Hi!
Issue with Wikimedia logos violating Commons policies re-appeared again on Commons Village Pump.
But logos should be shared across Wikimedia projects. Otherwise everybody will have headache with supporting multiple copies of same images of different projects.
I think MediaWiki contain technical ability to solve this problem. As far as I remember SVN comments, new file storage class allow to support several shared file servers like Commons. So Wikimedia logos could be moved to dedicated server. Access to this server could be restricted for avoiding vandalism/unapproved logos changes (for example to stewards/board memebers).
Just thoughts, Eugene.
On 7/26/07, Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
Issue with Wikimedia logos violating Commons policies re-appeared again on Commons Village Pump.
But logos should be shared across Wikimedia projects. Otherwise everybody will have headache with supporting multiple copies of same images of different projects.
I think MediaWiki contain technical ability to solve this problem. As far as I remember SVN comments, new file storage class allow to support several shared file servers like Commons. So Wikimedia logos could be moved to dedicated server. Access to this server could be restricted for avoiding vandalism/unapproved logos changes (for example to stewards/board memebers).
Just thoughts, Eugene.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Possible solution to a non problem?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Pedro Sanchez's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 7/26/2007 12:48 PM:
On 7/26/07, Eugene Zelenko wrote:
Hi!
Issue with Wikimedia logos violating Commons policies re-appeared again on Commons Village Pump.
But logos should be shared across Wikimedia projects. Otherwise everybody will have headache with supporting multiple copies of same images of different projects.
I think MediaWiki contain technical ability to solve this problem. As far as I remember SVN comments, new file storage class allow to support several shared file servers like Commons. So Wikimedia logos could be moved to dedicated server. Access to this server could be restricted for avoiding vandalism/unapproved logos changes (for example to stewards/board memebers).
Possible solution to a non problem?
Somebody on the VP just opened a can of worms here. So it is probably a non-problem, but we should keep this in the back of our minds just in case somebody /else/ does the same.
As for the proposed solution, if enough people complain about Wikimedia logos being on Commons, then I'm for this solution.
- -- Charli (vishwin60/zelzany/O) Ostrich: 40 MPH; Grizzly Bear: 30 MPH; Cheetah: 70 MPH; Governor of Pennsylvania: DON'T ASK
Eugene Zelenko wrote: ...
I think MediaWiki contain technical ability to solve this problem. As far as I remember SVN comments, new file storage class allow to support several shared file servers like Commons. So Wikimedia logos could be moved to dedicated server. Access to this server could be restricted for avoiding vandalism/unapproved logos changes (for example to stewards/board memebers).
"free content only" is a Wikimedia policy, it applies to all content served from any Wikimedia server. Moving logos to a different server does not solve the problem, it's just shifting it around, perhaps allowing Commons to ignore it.
There are basically only two options:
a) live with the slightly hypocritical current situation - i.e. making the logos an exception from the general policy.
b) make the logos free content, and rely on trademark law to protect them against abuse. This would in theory be the best solution IMHO, but does not seem feasible in practice (trademark registration is per country, for a limited time, for a limited purpose, harder to enforce, and quite expensive if done for all logos in many countries).
Where the logos are hosted is irrelevant.
-- Daniel
PS: maybe the logos could be put under a free(ish) license that explicitly treats use of logos and trademarks as a special case? GFDL and CC don't, but I think the Apache license has a clause for that, and there are probably more.
2007/7/27, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de:
"free content only" is a Wikimedia policy, it applies to all content served from any Wikimedia server. Moving logos to a different server does not solve the problem, it's just shifting it around, perhaps allowing Commons to ignore it.
There are basically only two options:
a) live with the slightly hypocritical current situation - i.e. making the logos an exception from the general policy.
I cannot see why the current situation is hypocrytical. The logos are not part of the Commons repository, they are uploaded to the Commons servers just because of operative/technical/logistical needs. But that is clearly stated that: "*notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL.* Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the *Wikimedia visual identity guidelineshttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines * and requires permission."
The only problem that I see is that in projects that do not allow non free content (such as eswiki) users tend to put Wikimedia copyrighted logos in the articles about Wikimedia projects (i.e. the main image in http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). This is a violation of the project's policy (in this example, eswiki policy) but there is no reason to quit them from Commons because it is not a violation to use it in other places (i.e. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:Commons). In this case, just a bigger and better explanation on the logos page could make things clear. Something like "This is non free, if your project does not allow nonfree images in articles, please do not use this image".
Barcex.
Zitat von Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de:
b) make the logos free content, and rely on trademark law to protect them against abuse. This would in theory be the best solution IMHO, but does not seem feasible in practice (trademark registration is per country, for a limited time, for a limited purpose, harder to enforce, and quite expensive if done for all logos in many countries).
This would be my favourite too. Why is this not feasible? IANAL but trademark don't necessary need to be registered. Trademarks and patents are much easier to enforce than copyright.
We have many logos from companies and political parties on our servers. Why treat our own logos differently?
Where the logos are hosted is irrelevant.
Yes.
