Re: [Foundation-l] Mind-boggling (was: Wikipedia e-mail)
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Magnus Manske wrote: Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Magnus Manske Dear active administrator, [nonsense] Why are you forwarding this? To alert people of this. I see others have done the same, so it's redundant by now. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Presentación de Nuevo Proyecto
Les presentamos el nuevo Proyecto para Wikimedia: *WIKIGRAMAS* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikigramas -- http://sites.google.com/site/cteachc/ LAURA GISSELLE VARGAS Coordinación Proyecto CteachC Formación Continuada Fundación Alberto Merani Cel. 310 3352514 6377800 Ext 117-123 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Hello, After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar), the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed unfree (since they are copyrighted) and have since been removed from the article namespace, for example in links to the sister project, such as the template linking to Commons: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Commons, but also the article about Wikipedia itself has no logo ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). I have been in contact with Mike Godwin, and got the response that the unfree logos can be used, as I had suspected. But a growing number of Swedish Wikipedians felt that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't follow any other rules than other organisations whose logos are copyrighted. The argument was that we shouldn't use images that any third-party user cannot use in the same fashion. The changes were implemented, although there was not a clear consensus to do so. I myself was opposed to this, citing from several emails from Mike Godwin. My viewpoint is that if we cannot even use our own logos in our own articles, something is very wrong. I also argued that we will not gain anything by removing these logos - as this is a non-issue for most ordinary users of Wikipedia. Anyways, I just wanted to hear if anybody else have had encountered this topic and how the matter was resolved. Is Swedish Wikipedia the first language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? Do any of you find this discussion strange? Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the curve? Best wishes, Lennart -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för svenskspråkiga Wikipedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wikihanni...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar), the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed unfree (since they are copyrighted) and have since been removed from the article namespace, for example in links to the sister project, such as the template linking to Commons: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Commons, but also the article about Wikipedia itself has no logo ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). I have been in contact with Mike Godwin, and got the response that the unfree logos can be used, as I had suspected. But a growing number of Swedish Wikipedians felt that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't follow any other rules than other organisations whose logos are copyrighted. The argument was that we shouldn't use images that any third-party user cannot use in the same fashion. The changes were implemented, although there was not a clear consensus to do so. I myself was opposed to this, citing from several emails from Mike Godwin. My viewpoint is that if we cannot even use our own logos in our own articles, something is very wrong. I also argued that we will not gain anything by removing these logos - as this is a non-issue for most ordinary users of Wikipedia. Anyways, I just wanted to hear if anybody else have had encountered this topic and how the matter was resolved. Is Swedish Wikipedia the first language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? Do any of you find this discussion strange? Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the curve? Best wishes, Lennart This seems to me to be an extremely strange and unusual interpretation of the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images. I am not aware of anyone else having brought this up on other Wikis. That policy can be read by extremists to justify any practical policy between please write down a good reason to use this and remove them all using the policy as a pretext. It has been intentionally misinterpreted at both extremes. It was not intended to be used to justify unreasonable behavior. This seems like unreasonable behavior, though I have no ability to read Swedish so I can't comment on the particulars there. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: Anyways, I just wanted to hear if anybody else have had encountered this topic and how the matter was resolved. Is Swedish Wikipedia the first language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? Do any of you find this discussion strange? Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the curve? See http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=351304445#Wikipedia_logo_use_.3F MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On 29 March 2010 22:42, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: This seems to me to be an extremely strange and unusual interpretation of the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images. I am not aware of anyone else having brought this up on other Wikis. There are occasional attempts to remove Wikimedia images from Commons as nonfree. The general response is don't be silly. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Marcus Buck wrote: The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible) and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia logos be any different? Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone. Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say it's not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
