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
<me(a)marcusbuck.org> wrote:
> Mike Godwin hett schreven:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcus Buck <me(a)marcusbuck.org>
wrote:
> > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Marcus Buck
<me(a)marcusbuck.org> wrote:
> > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Marcus Buck
<me(a)marcusbuck.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > Mike Godwin hett
schreven:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck
<me(a)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
trademark law can and cannot do, and what tools can
serve the mission of
Wikipedia, which is to ensure that free knowledge is available to
everyone.
If you do not see how the Wikimedia Foundation's
use of both
trademark law and
copyright law is designed to promote the mission, then
let me suggest
you have
not given adequate thought to the mission, or adequate
study to the
legal issues
involved.
You may have a great career and expertise but until now you haven't used
this
expertise much in this discussion. Instead you have used argumentum ab
auctoritate
and have tried to depict people disagreeing with you as incompetent.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox