Klaus Graf writes:
Nobody can be in doubt that the Volvo Logo isn't copyrighted at least
> in the US.
Of course they can. Plenty of letterform-based designs are copyrighted in
the United States.
> If attorneys are confusing trademark and copyright
> protection Wikimedia counsel should not imitate them.
I'm not imitating anyone, but thanks.
> Would you PLEASE
> read
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
>
I hope you will understand why I choose not to ignore my understanding of
copyright law and defer instead to a Wikipedia article, no matter how
well-intentioned it is, and no matter how highly I respect Wikipedia as a
general-knowledge resource. Wikipedia is not an authority on what copyright
is, or on what is copyrightable.
>
> Thank you.
>
Oh, no, thank *you*.
--Mike
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:37:38 -0700
> From: Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia
> logos
> 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.
Nobody can be in doubt that the Volvo Logo isn't copyrighted at least
in the US. If attorneys are confusing trademark and copyright
protection Wikimedia counsel should not imitate them. Would you PLEASE
read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
Thank you.
Klaus Graf
Assuming that other people care about ones own form of mailing choice is
crap also, as far as this list is concerned. Let people do as they choose.
Nobody forces you to read their posts.
On Mar 30, 2010 7:45 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
Top posting is not what *creates* the crap.
Copying the entire email is a standard setting in some clients (toggleable)
and an optional setting in others (toggleable) and probably there are some
which don't let you select to do that, or undo it either!
Personally I don't want to scroll down through a 200 word email just to see
"me too" at the very bottom.
The real issue to me, is that those who have an email client which copies
the entire email in response, don't trim the verbage.
W.J.
In a message dated 3/30/2010 4:15:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayvdb(a)gmail.com writes:
> I am often in "outback" Australia, with only dialup or very slow
> mobi...
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimed...
Top posting is not what *creates* the crap.
Copying the entire email is a standard setting in some clients (toggleable)
and an optional setting in others (toggleable) and probably there are some
which don't let you select to do that, or undo it either!
Personally I don't want to scroll down through a 200 word email just to see
"me too" at the very bottom.
The real issue to me, is that those who have an email client which copies
the entire email in response, don't trim the verbage.
W.J.
In a message dated 3/30/2010 4:15:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayvdb(a)gmail.com writes:
> I am often in "outback" Australia, with only dialup or very slow
> mobile broadband available. It is very annoying to need to download
> many copies of the same "crap" because people top post.
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
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
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
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
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Genuinelyawikiquizzling <>
Date: Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Magnus Manske <>
Dear active administrator,
As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with
the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the
site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking
out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them!
Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore
fairness and integrity to the project...
We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and
perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take
you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply
to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not
hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
--
This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English
Wikipedia to user "Magnus Manske". It has been automatically delivered
and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its
contents.
The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any
information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no
obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might
disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy,
security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing,
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.