On 9/6/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/09/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
Anyway, thinking about this more I have to say
that providing free
images for people to use on their bottles of dish detergent is at
least currently outside the scope of Wikimedia.
So you propose to change (or make more specific) the [[Commons:Project
scope]]. I am not necessarily opposed to that either. I just dislike
living in perpetual limbo-land and with the lack of guidance from
on-high, making concrete policies is one way to resolve it.
Actually, I don't see anything in the project scope that needs to be
changed. It says it right in the project scope: commons is for media
that is "useful for some Wikimedia project". The purpose is not to
collect images to use on your products.
But anyway, I note that we've (the collective
that is) abolished WikipediaOnly permissions. Do you support that or
Yes, I support that.
Because you can use those in Wikipedia et al, yet we
You can legally use them in Wikipedia, but you can't use them in any
other encyclopedia. That's the problem. Furthermore, they *are*
banned from Wikipedia, not just the commons. Trademarked images
*aren't* banned from Wikipedia. Do you think they should be?
We also abolished non-commercial (NC) clauses,
even though Wikipedia itself is a non-commercial enterprise. Do you
Actually I think it's debatable whether or not Wikipedia is a
non-commercial enterprise. They're non-profit, but they do engage in
commerce under the definition in US law. But anyway, I'd go back to
my comment about Wikipedia-only permissions. NC-only images are
banned in Wikipedia, not just commons.
I am not trying to be paranoid here, but I feel uneasy
recognise a (2D) video cover design is not free and yet somehow we
accept the infamous "Pringles photo" (
because the original object is 3D. And also
seem quite right.
IMO the Pringles photo is restricted by copyright and is not free.
The pringles can design is a 2D work which is not freely licensed.
The Bibel TV logo is trickier. I think it's a borderline case,
because it's somewhat free in many jurisdictions. But this has far
more to do with copyright law than it does with trademark law.
In what jurisdictions is it legal to put the Bibel TV logo in an
encyclopedia article? Presumably Germany (not copyrightable) and the
United States (fair use), but I don't know the complete answer to this
question, and I think the answer to it is the key to whether or not
it's an acceptable image.