Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: George Herbert wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: [...] And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly. Please stop using this example. You're living in California again; recall that the earth does crack open here at regular intervals. If you keep saying it enough it will come true, and then you'll be Prophet Mike, and we'll all be doomed. You may be thinking about another Usenet legend,, you are talking to Mike Godwin, not James D. Nicoll of the Nicoll Event fame. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Are you suggesting I don't remember my formative net years, Jussi? I'm far too young for Alzheimers, but old enough that the Morris Worm was a firsthand experience... I remember Mike from before the Law. Long before the Law. I know James Nicoll. I helped untangle Kent Paul Dolan's stunt with the speculative fiction newsgroups. .cabal and sci.physics.edward.teller.boom.boom.boom were a couple of my pranks... Yes, I murdered B-news. -- -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
2010/3/31 Petr Kadlec petr.kad...@gmail.com: On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with logos being listed as an example. So are you saying that a Wikipedia community is allowed to develop an EDP saying that _logos_ received from 3rd party owners under, say, CC-BY-ND [and possibly even -NC, but let's not get to the problems with that] are acceptable? I was told that this is not correct and the resolution allows only for EDP recognizing copyright limitations existing in national copyright laws (even though I do not see this in the resolution text). No, EDPs do indeed have to be grounded in the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project. But an EDP which recognizes those limitations only for logos of organizations whose trademark policies explicitly acknowledge reasonable uses of their marks within the confines of those limitations (as the WMF trademark policy does) would be acceptable, as would be one which recognizes them only for WMF's logos (for all the reasons that have already been given to make such an exception). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, 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
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:11 AM, 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. Just allow me to ask for a clarification. We're talking about article space, right? This means that Wikimedia logos are now _not used_ in the Swedish Wikipedia to illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects, I suppose. Right? But as I understood Lennart's first email, I think that sv Wikipedia also has decided not to use the logos even on internal navigation templates and such to link/identify other Wikimedia projects, right? What about the top left corner of every page, has it also been decided that the Wikipedia logo used to identify the website should go too? Thanks for your clarification on this. Cheers, Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org ___ 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
2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: ... This means that Wikimedia logos are now _not used_ in the Swedish Wikipedia to illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects, I suppose. Right? But as I understood Lennart's first email, I think that sv Wikipedia also has decided not to use the logos even on internal navigation templates and such to link/identify other Wikimedia projects, right? That is correct. e.g. http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=11402949oldid=11192788 What about the top left corner of every page, has it also been decided that the Wikipedia logo used to identify the website should go too? That is the website UI, which is not content. They could say that the UI should also be completely free of copyrighted works. IMO that would be going overboard. -- 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
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A free license is a copyright license. So? What does that have to do with the post you are quoting, or anything else in this thread? 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. -- André Engels, andreeng...@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
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Przykuta przyk...@o2.pl wrote: 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 They could, but that doesn't make it right. If someone uploads this image under cc-by-sa that would be just as much copyright violation as doing the same with any other image, if that person did not have permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to do so. -- André Engels, andreeng...@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
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 They could, but that doesn't make it right. If someone uploads this image under cc-by-sa that would be just as much copyright violation as doing the same with any other image, if that person did not have permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to do so. with OTRS ticket I mind permission from the Wikimedia Foundation. But - April Fools' Day is tomorrow... ;) and it is not the best joke; we don't want copyright Wikimedia logos. Huh - an alternative logo for articles? Wikipedia Mascot for copyright puritnas? We use collage of Wikipedia logo on the Wikimedia Polska Conference: http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Konferencja_Wikimedia_Polska_2010 but for talking about free culture ... You know :) 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