The related issues have been discussed on Commons, Enwiki, and Meta, at various times and places in the past. There is a legitimate concern that the inclusion of non-free logos is bad for reusers. On sites like Commons, which are expected to be exclusively free content, it also creates confusion to have thousands of non-free logos and derivatives. Personally, I also feel that it sets a bad example for a free content company like WMF not to have any formal policy on the third party use of their logos. Even within Wikimedia there is no agreement about what is allowed and what isn't, except that Mike and others have generally said they don't object to most uses by the community, even while reserving full copyright control and the right to object in the future. It has been three or four years since I first asked members of the WMF to draft a policy on logo use that would be clear about what is allowed both in the community and for reusers. One option is to release the logos under copyleft, but that has historically been flatly rejected by the WMF on the grounds that copyright is necessary for brand protection. I don't think copyleft is incompatible with brand protection, but even if one assumes it is, that isn't the only option. One could still write a policy that made it clear internally and externally that logos can included and reused alongside Wikimedia content, and when derivatives can be created, without going all the way to copyleft. Given that we don't have clear policies regarding logo use, I think the Swedish Wikipedia decision is entirely defensible. I don't think it is a good outcome, however. A good outcome would be one that explicitly establishes the allowed uses of the logos and their compatibility with our larger free content mission. Most of the time when this issue comes up, people just shrug and look the other way, but I don't really think that is a good approach for people that want to be respectful of copyrights. I would also note that the Meta community moved to a public domain logo some time ago in part because of the desire to avoid a copyrighted logo. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: Marcus Buck wrote: The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible) and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia logos be any different? Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone. Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say it's not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation KTC If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere between please do not be silly and Stop this or we will block you for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] ). I don't know Swedish Wikipedia's local standards and policy - but as Dave Gerard and Ting say, this is at the very least silly. We can't stop you from being silly, but it's not constructive in building an encyclopedia. If you want to play legal games or fight intellectual property law reform fights, this may not be the project for you. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
George Herbert wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: Marcus Buck wrote: The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible) and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia logos be any different? Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone. Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say it's not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation KTC If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere between please do not be silly and Stop this or we will block you for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] ). I don't know Swedish Wikipedia's local standards and policy - but as Dave Gerard and Ting say, this is at the very least silly. We can't stop you from being silly, but it's not constructive in building an encyclopedia. If you want to play legal games or fight intellectual property law reform fights, this may not be the project for you. It's amazing that Swedish Wikipedia is fighting tooth and nail to get rid of the Wikipedia logo, while the English Wikipedia is having the same battle over keeping the Goatse.cx image (which is receiving 800 hits a day from people receiving shock image links). -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say it's not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation It is not common sense to depend on the relationship between the project and the hosting organisation when dealing with free content. downstream users of the content are not Wikimedia projects. -- John Vandenberg Hmm. It could be uploaded under cc-by-sa (3.0) by user:This_logo_is_one_of_the_official_logos_used_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation with OTRS ticket Sorry, April Fools' Day is near and this problem is probably a joke in sv wiki :) przykuta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
George Herbert wrote: If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere between please do not be silly and Stop this or we will block you for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] ). Read this thread before making such claims. The English Wikipedia did have this conversation and the outcome was nothing similar to what you've said. I don't know Swedish Wikipedia's local standards and policy - but as Dave Gerard and Ting say, this is at the very least silly. We can't stop you from being silly, but it's not constructive in building an encyclopedia. If you want to play legal games or fight intellectual property law reform fights, this may not be the project for you. Huh? There is a large subset of users on some Wikimedia wikis who do nothing more than play legal games or fight intellectual property law reform fights. To say it's incompatible with participation is ludicrous. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Cary Bass wrote: It's amazing that Swedish Wikipedia is fighting tooth and nail to get rid of the Wikipedia logo, while the English Wikipedia is having the same battle over keeping the Goatse.cx image (which is receiving 800 hits a day from people receiving shock image links). Links are nice.[1] MZMcBride [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Cary Bass wrote: It's amazing that Swedish Wikipedia is fighting tooth and nail to get rid of the Wikipedia logo, while the English Wikipedia is having the same battle over keeping the Goatse.cx image (which is receiving 800 hits a day from people receiving shock image links). Links are nice.[1] MZMcBride And if people cared about it they would of been able to go and find it without needing links. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: George Herbert wrote: If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere between please do not be silly and Stop this or we will block you for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] ). Read this thread before making such claims. The English Wikipedia did have this conversation and the outcome was nothing similar to what you've said. I don't know Swedish Wikipedia's local standards and policy - but as Dave Gerard and Ting say, this is at the very least silly. We can't stop you from being silly, but it's not constructive in building an encyclopedia. If you want to play legal games or fight intellectual property law reform fights, this may not be the project for you. Huh? There is a large subset of users on some Wikimedia wikis who do nothing more than play legal games or fight intellectual property law reform fights. To say it's incompatible with participation is ludicrous. MZMcBride I am aware of that. It's not necessary to tolerate it, as it's completely unrelated to our mission to build an encyclopedia, and often gets in the way of doing so. We have a tendency to let open content people go to town, as the project and foundation widely benefit from open content and we'd all like to encourage it. But that's not an open license for them to damage the encyclopedia. It's happened in the past. The last couple of instances on en.wp that I can recall got blocks. I don't think that was the wrong outcome, though your opinion may vary. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
