Alphax wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
The problem overlaps somewhat with the problem of including images in templates, when those images are not truly free in every sense. For instance, consider the popular user boxes that are cropping up all over the place (for some examples, see [[User:NSR/userboxes]]). Many of these include images that are tagged as fair use.
For the most part, they *are* fair use - they illustrate the product.
Illustrating the product is hardly a free ticket to fair use, even if that's what the images do here. I don't particularly buy that either; the images are logos that identify the user with the product, not actual illustrations of the product. Also, fair use arguments for user pages are a serious stretch. In most cases, the use has no relationship to the purposes enumerated in the Copyright Act (criticism, comment, scholarship, research, etc.).
The only one which has serious copyright concerns is the Wikipedia/Firefox "logo", which infringes two trademarks (and some people are claiming is a "parody"). If someone will draw their own version of this, please do so and put it on commons, it's quite cute...
It may be cute, but as I understand it such images aren't eligible for inclusion on Commons, nor do I get how you think that someone "draw[ing] their own version" will avoid the legal problems.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Alphax wrote:
<snip>
The only one which has serious copyright concerns is the Wikipedia/Firefox "logo", which infringes two trademarks (and some people are claiming is a "parody"). If someone will draw their own version of this, please do so and put it on commons, it's quite cute...
It may be cute, but as I understand it such images aren't eligible for inclusion on Commons, nor do I get how you think that someone "draw[ing] their own version" will avoid the legal problems.
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Please, I ask people, don't speculate on legal matters unless and until you've learned more about them.
--Jimbo
"don't speculate on legal
matters unless and until you've learned more about them."
Whats to know? Executive power effectively trumps all, until the 30 year FOIA statute kicks in, when those accountable are already history.
And any disputes between competing social jurisdictions are settled by force of arms, repression of liberties, and checkbook imperialism. Am I missing something?
SV Rock, paper, scissors
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both
copyrighted and
trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at
least solve the first
issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Please, I ask people, don't speculate on legal matters unless and until you've learned more about them.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Argh, I meant in the same style, not the exact same thing... so if someone created an image of white globe with a chunk taken out of the top and letters all over it, and an orange stylised fox wrapped around it... would that be any better?
Please, I ask people, don't speculate on legal matters unless and until you've learned more about them.
As an aside: I've replaced some of the images in question (at least on [[User:NSR/userboxes]] with icons from the Nuvola icon set for KDE (shameless plug: these are going on Commons, linked from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nuvola), which are licensed under the LGPL, so if anyone wants to complain about the copyright or whatever on them, they can ask David Vignoni (the author) about them.
IANAL, but wouldn't icons such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuvola_apps_licq.png be trademarked still?
Laurascudder
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Argh, I meant in the same style, not the exact same thing... so if someone created an image of white globe with a chunk taken out of the top and letters all over it, and an orange stylised fox wrapped around it... would that be any better?
Please, I ask people, don't speculate on legal matters unless and until you've learned more about them.
As an aside: I've replaced some of the images in question (at least on [[User:NSR/userboxes]] with icons from the Nuvola icon set for KDE (shameless plug: these are going on Commons, linked from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nuvola), which are licensed under the LGPL, so if anyone wants to complain about the copyright or whatever on them, they can ask David Vignoni (the author) about them.
-- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Laura Scudder wrote:
IANAL, but wouldn't icons such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuvola_apps_licq.png be trademarked still?
Take it up with the author, his homepage is http://www.icon-king.com
For instance, for the Netscape icon http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuvola_apps_netscape.png we apparently can only use it in limited cases and are supposed to include the text:
"Netscape, Netscape Certificater Server, Netscape FastTrack Server, Netscape Navigator, Netscape ONE, SuiteSpot, and the Netscape N and Ship's Wheel logos are registered trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation in the United States and other countries. [List other Netscape product names used in your document] are also trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation, which may be registered in other countries." (from http://wp.netscape.com/legal_notices/trademarks.html)
So it would seem to me that we shouldn't have the trademarked images that we can only use in limited cases anyways.
Laurascudder
On 9/15/05, Laura Scudder laurascudder@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL, but wouldn't icons such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuvola_apps_licq.png be trademarked still?
Laurascudder
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Argh, I meant in the same style, not the exact same thing... so if someone created an image of white globe with a chunk taken out of the top and letters all over it, and an orange stylised fox wrapped around it... would that be any better?
Please, I ask people, don't speculate on legal matters unless and until you've learned more about them.
As an aside: I've replaced some of the images in question (at least on [[User:NSR/userboxes]] with icons from the Nuvola icon set for KDE (shameless plug: these are going on Commons, linked from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nuvola), which are licensed under the LGPL, so if anyone wants to complain about the copyright or whatever on them, they can ask David Vignoni (the author) about them.
-- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Its been a while, but Ive just started using the random page link to just surf for minor edit handling. I kind of like it --about half of the articles have rather basic formatting, disambiguation, tag, image, and link handling problems, and banging away at these was a reasonably productive use of an hour.