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! I don't know if was announced on the lists, but it was in the Signpost news a few weeks ago :D -- phoebe, who was just looking at the old logo contest submissions yesterday: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_suggestions and who would love love love to find a copy of the main page with the American flag as logo, circa Jan 15 2001 :) ___ 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 12:42 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.comwrote: 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. But how about with trademark and without copyright restrictions? Why do you think trademark restrictions are okay but copyright restrictions aren't? If you are against copyright restrictions, why don't you favor releasing all Wikimedia content into the public domain rather than using CC-BY-SA and GFDL? --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 thread is interesting. What sv. did is, from my perspective, applying the same rules to Wikimedia logos that applies to all the other logos. Wich is just rational for me. Not that I agree, just it's rational. Wikipedia should be made of free contents, logos are not free, they remove the logos from the main namespace. That's fine for me. So to answer Lennart questions : Is Swedish Wikipedia the first language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? As far as I know, yes. Do any of you find this discussion strange? I don't. Why should we reuse our own unfree logo and not others unfree logos. We aim to creat a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused. Wikimedia Foundation logos prevent that, they get removed. I do think it's a rational decision, even if I do not agree with it :). Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the curve? Yep :D Christophe ___ 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
(Resent with correct subject header) John Vandenberg writes: 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? Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo does not meet the threshold of originality and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this? --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
Why should we reuse our own unfree logo and not others unfree logos. We aim to creat a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused. What is rational about taking a scenario to the extreme? We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is not the same as NO unfree content. It does not follow that because we cannot have ZERO unfree content, than we should be able to use everyone elses unfree stuff. That is not a logical conclusion, nor is it rational. The fact is, regardless of any other circumstance, the Wikimedia logos are one, small, limited exception. Comparing them to Coca-Cola, or Volvo, or anything else is ridiculous, because those companies do not operate Wikipedia. Nor does it make sense to complain about the logo hindering free reuse. We allow nearly all of our content to be reused, as Mike said, subject to the GFDL or CC-BY-SA licenses. This is not free reuse. It is reuse subject to some restrictions. The fact that we have trademark protection for the WMF logos has essentially no relationship to downstream use of content. Don't confuse the source identifier with the content itself. These are different things. So again, I see nothing rational nor logical with what Sv.Wp is doing. They are taking these examples to hyperbolic extremes over an insignificant issue, in order to prove a point. A point, I should note, that does NOT further the success of WMF's mission; in fact it directly hinders it, as Mike pointed out with regard to the licenses. (this is ignoring, of course, all the misconstruals of copyright as trademark, and vice versa which add further unnecessary fuel to the fire). -Dan ___ 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 5:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is not the same as NO unfree content. It does not follow that because we cannot have ZERO unfree content, than we should be able to use everyone elses unfree stuff. That is not a logical conclusion, nor is it rational. The fact is, regardless of any other circumstance, the Wikimedia logos are one, small, limited exception. Comparing them to Coca-Cola, or Volvo, or anything else is ridiculous, because those companies do not operate Wikipedia. I think the point here is that different projects have a different attitude to non-free media, so that everyone wrote a different EDP when they were asked to. Some projects allow the use of non-free material under fair use (that's the case for en.wp and a lot more), some don't (I think that's the case for sv.wp, es.wp and others). Now, most company logos are copyrighted, so they can only be used in the projects that allow non-free media and in the pages regarding the company or its products. In this sense, since we adopt NPOV, the WMF is not different from any other company, like Coca-Cola or the WWF if we want to stick to non-profits. So, if we don't allow the use of the logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the articles describing them. The situation is different for the UI (we are Wikipedia and we identify ourselves by our logo) and possibly for the inter-project links icons (because they are a link to the project, not to the page describing the project). Therefore, I think the policy of sv.wp is logical and I support it, although I do not necessarily think it's the best decision. Cruccone ___ 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 8:25 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: ... This means that Wikimedia logos are now _not used_ in the Swedish Wikipedia to illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects, I suppose. Right? But as I understood Lennart's first email, I think that sv Wikipedia also has decided not to use the logos even on internal navigation templates and such to link/identify other Wikimedia projects, right? That is correct. e.g. http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=11402949oldid=11192788 What about the top left corner of every page, has it also been decided that the Wikipedia logo used to identify the website should go too? That is the website UI, which is not content. They could say that the UI should also be completely free of copyrighted works. IMO that would be going overboard. If that is the case, while I understand and actually respect the decision not to use Wikimedia logos _to illustrate articles_ (although I don't agree with it), I find it extremely inconsequent and illogical to take away the logos that are in navigation templates and pointing to other material in other Wikimedia projects. As far as I'm concerned, these are part of the UI as much as the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner, and, more important, I find this decision actually harms our mission of distributing free content. If Wikimedia projects don't help themselves, I wonder who will. Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org ___ 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
How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own logo on their own website? In what universe is this logical? The problem with use of copyrighted/trademarked logos is the concern that the owner of that logo will disallow the use. We do not have this problem. The trademark policy also makes it perfectly clear that downstream uses under the guise of nominative fair use are permissible, so that's not a concern either. Sothis is a solution in search of a problem. -Dan On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote: So, if we don't allow the use of the logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the articles describing them. ___ 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
2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: That is the website UI, which is not content. They could say that the UI should also be completely free of copyrighted works. IMO that would be going overboard. If that is the case, while I understand and actually respect the decision not to use Wikimedia logos _to illustrate articles_ (although I don't agree with it), I find it extremely inconsequent and illogical to take away the logos that are in navigation templates and pointing to other material in other Wikimedia projects. As far as I'm concerned, these are part of the UI as much as the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner, and, more important, I find this decision actually harms our mission of distributing free content. If Wikimedia projects don't help themselves, I wonder who will. Anything that is rendered as page content will appear in the export dumps and needs to be considered by reusers, which includes those navigational templates. The logo at the upper left is different in that regard since it isn't part of the dumps. -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 12:04 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: That is the website UI, which is not content. They could say that the UI should also be completely free of copyrighted works. IMO that would be going overboard. If that is the case, while I understand and actually respect the decision not to use Wikimedia logos _to illustrate articles_ (although I don't agree with it), I find it extremely inconsequent and illogical to take away the logos that are in navigation templates and pointing to other material in other Wikimedia projects. As far as I'm concerned, these are part of the UI as much as the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner, and, more important, I find this decision actually harms our mission of distributing free content. If Wikimedia projects don't help themselves, I wonder who will. Anything that is rendered as page content will appear in the export dumps and needs to be considered by reusers, which includes those navigational templates. The logo at the upper left is different in that regard since it isn't part of the dumps. -Robert Rohde Keep in mind that navigational templates - which land at Wikipedia projects - count as the explicitly licensed links to our site usage of all our templates. Mike conveniently made that all OK for anyone to do without additional permission requests or complications anyways. -- -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
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own logo on their own website? In what universe is this logical? The problem with use of copyrighted/trademarked logos is the concern that the owner of that logo will disallow the use. We do not have this problem. The trademark policy also makes it perfectly clear that downstream uses under the guise of nominative fair use are permissible, so that's not a concern either. Sothis is a solution in search of a problem. -Dan On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote: So, if we don't allow the use of the logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the articles describing them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Hear, hear. *raps walking stick on the floor* -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ 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
This is a thread that accidentally became off-list due to a wrong reply-to header. Mike Godwin hett schreven: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Mike Godwin hett schreven: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Mike Godwin hett schreven: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Mike Godwin hett schreven: On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Mike Godwin hett schreven: 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. Perhaps there's some magic sentence in that policy document (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy) that explains the difference and is obvious to an expert. I am no expert, so it's not obvious to me. The word copyright is not even mentioned in the document. My question was: why is trademark protection insufficient for Wikimedia when it is sufficient to protect the rights of the Coca Cola Company? Why do we need additional copyright protection when the Coca Cola Company is fine with an uncopyrighted logo? Why do you think the word copyright has to be used in the trademark document when when copyright terms like content are used? It's true that the policy document assumes that a reader will know that content is subject to copyright law, and that free license refers to free copyright license. The reason I think that is that my question specifically was about copyright. You said the answer to my question is in the policy. It is not. Let me once again repeat my question: Why would logos licensed under a license like CC-by-sa weaken our legal position when e.g. Coca Cola has no problem at all to legally protect itself although the logo is PD? The benefit comes from being able to prevent deceptive and confusing re-use of the logo through copyright remedies as well as trademark remedies. As soon as the puzzle globe becomes as widely recognized as the Coca-Cola logo, we can revisit the issue. Thanks. That's what I thought. Basically you are saying you want the logos to be copyrighted to be able to fight trademark infringement (like deceptive and confusing re-use) with non-trademark-law tools. That's not quite right. What I'm saying is that we reserve the right to use any lawful tools to prevent others from misrepresenting themselves as us, and to ensure the freedom of Wikimedia content, including both trademark-law tools and non-trademark-law tools that are available to us. That's the same as I said, isn't it? Just rendered in words that try to sound nicer. It's not the same, no. Weakening our legal ability to enforce free licenses in the name of a misconception about ideological purity is very much an ill-considered idea. Trademark law is designed to protect trademarks. Copyright law is designed to protect the author's rights. Copyright law can be (ab)used to put legal pressure on a trademark infringer but if your case is valid trademark law is sufficient to stop the infringer. No lawyer I know assumes that trademark law is a magical cure-all for cases of infringement. Nor is infringement the only issue that needs to be addressed. And you may call it a misconception about ideological purity but free licenses are part of the Foundation's mission statement. It's not ideological purity, it's integrity to follow your own ideals. You are perhaps unfamiliar with my career if you imagine that I lack integrity or ideals. Yes, I am indeed unfamiliar with your fine career (except for the famous law) but I never suggested anything like that. Anybody re-reading my sentence will recognize that that was not what I said. What I am trying to explain to you is that you have a very unsophisticated, un-nuanced understanding of what free licenses are, what
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: (Resent with correct subject header) John Vandenberg writes: 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? Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo does not meet the threshold of originality and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this? Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg -- 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
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that -- I'm saying I don't know whether Volvo would accept the declaration that the logo is not protected by copyright. --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 Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that -- I'm saying I don't know whether Volvo would accept the declaration that the logo is not protected by copyright. Mike, Of course we don't know - the only two ways of knowing is for Volvo to explicitly state this in a legally binding wording, or for it to be decided by a court. There have been similar decisions by courts, both overseas and in the US, and it is on that basis that we have a PD-text tag. In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing: I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. Do you now accept that it is quite possible that this logo could be appropriately tagged as PD and its use in Sv.Wp articles is congruent with their position about the removal of non-free WMF logos from articles? -- 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
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing: I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. Not quite. I think Sv.Wp is doing the right thing but with the wrong justification. And I was trying to say I don't think downstream re-users should infer the appearance of the Volvo logo on Sv.Wp that they have the right to reuse it as a public-domain image. Do you now accept that it is quite possible that this logo could be appropriately tagged as PD and its use in Sv.Wp articles is congruent with their position about the removal of non-free WMF logos from articles? I wouldn't say quite possible, no. I suspect Volvo's IP attorneys have a different opinion about whether the Volvo logo is public-domain than perhaps you do. As I see the energy poured into the question of whether the Wikipedia should use copyrighted and trademarked logos (which they are already licensed to use!), I cannot help but agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that the Swedish Wikipedians have come up with a solution in search of a problem. --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 Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing: I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. Not quite. I think Sv.Wp is doing the right thing but with the wrong justification. And I was trying to say I don't think downstream re-users should infer the appearance of the Volvo logo on Sv.Wp that they have the right to reuse it as a public-domain image. It is tagged by Commons as PD. If you don't believe the PD justification is appropriate, or opens us up to legal disputes, then we need to spawn a separate discussion about PD-text. As I see the energy poured into the question of whether the Wikipedia should use copyrighted and trademarked logos (which they are already licensed to use!), I cannot help but agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that the Swedish Wikipedians have come up with a solution in search of a problem. The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in article space should meet the definition of free content.[http://freedomdefined.org/] The reason for using this criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable. The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free content. If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as well. -- 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
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in article space should meet the definition of free content.[http://freedomdefined.org/] I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all right. The reason for using this criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable. The issue, though, is that there's no specific problem at all associated with the appearances of the Wikimedia copyrighted and trademarked logos in the contexts in which they are used. *In other words, all this attention has been focused on a problem that has never occurred with regard to the images in question.* I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them. What seems to me to be happening here is a kind of nervous insistence on a very simplistic kind of ideological consistency, which, if it were followed further along this extreme, would threaten to make Wikipedia unusable. Consider for example the famous quotation mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance . The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free content. And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly. If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as well. This is perhaps too broad a use of the word understandable than I am used to. --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 Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: [...] And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly. Please stop using this example. You're living in California again; recall that the earth does crack open here at regular intervals. If you keep saying it enough it will come true, and then you'll be Prophet Mike, and we'll all be doomed. -- -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
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in
article space should meet the definition of free
content.[http://freedomdefined.org/]
I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all right.
