As a former "CVU Director" (a title which bears no real authority, outside high access in the CVU IRC channel) and the creator of the original images (they have since been reconditioned), I must object to this. There are many, many derivatives of the Foundation logos that have been created for various different groups (I myself am responsible for quite a few, I admit), and very few of these have received any objection. When I created my first derivative, the "Admin mop", I went to Angela to determine what should be done to get it approved; she passed it on to the other board members, received no objection, and noted the same on the image page. In the course of gettting that image "approved", we discussed what terms applied to such images (use onwiki only, copyright to the foundation, images in good taste, etc). I believe that as long as the derivatives do not defame the founation, Wikipedians should have free reign to create derivatives of the logos for use on Wikimedia projects. Perhaps an informal review process should be instituted, something along the lines of a "derivative review committee" that could quickly review the images, insure they do not pose a threat to the foundation, and "certify" them as safe for use on projects. I myself would be willing to serve on such a committee; images could be uploaded to commons with a {{proposed logo derivative}} tag, listed on a Meta page, where the committee members (which should probably include at least one of our "legal mavens") could review them and issue a quick decision, replacing the proposed tag with an {{approved logo derivative}} tag that would make it clear that while the Foundation did not object to the use of the logo on WM projects, it also did not sponsor or sanction the group using the logo (unless of course, they do, in which case, the tag could be altered). I would also support requiring groups (like the CVU, but also groups like COTW and such) to have a small italicized disclaimer (something similar to the disambig notices that show up on the top of certain pages) saying that they are not sponsored or sanctioned by the Foundation. (In fact, I'll go put such a notice on the CVU page as soon as I finish this email.) I don't think "lacking Foundation sanction" has to mean "forbidden to use the foundation logo", when plenty of other unsanctioned groups are using the logo. Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/ On 1/15/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'd suggest waiting a couple of weeks for any formal decision on this since we're in the process of forming some new Foundation committees, one of which will be delegated the authority to make this sort of decision. Angela