On Friday 27 July 2007 12:23:28 Daniel Kinzler wrote:
b) make the logos free content, and rely on trademark law to protect them against abuse. This would in theory be the best solution IMHO, but does not seem feasible in practice (trademark registration is per country, for a limited time, for a limited purpose, harder to enforce, and quite expensive if done for all logos in many countries).
Indeed that's the very problem. And relying on moral rights (which could be an option too) is a bit too weak for the Foundation.
But I have a third option:
How about creating a "community" icon? An icon that can be used by anyone who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project?
I'd say: Interested talented people just start creating a Wikimedia Commons community icon which is reusable under CC-BY (any version). Everyone who think using it for his work is apropriate can use it.
I envision a relaxed logo alternative like the famous Tux logo. Tux is perfectly associated with Linux (and only "Linux" the word is a trademark) but none makes any trouble if someone reuses it in another context for his own purpose.
So let us create a cute Wikimedia Commons community logo and then we'll see which logo wins, and which logo makes a stronger and more living Commons brand: The current restriced one or the free one.
And after this bold test the Foundation can evaluate if they want a second community icon for Wikipedia and others too or if it is better beeing more relaxed with the current Wikipedia icon. :p
Cheers, Arnomane
On 7/27/07, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 12:23:28 Daniel Kinzler wrote:
b) make the logos free content, and rely on trademark law to protect them against abuse. This would in theory be the best solution IMHO, but does not seem feasible in practice (trademark registration is per country, for a limited time, for a limited purpose, harder to enforce, and quite expensive if done for all logos in many countries).
Indeed that's the very problem. And relying on moral rights (which could be an option too) is a bit too weak for the Foundation.
But I have a third option:
How about creating a "community" icon? An icon that can be used by anyone who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipe-tan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan
There is a commons tan in there somewhere.
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:45:32 geni wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipe-tan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan
There is a commons tan in there somewhere.
Oh no. Please not this silly manga-girl! I don't want a digital girl for male geek Wikipedians that dream of a cute girlfriend.
Arnomane
On 7/27/07, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:45:32 geni wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipe-tan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan
There is a commons tan in there somewhere.
Oh no. Please not this silly manga-girl! I don't want a digital girl for male geek Wikipedians that dream of a cute girlfriend.
Arnomane
In that case there would be the Wikipede:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedesketch1.png
But there are far fewer drawings.
On Friday 27 July 2007 20:18:13 geni wrote:
On 7/27/07, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:45:32 geni wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipe-tan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan
There is a commons tan in there somewhere.
Oh no. Please not this silly manga-girl! I don't want a digital girl for male geek Wikipedians that dream of a cute girlfriend.
Arnomane
In that case there would be the Wikipede:
Although funny these logos aren't exactly reusable outside a somewhat ironic context. I'd like a logo you can use for representation and recognition, like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tux.svg
Arnomane
Daniel Arnold wrote:
How about creating a "community" icon? An icon that can be used by anyone who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project?
The problem with this idea is the "Commons brand" you mention: compared to the number of people who are familiar with Wikipedia, there are not all that many who know what Commons is, and I'm worried that we won't be doing our branding any good by having two (competing) logos. Imagine how odd it would be if you saw a page with numerous references to Commons with one icon, but when you actually visited Commons you started to see a completely different icon. The only way to ease confusion here would be to have the community icon be a derivative of the normal icon, but that sends us back to square one since we can't create derivative works like that.
So let us create a cute Wikimedia Commons community logo and then we'll see which logo wins, and which logo makes a stronger and more living Commons brand: The current restriced one or the free one.
But if a new logo becomes the commonly-used one, wouldn't it be prudent for the Foundation to copyright that one as well? Aren't all of these logos copyrighted in the first place because we want to be able to control their use? As Commons becomes more and more well-known, IMO it's important that we have one, consistent, WMF-controlled logo (and visual identity in general).
Regards,
On Friday 27 July 2007 20:39:34 Benjamin Esham wrote:
The problem with this idea is the "Commons brand" you mention: compared to the number of people who are familiar with Wikipedia, there are not all that many who know what Commons is, and I'm worried that we won't be doing our branding any good by having two (competing) logos. Imagine how odd it would be if you saw a page with numerous references to Commons with one icon, but when you actually visited Commons you started to see a completely different icon.
Stop stop stop! I am _not_ talking about replacing the official Logo of Commons you can see in the left of the Commons web site. I am not talking replacing the official brand. I am talking about a serious inofficial "Commons community and supporter icon" that anybody can use without formal agreement. Everyone that thinks he and his own innitative keep the spirit of our project may use it if he or she likes. So how about a cartoonish flower icon?
I can only recommend reading a bit about Tux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux This is an ideal example of a strong community driven icon. There is no doubt many people abuse it but overall the benefit of this free icon outwheights this by far.
But if a new logo becomes the commonly-used one, wouldn't it be prudent for the Foundation to copyright that one as well?
They simply can't do it even if they wanted. CC-BY and friends cannot be revoked.