The reason for using this
criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license
for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable.
The issue, though, is that there's no specific problem at all associated
with the appearances of the Wikimedia copyrighted and trademarked logos in
the contexts in which they are used. *In other words, all this attention
has been focused on a problem that has never occurred with regard to the
images in question.*
The purpose of defining free is to ensure that there will be no
problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent
a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case.
I haven't looked at the license in detail, but I take it for granted
that you have crafted it clearly define the reuse possibilities.
However the WMF logos are available under a license that only covers
the WMF logos, and isn't compatible with the prevailing definitions of
free.
I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish
Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living
Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them.
Those are not copyright - there are different laws which protect them
in various ways.
The WMF logos (marks) are protected by copyright.
What seems to me to be happening here is a kind of nervous insistence on a
very simplistic kind of ideological consistency, which, if it were followed
further along this extreme, would threaten to make Wikipedia unusable.
Consider for example the famous quotation mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance .
The Sv.Wp decision is removing the inconsistency in its copyright
stance by removing the loop hole for WMF logos. Overly simplistic?
Maybe. However lots of foreign language projects have adopted very
strict positions on copyright issues.
Christophe Henner suggested earlier in this thread that Swedish
Wikipedia is just ahead of the curve. I agree. Sooner or later a
Wikipedia is going to try to be turned into a Debian package! I'd bet
on Debian legal requiring that the WMF logos are stripped, even if
they are used in compliance with the WMF policy.
This is not to say that Swedish Wikipedia won't have other problems
which prevent being packaged into Debian. Has there been any debian
legal discussion about Wikipedia? The closest I can see is an RFP for
aarddict.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=533328
The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some
purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free
content.
And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on
Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will
start living together openly.
Re-iterating the relationship between project and the host (WMF)
doesn't help, as strong stances on rejecting non-free elements
(copyright trademark) are usually made to protect the right to fork,
etc.
AFAICS, the trademark policy protects the right of a (hypothetical)
commercial fork of sv.wp to use the old {{wikisource}}, which includes
the wikisource logo, in conjunction with a link to wikisource.org.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mall:Wikisourceoldid=11192788
If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article
space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as
well.
This is perhaps too broad a use of the word understandable than I am used
to.
I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used
in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on
sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the
project, and fall under fair use of the trademark.
However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be
surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance
on it.
