaction. Yes, we have had complaints. The community and board so far has
>>>>>> been able to resolve these. Now we want more polices, attorneys
>>>>>> involvement, additional overhead and expenses? What will that really give
>>>>>> us? Our focus should always be on Application Security and being an open
>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Don’t fear lack of control. Fear lack of engagement. Lack of
>>>>>> engagement is our greatest weakness. Money and time should go towards
>>>>>> projects not more polices, legal fees, etc.*
>>>>>> If we are not careful we might back ourselves into a corner. The end
>>>>>> result could be a less open organization, more polices, with less money
>>>>>> going towards projects.  In the past been able to resolve branding
>>>>>> abuse with community and board working together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open questions to community manager and board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    1. Does branding, logo's, trademarks registered to OWASP take any
>>>>>>    rights away from project leaders or projects being open source?
>>>>>>    2. How much money is being budgeted for legal, etc fees for
>>>>>>    branding, logo's, and trademarks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Conklin, CISSP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Dirk Wetter <dirk at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, I added my suggestion to the discussion/talk section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarketing%2FResources&diff=217765&oldid=210932
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers, Dirk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 06/06/2016 um 05:33 PM schrieb Dirk Wetter:
>>>>>>> > Hi Liam and all,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Am 05/20/2016 um 06:38 PM schrieb Liam Smit:
>>>>>>> >> Hi Dirk
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Dirk Wetter <dirk at owasp.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:dirk at owasp.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     Am 05/20/2016 um 05:07 PM schrieb johanna curiel curiel:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> <snip>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     > Abuses will happen where financial gain is.If putting this
>>>>>>> logo can help me sell...well you bet the first ones happy will be the
>>>>>>> vendors.
>>>>>>> >>     > Contrast did that with OWASP benchmark publicising OWASP
>>>>>>> logo 'sponsored by' even the DHS logo.
>>>>>>> >>     > https://twitter.com/jctechno/status/672079500033814528
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     Ok, a TM would have helped here maybe.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     But in general this is why I think giving away a supporter
>>>>>>> logo is not good either -- the
>>>>>>> >>     only point where we have
>>>>>>> >>     a different stance so far:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     My firm belief is if you give a away a logo you can't control
>>>>>>> the usage. It's like putting
>>>>>>> >>     a vulnerable
>>>>>>> >>     web application in the internet. Somebody will find and
>>>>>>> hack/abuse it. It also doesn't
>>>>>>> >>     matter if a law is
>>>>>>> >>     saying that it shouldn't been hacked [1]. Same with the logo.
>>>>>>> Giving a logo away is like
>>>>>>> >>     announcing
>>>>>>> >>     a vulnerable web app to all bad guys. So a supporter logo
>>>>>>> could be an invitation to abuse
>>>>>>> >>     (ideas see my first mail).
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     Also I do not understand the point in the first place: Why do
>>>>>>> we want to give a away a
>>>>>>> >>     logo? What's
>>>>>>> >>     our added benefit?
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     Thus I find a very strict logo policy accompanied with a
>>>>>>> proper TM the right thing to do.
>>>>>>> >>     There's
>>>>>>> >>     still potential for abuse but at least you did the best
>>>>>>> reasonably possible..
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>     Look at ISACA. You can't use the logo without written consent
>>>>>>> by ISACA.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Why don't you put forward a strict logo use policy?
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Obviously it might not be adopted if most people prefer a looser
>>>>>>> logo usage policy but if you
>>>>>>> >> don't put anything forward then I highly doubt anything will come
>>>>>>> of you merely stating your
>>>>>>> >> preference for a strict usage policy.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > fair enough.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Not so many people responded, so I wanted to limit my investment
>>>>>>> in terms of time.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Suggestion:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > --snip
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > The OWASP logo (future: is a trademark and) is the property of the
>>>>>>> OWASP Foundation.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > * OWASP logos must not be used by individuals or organizations to
>>>>>>> promote commercial products,
>>>>>>> > services, or events such as conferences, courses.
>>>>>>> > * OWASP logos must not be used in a manner that suggests that The
>>>>>>> OWASP Foundation supports,
>>>>>>> > advocates, endorses, or recommends any particular product,
>>>>>>> services or technology.
>>>>>>> > * OWASP logos must not be used in a manner that suggests that a
>>>>>>> product or technology is
>>>>>>> > compliant with any OWASP Materials
>>>>>>> > * OWASP logos must not be used in a manner that suggests that a
>>>>>>> product or technology can
>>>>>>> > enable compliance with any OWASP Materials
>>>>>>> > * OWASP logos may be used by special arrangement with The OWASP
>>>>>>> Foundation. Requests to use
>>>>>>> > OWASP logos should be directed in writing to
>>>>>>> >   <fillinmailaddresshere>. Requests will be evaluated on a
>>>>>>> case-by-case basis by a compliance team.
>>>>>>> > * The special arrangement can be withdrawn by OWASP at any point
>>>>>>> of time.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > --snap
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I was replacing brand by logo. I haven't seen @
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Marketing/Resources#tab=BRAND_GUIDELINES
>>>>>>> > any definition of the term "brand". If that would be clarified we
>>>>>>> could swap that back.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Cheers, Dirk
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> German OWASP Chapter Lead
>>>>>>> Send me encrypted mails (Key ID 0xB818C039)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Johanna Curiel
>>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Johanna Curiel
>>>> OWASP Volunteer
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johanna Curiel
>> OWASP Volunteer
>>
>
>


-- 
Johanna Curiel
OWASP Volunteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20160620/342dae3f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list