Aren't all of these logos copyrighted in the first place because we want to be able to control their use?
Sure. Aren't wikis dangerous cause anybody can write bullshit into them?
As Commons becomes more and more well-known, IMO it's important that we have one, consistent, WMF-controlled logo (and visual identity in general).
I particular dislike any corporate identity bullshit. I like usability and clear consistent design of web pages, printed works and other stuff but not more. I am not talking about replacing the Commons Logo for offical authorized activities.
However I am realistic: I know that we simply have no chance convincing the Foundation on the current logos, because simply there are unauthorized people that try to speak on their behalf. Although I dont like the approach of the Foundation I acknowledge that they are acting with the best ideals.
Arnomane
Daniel Arnold wrote:
Benjamin Esham wrote:
The problem with this idea is the "Commons brand" you mention: compared to the number of people who are familiar with Wikipedia, there are not all that many who know what Commons is, and I'm worried that we won't be doing our branding any good by having two (competing) logos. Imagine how odd it would be if you saw a page with numerous references to Commons with one icon, but when you actually visited Commons you started to see a completely different icon.
Stop stop stop! I am _not_ talking about replacing the official Logo of Commons you can see in the left of the Commons web site. I am not talking replacing the official brand. I am talking about a serious inofficial "Commons community and supporter icon" that anybody can use without formal agreement. Everyone that thinks he and his own innitative keep the spirit of our project may use it if he or she likes. So how about a cartoonish flower icon?
I have looked at [1] a little, and I guess the idea of community logos has its merits. However, I'm still worried about the confusion that could be caused by the use of two different logos.
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos
Aren't all of these logos copyrighted in the first place because we want to be able to control their use?
Sure. Aren't wikis dangerous cause anybody can write bullshit into them?
As I see it, each of our wikis consists of two parts: the free content, and the Wikimedia branding. We want people to reuse the former; that's the point of the project. We don't want anyone else to use the latter, because that opens up the potential for abuse of the brand. Such misuses are, I believe, covered by trademark law, but having the logos copyrighted is an extra layer of protection.
As Commons becomes more and more well-known, IMO it's important that we have one, consistent, WMF-controlled logo (and visual identity in general).
I particular dislike any corporate identity bullshit. I like usability and clear consistent design of web pages, printed works and other stuff but not more. I am not talking about replacing the Commons Logo for offical authorized activities.
How is the idea of a "corporate identity" different from the consistent design of published materials, including one consistent logo? The WMF is not a for-profit corporation, but it would do well to ensure that people can recognize its services with a minimum of effort—and therefore with a minimum of confusion.
Daniel Arnold wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 12:23:28 Daniel Kinzler wrote:
b) make the logos free content, and rely on trademark law to protect them against abuse. This would in theory be the best solution IMHO, but does not seem feasible in practice (trademark registration is per country, for a limited time, for a limited purpose, harder to enforce, and quite expensive if done for all logos in many countries).
Indeed that's the very problem. And relying on moral rights (which could be an option too) is a bit too weak for the Foundation.
But I have a third option:
How about creating a "community" icon? An icon that can be used by anyone who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project?
I'd say: Interested talented people just start creating a Wikimedia Commons community icon which is reusable under CC-BY (any version). Everyone who think using it for his work is apropriate can use it.
I had the same idea, but inspired on Debian, who has a copyrighted icon and a free icon, instead of Tux.
My first idea was a wikipedish logo of a circle with a W in it (with the other letters surrounding?). Much more flat, less visual identity, but you can still associate them.
On 28/07/07, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
But I have a third option:
How about creating a "community" icon? An icon that can be used by anyone who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project?
User:WarX has done this for some projects already I think. I think there's a "community""WMF" logo, and there's one for the Mayflower search engine (not quite sure why).
cheers Brianna
On 28/07/07, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
But I have a third option:
How about creating a "community" icon? An icon that can be used by anyone who likes, supports, reuses, whatever the project?
These are at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos But that doesn't solve the problem that Wikimedia needs somewhere to upload its official non-free logos.
Angela
On 26/07/07, Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko@gmail.com wrote:
Issue with Wikimedia logos violating Commons policies re-appeared again on Commons Village Pump.
Ignorance of the origin of Commons as a service project for other Wikimedia projects.
I think MediaWiki contain technical ability to solve this problem. As far as I remember SVN comments, new file storage class allow to support several shared file servers like Commons. So Wikimedia logos could be moved to dedicated server. Access to this server could be restricted for avoiding vandalism/unapproved logos changes (for example to stewards/board memebers).
Alternately, Commons users could acquaint themselves with the history of the project.
- d.
On Saturday 28 July 2007 21:32:34 David Gerard wrote:
Alternately, Commons users could acquaint themselves with the history of the project.
Alternatly it could widen the personal horizon if you look _who_ actually makes such troubles. Almost everytime not core Wikimedia Commons people, but random Wikipedians that think they know everything better.
Many Commons people are just sick of certain debates reapearing again and again (and beeing made responsible for it).
Cheers, Arnomane.