masti writes: It's crazy. sv.wiki still has unfree logo on every page :) It is unfree to protect wiki identity. This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content. My experience has been that those who object to this haven't given adequate attention to the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses we operate under -- neither license is free, and each imposes restrictions and obligations on reusers of content. What we're doing with the Wikimedia trademarks is designed to reinforce this insistence on the freedom of the content we are disseminating. My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision. Robert Rohde writes: Personally, I also feel that it sets a bad example for a free content company like WMF not to have any formal policy on the third party use of their logos. Even within Wikimedia there is no agreement about what is allowed and what isn't, except that Mike and others have generally said they don't object to most uses by the community, even while reserving full copyright control and the right to object in the future. I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste! It has been three or four years since I first asked members of the WMF to draft a policy on logo use that would be clear about what is allowed both in the community and for reusers. And now I really, really feel it was wasted! Given that we don't have clear policies regarding logo use, I think the Swedish Wikipedia decision is entirely defensible. Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Mike Godwin wrote: Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy. Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice to know it's there! MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Thanks, MZ! On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Mike Godwin wrote: Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy. Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice to know it's there! MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A free license is a copyright license. On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation to claim copyright for the logos. The foundation did that because they thought that would make it easier to defend the brand. But that's just intermingling trademarks and copyright. Trademark protection does everything we need. No need for additional copyright protection. The Coca Cola logo is PD-old (and in many jurisdictions also PD-ineligible) and they have no problem defending their brand. Why should Wikimedia logos be any different? Just release the logos under a free license and the problem will be gone. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Mike Godwin hett schreven: My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision. Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so share your knowledge. What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with it's PD-old logo and Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions to protect our projects when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization with non-copyrighted logo) does not? Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Mike Godwin hett schreven: My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision. Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so share your knowledge. What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with it's PD-old logo and Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions to protect our projects when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization with non-copyrighted logo) does not? This is explained in the policy document I posted a link for. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
The Cunctator writes: No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A free license is a copyright license. The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we distribute free content. By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste! snip And now I really, really feel it was wasted! snip Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy. My sincere apologies to Mike (and whoever else worked on that). I am glad to see it. Though I do wonder why I've never noticed it before now. That document also doesn't seem to be referenced from the Copyright-by-Wikimedia templates, but we can go and fix that. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: The Cunctator writes: No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A free license is a copyright license. The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we distribute free content. Most companies have a justification to use copyright to protect their logo. WMF's justification is to promote free content. But that doesn't make the logos free content. If I understand correctly, Sv.Wp is applying the same standard to Wikimedia logos as they apply to any other logo. By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of originality. Why do they do not need a license? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Poor Mike. You could blog it on Wikimedia blog, even from now? Now we have the policy with a detailed FAQ though, still I guess I'll keep posting some questions - it doesn't mean the policy is poorly written, but just I'd love to see you around. /me ducks On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: masti writes: It's crazy. sv.wiki still has unfree logo on every page :) It is unfree to protect wiki identity. This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content. My experience has been that those who object to this haven't given adequate attention to the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses we operate under -- neither license is free, and each imposes restrictions and obligations on reusers of content. What we're doing with the Wikimedia trademarks is designed to reinforce this insistence on the freedom of the content we are disseminating. My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision. Robert Rohde writes: Personally, I also feel that it sets a bad example for a free content company like WMF not to have any formal policy on the third party use of their logos. Even within Wikimedia there is no agreement about what is allowed and what isn't, except that Mike and others have generally said they don't object to most uses by the community, even while reserving full copyright control and the right to object in the future. I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste! It has been three or four years since I first asked members of the WMF to draft a policy on logo use that would be clear about what is allowed both in the community and for reusers. And now I really, really feel it was wasted! Given that we don't have clear policies regarding logo use, I think the Swedish Wikipedia decision is entirely defensible. Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