--
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
In a message dated 3/30/2010 6:50:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mgod...@wikimedia.org writes: I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them. - I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license to do so? If not, then by an editor submitting an article on a person to Wikipedia, they are de facto granting license to reuse that content per our terms. By submitting, using their true names, they are granting us the license to use their true names per our terms. How could we interpret any of that differently? It seems like a hodge-podge. Any content submit, is being submit under a free reuse license. W.J. ___ 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 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: The purpose of defining free is to ensure that there will be no problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case. Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either. I also can't see any scenarios that lead to a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case. This seems to be a phantom hazard. I haven't looked at the license in detail, but I take it for granted that you have crafted it clearly define the reuse possibilities. However the WMF logos are available under a license that only covers the WMF logos, and isn't compatible with the prevailing definitions of free. I'm pleased that you recognize that the problem is one with how you use words like compatible and free. The problem is that you are applying imprecise notions of compatible and free that, in your mind, hint at something awful (dogs and cats living together?) without actually posing the risk of something awful. I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them. Those are not copyright - there are different laws which protect them in various ways. Of course it's not copyright. But the word free is not defined solely by copyright law, is it? The WMF logos (marks) are protected by copyright. They're protected by other areas of law too. I realize that a non-practitioner may suppose that different areas of intellectual-property law can and must be considered in analytical isolation from one another, but in the real world, as you may imagine, different areas of law intersect and interact all the time. The Sv.Wp decision is removing the inconsistency in its copyright stance by removing the loop hole for WMF logos. Overly simplistic? Maybe. However lots of foreign language projects have adopted very strict positions on copyright issues. Well, by all means, then, if some foreign language projects have adopted overly simplistic positions, we will increase the world's source of free knowledge by following their example, right? Christophe Henner suggested earlier in this thread that Swedish Wikipedia is just ahead of the curve. I agree. Sooner or later a Wikipedia is going to try to be turned into a Debian package! I'd bet on Debian legal requiring that the WMF logos are stripped, even if they are used in compliance with the WMF policy. So what? We don't require that the WMF logos be used in some future Debian package, nor is it likely we will, absent a formal partnership of some sort (which seems unlikely). Re-iterating the relationship between project and the host (WMF) doesn't help, as strong stances on rejecting non-free elements (copyright trademark) are usually made to protect the right to fork, etc. I wasn't reiterating a relationship. I was reiterating the fact that the uses in question are clearly and completely and nonrestrictively allowed by the copyright holder. I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the project, and fall under fair use of the trademark. That seems like an eminently rational approach -- far more understandable as I use that word. However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance on it. I have seen it for a quarter century. I don't think we serve freedom by reducing our understanding of free culture to the lowest-common-denominator, most simplistic, most un-nuanced, most legally unsophisticated notions of freedom. That is fanaticism for its own sake, and not at all a service to free culture. --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
2010/3/30 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the project, and fall under fair use of the trademark. However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance on it. They have at least kept the logos on the Main Page. I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with logos being listed as an example. The Swedish Wikipedia community can make a community decision to remove these logos from articles and templates, but there's no hobgoblin of consistency that forces them to. In fact, the Swedish Wikipedia community could develop an explicit exemption policy only for WMF logos within the boundaries of the policy. The policy also requires exempt files to be properly tagged, so any third party re-user can exclude them if they want to be on the safe side. Even without going into the licensing policy, I would personally express the view that it would be completely reasonable to interpret sister project templates to be a part of the navigational elements of our websites that just happens to live inside article space. These templates are in fact frequently filtered by re-users because they provide limited utility outside the Wikimedia context. Categorizing them in ways that are friendly to re-users is probably a greater service to them than a logo purge, and the elimination of identifying marks from our navigational structure clearly harms our own ability to develop a coherent reader experience. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, 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
[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Wednesday, March 31, 2010, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either. Consider a re-user displaying article contents including, for example, an interwiki link template with the destination project's logo, but displaying the text without hyperlinks. The original use case, linking to a Wikimedia project, would not apply. Some mirrors will strip some or all links, or replace them with their own links. Similarly offline-readable versions of Wikimedia content may strip or substitute links while retaining images (though you would hope they would strip most templates too). Stephen Bain, - managing to trim replies and avoid top-posting from his mobile device -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@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