A feel a "Random Pluggers" WikiProject coming on.
SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 9/16/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Its been a while, but Ive just started using the random page link to just surf for minor edit handling. I kind of like it --about half of the articles have rather basic formatting, disambiguation, tag, image, and link handling problems, and banging away at these was a reasonably productive use of an hour.
A feel a "Random Pluggers" WikiProject coming on.
Go for it! When I first encountered Wikipedia I spent many a happy hour just pressing random page and doing minor format edits, cats wikification and the like.
I am cc'ing this to commons-l, since this discussion belongs there anyway.
Laura Scudder wrote:
For instance, for the Netscape icon http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuvola_apps_netscape.png we apparently can only use it in limited cases and are supposed to include the text:
"Netscape, Netscape Certificater Server, Netscape FastTrack Server, Netscape Navigator, Netscape ONE, SuiteSpot, and the Netscape N and Ship's Wheel logos are registered trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation in the United States and other countries. [List other Netscape product names used in your document] are also trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation, which may be registered in other countries." (from http://wp.netscape.com/legal_notices/trademarks.html)
So it would seem to me that we shouldn't have the trademarked images that we can only use in limited cases anyways.
Laurascudder
Yes, delete it. Stuff like this should be speedy deleted from commons, I think. Commons should tend very strongly towards purity, not comprehensiveness. There can be strong editorial reasons for including such things in the encyclopedia itself, and "fair use" makes an appearance there, but in commons, we should tend towards purity. Strongly.
--Jimbo
Alphax wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Argh, I meant in the same style, not the exact same thing... so if someone created an image of white globe with a chunk taken out of the top and letters all over it, and an orange stylised fox wrapped around it... would that be any better?
Derivative work, it is not helpful at all, no.
As an aside: I've replaced some of the images in question (at least on [[User:NSR/userboxes]] with icons from the Nuvola icon set for KDE (shameless plug: these are going on Commons, linked from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nuvola), which are licensed under the LGPL, so if anyone wants to complain about the copyright or whatever on them, they can ask David Vignoni (the author) about them.
I wouldn't be so cavalier about that. David Vignoni may not be correct in assuming he can release these under LGPL. Be careful. Especially on Commons, where we do not allow "fair use" justifications.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Please, I ask people, don't speculate on legal matters unless and until you've learned more about them.
The kind of thing that he may be thinking about would only operate in very limited circumstances, and not at all in trademarks or patents.
If two people _independently_ produce identical pieces of work they can both have copyright protection, and neither has infringed upon the other. The horde of monkeys who managed to reproduce the Britannica would not be infringing because it could probably be proven that they did not even know how to read the original work, Practically, the situation is next to impossible in anything but the shortest works. Legal cases involving music copying can often hinge on whether the alleged infringer had the idea independently. For Wiktionary it can happen when someone independently uses the same definition as appears in a published dictionary. It could be the only plausible or even possible definition.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Well, the Firefox and Wikipedia logos are both copyrighted and trademarked. Recreating them from scratch would at least solve the first issue.
That's just wrong. Recreating them from scratch would not solve the first issue at all.
That's like saying that if I type in all of a Harry Potter book from scratch, it's no longer copyrighted.
Please, I ask people, don't speculate on legal matters unless and until you've learned more about them.
The kind of thing that he may be thinking about would only operate in very limited circumstances, and not at all in trademarks or patents. If two people _independently_ produce identical pieces of work they can both have copyright protection, and neither has infringed upon the other. The horde of monkeys who managed to reproduce the Britannica would not be infringing because it could probably be proven that they did not even know how to read the original work, Practically, the situation is next to impossible in anything but the shortest works. Legal cases involving music copying can often hinge on whether the alleged infringer had the idea independently. For Wiktionary it can happen when someone independently uses the same definition as appears in a published dictionary. It could be the only plausible or even possible definition.
Please read my reply to Jimbo's email before you speculate on what I might have been thinking about any further.
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Illustrating the product is hardly a free ticket to fair use, even if that's what the images do here. I don't particularly buy that either; the images are logos that identify the user with the product, not actual illustrations of the product. Also, fair use arguments for user pages are a serious stretch. In most cases, the use has no relationship to the purposes enumerated in the Copyright Act (criticism, comment, scholarship, research, etc.).
IANAL but I have taken more than my fair share of business law classes. So based on that, along with all the other experience I've gained while dealing with copyright issues on Wikipedia, I have to say that I completely agree with Michael on this point.
Our fair use argument for logos is only strong for the very limited use of illustrating an article about the organization that owns trademark of the logo. That is a very clear educational use and should survive a challenge to our fair use claim. Having that same logo linked from thousands of user pages, however, has no valid fair use claim that I can think of.
Unlike copyright, the holder of a trademark must take adequate measures to protect that trademark (registered or not) in order to keep it. Therefore I think these logos should be removed immediately from their templates.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com