http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy
As worded, this appears to apply to Wikimedia images on user pages - which aren't using someone else's work as "fair use", but aren't free content. Is that the case?
If Wikimedia images aren't forbidden on user pages, what says so?
What about derived versions of Wikimedia images on user pages?
- d.
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy
As worded, this appears to apply to Wikimedia images on user pages - which aren't using someone else's work as "fair use", but aren't free content. Is that the case?
Pretty much. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Usage_of_Non-fr...
If Wikimedia images aren't forbidden on user pages, what says so?
Technically a mixture of a foundation statement then en altering it's EDP.
What about derived versions of Wikimedia images on user pages?
Currently they should be deleted. It is possible that the foundation will finally come up with something however it's record of managing it's own IP so far is pretty poor so I would suggest holding breath is a bad move.
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy
As worded, this appears to apply to Wikimedia images on user pages - which aren't using someone else's work as "fair use", but aren't free content. Is that the case?
If Wikimedia images aren't forbidden on user pages, what says so?
What about derived versions of Wikimedia images on user pages?
Yeah, this is a gray area. If the Foundation would say something about how the logo can be used on the project that would be great. There are obviously a lot of templates that use the logo, and I think most people think that's fine. On the other hand derived versions of the logo usually get deleted as being non licensed derivative works. The visual identity guideline says no derivatives can be published without prior foundation approval, but whether this means all logos or only the foundation logo is unclear.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
I would like to see some policy saying that the logo can be used for any reason as long as it falls within the functioning of wikipedia, but as I am not the copyright holder... :) Also some guidance on wikipedia logo derivatives would be great, I kinda lean towards no derivatives for style consistency reasons, but that's just my opinion.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 5/6/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Yeah, this is a gray area.
No it isn't. The logo is not under a free licence thus it can only be used where a fair use case can be made and only in the article name space.
I would like to see some policy saying that the logo can be used for any reason as long as it falls within the functioning of wikipedia, but as I am not the copyright holder... :)
I fail to see any reason to encourage increased use of non free content.
On 5/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Yeah, this is a gray area.
No it isn't. The logo is not under a free licence thus it can only be used where a fair use case can be made and only in the article name space.
I should say, the rules do not make this a gray area, but actual practice does.
I would like to see some policy saying that the logo can be used for any reason as long as it falls within the functioning of wikipedia, but as I am not the copyright holder... :)
I fail to see any reason to encourage increased use of non free content.
Well, I personally think uses like the following templates should be acceptable. They currently aren't (this is what I mean by gray area) but I see no reason to limit their use on wikipedia for wikipedia functions. If we want to take the stance of not using this material anywhere we should strip it from the top left as well, or make it GFDL. This is unacceptable to the foundation, so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Interwikitmp-grp
I general I prefer rules to follow what people are actually doing. Yes, the policy itself is clear, but everyone ignores this aspect of it. Not to say that's good or bad, but there is a discrepancy.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 5/8/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I should say, the rules do not make this a gray area, but actual practice does.
If we look at the case of replaceable fair use there is a clear precedent that practice does not produce a grey area.
Well, I personally think uses like the following templates should be acceptable. They currently aren't (this is what I mean by gray area) but I see no reason to limit their use on wikipedia for wikipedia functions. If we want to take the stance of not using this material anywhere we should strip it from the top left as well, or make it GFDL.
No because the interface is not part of our output of free content (it is GPL in any case).
This is unacceptable to the foundation, so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Interwikitmp-grp
I general I prefer rules to follow what people are actually doing. Yes, the policy itself is clear, but everyone ignores this aspect of it. Not to say that's good or bad, but there is a discrepancy.
I generally regard the second as an interface element so an exception can be argued. The first use should cease however since it is unnecessary.
On 5/8/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I generally regard the second as an interface element so an exception can be argued. The first use should cease however since it is unnecessary.
Maybe we should clarify what are interface elements then. I don't have particularly strong views on this, but I think it could be confusing for people.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
cohesion wrote:
On 5/6/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy
As worded, this appears to apply to Wikimedia images on user pages - which aren't using someone else's work as "fair use", but aren't free content. Is that the case?
If Wikimedia images aren't forbidden on user pages, what says so?
What about derived versions of Wikimedia images on user pages?
Yeah, this is a gray area. If the Foundation would say something about how the logo can be used on the project that would be great. There are obviously a lot of templates that use the logo, and I think most people think that's fine. On the other hand derived versions of the logo usually get deleted as being non licensed derivative works. The visual identity guideline says no derivatives can be published without prior foundation approval, but whether this means all logos or only the foundation logo is unclear.
Correct. This needs to be updated.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
I would like to see some policy saying that the logo can be used for any reason as long as it falls within the functioning of wikipedia, but as I am not the copyright holder... :) Also some guidance on wikipedia logo derivatives would be great, I kinda lean towards no derivatives for style consistency reasons, but that's just my opinion.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
A community logo has been created specifically for that reason: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
"The community logo concept is based on the principle that various initiatives and groups of Wikimedians want to have some sort of graphical element to represent themselves. The natural course of action for them was to use one of the official Wikimedia projects' logos or the Wikimedia Foundation logo. Since those logos are copyrighted and are trademarks of WMF, their use would imply official endorsement by WMF. Hence, this practice is generally frowned upon by WMF. Instead, the community is encouraged to use the freely-licensed Wikimedia Community Logo or one of its derivatives shown below, or create a new one on their basis to serve as a graphical representation for a user group (admins, deletionists, etc.) or community project. The community logo concept has been proposed by WarX."
You may find various derivatives here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos
And yes, please, avoid creating derivatives of the Wikipedia logo (or any other wikimedia project logo).
Thanks
Anthere
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Florence Devouard wrote:
I would like to see some policy saying that the logo can be used for any reason as long as it falls within the functioning of wikipedia, but as I am not the copyright holder... :) Also some guidance on wikipedia logo derivatives would be great, I kinda lean towards no derivatives for style consistency reasons, but that's just my opinion.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
A community logo has been created specifically for that reason: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
The community logo and the derivatives created so far are not particularly compelling. I'm not sure that relying heavily on the meta-colors, which may not have been particularly carefully chosen in the first place, is a great idea. Perhaps we should have a community logo contest for something to represent the combined communities?
This is independent of the question of how the community can or should use the project logos. Many of the derivatives of Wikimedia logos made so far, for fun or celebration or illustration, have been lovely; I hope we continue to inspire the kind of creativity associated with the Google logo.
The natural course of action for them was to use one of the official Wikimedia projects' logos or the Wikimedia Foundation logo. Since those logos are copyrighted and are trademarks of WMF, their use would imply official endorsement by WMF. Hence, this practice is generally frowned upon by WMF.
The use of logos other than the foundation logo should not indicate endorsement by the foundation, any more than the mention of the names of those projects should. One does use logos and names to indicate affiliation; to the extent that community groups are in fact part of the community and affiliated with it, this would seem appropriate. How could this be a bad thing?
And yes, please, avoid creating derivatives of the Wikipedia logo (or any other wikimedia project logo).
What is the concern here? It would be useful to have a transparent and speedy process for approving elegant or inspiring derivatives, for holidays, new formats or media, and other special events.
SJ