WJhonson writes: I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license to do so? Not at all. I'm pointing out, though, that there are all sorts of potential and actual rights embedded in content, and that the right of publicity (as it's called in the United States) is one of them. If we insisted on a simplistic notion of freedom with regard to free content, we'd have to take this legal encumbrance into account. By submitting, using their true names, they are granting us the license to use their true names per our terms. Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use true names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA? How could we interpret any of that differently? It seems like a hodge-podge. Now you're beginning to see the complexity of the issues. --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 Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: The purpose of defining free is to ensure that there will be no problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case. Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either. I also can't see any scenarios that lead to a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case. This seems to be a phantom hazard. The general issue is non-free logos associated with links to other websites where it is clear that the logo is descriptive and useful, yada, yada. We *could* include many copyrighted logos in this way, if we were happy that the other party would not sue. For example, imagine Springer had a trademark policy like the WMF policy, granting liberal use of their logo in the same way. We could use this icon: http://www.springerlink.com/favicon.ico beside these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/springerlink.com This is a silly example for most of those links, as we would use doi's instead. In which case we could use the DOI logo if they had an acceptable trademark policy. http://www.doi.org/images/logo1.gif Repeat this for every logo which could be appropriately used, and we have a lot of non-free licensed logos in use, with individually crafted licenses that need to be reviewed for compliance on a regular basis. I haven't looked at the license in detail, but I take it for granted that you have crafted it clearly define the reuse possibilities. However the WMF logos are available under a license that only covers the WMF logos, and isn't compatible with the prevailing definitions of free. I'm pleased that you recognize that the problem is one with how you use words like compatible and free. The problem is that you are applying imprecise notions of compatible and free that, in your mind, hint at something awful (dogs and cats living together?) without actually posing the risk of something awful. I am not using imprecise notions of free. I linked to freedomdefined.org and indirectly referenced the debian-legal criteria. I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them. Those are not copyright - there are different laws which protect them in various ways. Of course it's not copyright. But the word free is not defined solely by copyright law, is it? The WMF logos (marks) are protected by copyright. They're protected by other areas of law too. I realize that a non-practitioner may suppose that different areas of intellectual-property law can and must be considered in analytical isolation from one another, but in the real world, as you may imagine, different areas of law intersect and interact all the time. non-practitioners often need to tackle each potential problem one by one. Slowly, the problems are resolved. The Sv.Wp decision is removing the inconsistency in its copyright stance by removing the loop hole for WMF logos. Overly simplistic? Maybe. However lots of foreign language projects have adopted very strict positions on copyright issues. Well, by all means, then, if some foreign language projects have adopted overly simplistic positions, we will increase the world's source of free knowledge by following their example, right? The wikisource logo beside the wikisource link isn't increasing the world's source of free knowledge. It may help increase the use of wikisource. Sv.Wp being distributed as a Debian package is more likely to increase the world's consumption of that free knowledge. Christophe Henner suggested earlier in this thread that Swedish Wikipedia is just ahead of the curve. I agree. Sooner or later a Wikipedia is going to try to be turned into a Debian package! I'd bet on Debian legal requiring that the WMF logos are stripped, even if they are used in compliance with the WMF policy. So what? We don't require that the WMF logos be used in some future Debian package, nor is it likely we will, absent a formal partnership of some sort (which seems unlikely). So you agree that a debian edition of en:template:wikisource would probably need to be different from the one used currently on English Wikipedia? My guess is that it would be an exercise in madness trying to create a free edition of English Wikipedia.(using freedomdefined.org or debian definitions of free) Trying to keep it up to date would be sadistic. The so what is that Sv.Wp has made their trunk version of template:wikisource compatible with free content and able to be used in a debian edition without modification. Re-iterating the
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
George Herbert wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: [...] And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly. Please stop using this example. You're living in California again; recall that the earth does crack open here at regular intervals. If you keep saying it enough it will come true, and then you'll be Prophet Mike, and we'll all be doomed. You may be thinking about another Usenet legend,, you are talking to Mike Godwin, not James D. Nicoll of the Nicoll Event fame. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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
In a message dated 3/30/2010 8:37:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mnemo...@gmail.com writes: Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use true names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA? What I'm suggesting is that regardless of which license we decide to use as a project, an editor submitting content to the project is effectively giving up any right they may have to decide what is done with that content, including the meta content like their true name. Including it's use as freely reusable content. I don't see this right you seem to hold that content submit, or meta content that is tagged along with it, somehow enjoys a special position other than what the project itself decides it should or should not enjoy. From where does this extra right stem? The editor waives all rights to their submissions. That's my position. I would suggest even further, that they are giving up any right to decide what is done, *even if* the licensing terms should change. I know others don't hold that viewpoint. ___ 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
