Arf arf! No, no that kind of seal...
There are a number of U.S. federal agencies which have seals the usages of which are restricted by federal law. For example, about the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA):
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal Federal law prohibits use of the words Central Intelligence Agency, the initials CIA, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. http://www.cia.gov/cia/notices.html#seal
Now I don't know what it's *copyright* status is -- is it a work of the federal government and thus in the public domain, or is it considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
Of course, when I raise things like this on Commons, I seem to incite a lot of ire from people who want to pick nits about whether or not its usage is limited because of its *copyright* or because of federal laws. I have to admit, for a place which is supposed to care so much about whether or not things are actually free, people seem to think deleting images is the worst thing in the world, even if there is little compelling reason to think they are truly in the public domain. Personally, I'd shoot at first suspicion that something was not really in the public domain -- there would be nothing worse for Commons than to be in continual doubt whether or not its licensing information was correct, it would defeat the entire point -- but that's just me.
Any ideas? I tend to think that any image with this sort of legal restriction does NOT qualify as "free" in the sense required by Commons and is antithetical to its purpose -- to provide a repository of "free" images.
FF
On 9/14/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal Federal law prohibits use of the words Central Intelligence Agency, the initials CIA, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. http://www.cia.gov/cia/notices.html#seal
Of course, in all fairness, I might also point out that it could just be that in this instance I'm misreading this clause -- perhaps it is only saying that you can't use it in a commercial situation IF it is implying endorsement. I'm somewhat unclear on what we should regard the copyright status of logos of federal agencies, because they often seem to be handled differently than "materials produced by" those agencies in question -- much more restricted and regulated, not "public domain" in the sense that you can use and re-use and produce your own copyrights with them.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
Arf arf! No, no that kind of seal...
There are a number of U.S. federal agencies which have seals the usages of which are restricted by federal law. For example, about the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA):
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal Federal law prohibits use of the words Central Intelligence Agency, the initials CIA, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. http://www.cia.gov/cia/notices.html#seal
Now I don't know what it's *copyright* status is -- is it a work of the federal government and thus in the public domain, or is it considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
Of course, when I raise things like this on Commons, I seem to incite a lot of ire from people who want to pick nits about whether or not its usage is limited because of its *copyright* or because of federal laws. I have to admit, for a place which is supposed to care so much about whether or not things are actually free, people seem to think deleting images is the worst thing in the world, even if there is little compelling reason to think they are truly in the public domain. Personally, I'd shoot at first suspicion that something was not really in the public domain -- there would be nothing worse for Commons than to be in continual doubt whether or not its licensing information was correct, it would defeat the entire point -- but that's just me.
Any ideas? I tend to think that any image with this sort of legal restriction does NOT qualify as "free" in the sense required by Commons and is antithetical to its purpose -- to provide a repository of "free" images.
So they will SUE US IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY? :)
It's only illegal to use their image if you impersonate them. The copyright of the image itself is that the image is in the public domain. Effectively, it's a Trademark (albeit one without copyright), the misrepresentation of which may render one liable to prosecution.
And if they want to stop us, fsck them. We'll move the media servers to Paris or Amsterdam, on wheels if needs be.
Zomgwtfbbq! Wikimedia on Wheels!
On 9/14/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
Arf arf! No, no that kind of seal...
There are a number of U.S. federal agencies which have seals the usages of which are restricted by federal law. For example, about the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA):
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal Federal law prohibits use of the words Central Intelligence Agency, the initials CIA, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. http://www.cia.gov/cia/notices.html#seal
Now I don't know what it's *copyright* status is -- is it a work of the federal government and thus in the public domain, or is it considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
Of course, when I raise things like this on Commons, I seem to incite a lot of ire from people who want to pick nits about whether or not its usage is limited because of its *copyright* or because of federal laws. I have to admit, for a place which is supposed to care so much about whether or not things are actually free, people seem to think deleting images is the worst thing in the world, even if there is little compelling reason to think they are truly in the public domain. Personally, I'd shoot at first suspicion that something was not really in the public domain -- there would be nothing worse for Commons than to be in continual doubt whether or not its licensing information was correct, it would defeat the entire point -- but that's just me.
Any ideas? I tend to think that any image with this sort of legal restriction does NOT qualify as "free" in the sense required by Commons and is antithetical to its purpose -- to provide a repository of "free" images.
So they will SUE US IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY? :)
It's only illegal to use their image if you impersonate them. The copyright of the image itself is that the image is in the public domain. Effectively, it's a Trademark (albeit one without copyright), the misrepresentation of which may render one liable to prosecution.
And if they want to stop us, fsck them. We'll move the media servers to Paris or Amsterdam, on wheels if needs be.
-- 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
Phroziac wrote:
Zomgwtfbbq! Wikimedia on Wheels!
On 9/14/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
Arf arf! No, no that kind of seal...
There are a number of U.S. federal agencies which have seals the usages of which are restricted by federal law. For example, about the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA):
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal Federal law prohibits use of the words Central Intelligence Agency, the initials CIA, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. http://www.cia.gov/cia/notices.html#seal
Now I don't know what it's *copyright* status is -- is it a work of the federal government and thus in the public domain, or is it considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
[snip]
So they will SUE US IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY? :)
It's only illegal to use their image if you impersonate them. The copyright of the image itself is that the image is in the public domain. Effectively, it's a Trademark (albeit one without copyright), the misrepresentation of which may render one liable to prosecution.
And if they want to stop us, fsck them. We'll move the media servers to Paris or Amsterdam, on wheels if needs be.
-- Alphax | /"\
A sort of "Howl's Moving Encyclopedia"?
-- Neil
On 9/14/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Now I don't know what it's *copyright* status is -- is it a work of the federal government and thus in the public domain, or is it considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
That restriction is *not* a copyright restriction. The logo is clearly in the public domain under the federal work doctrine. The rules in question are closer to trademark restrictions than copyright restrictions; their main purpose is to prohibit fraudulent representation, and as such are direct restrictions on speech. The main targets of these laws are (a) people who try to forge credentials to appear to be CIA agents (or whatever) and (b) people who send out phony solicitations using such logos to give their solicitations added weight. Since the laws in question are direct speech restrictions, their enforcement is narrowly drawn; they cannot be enforced in borderline situations without running smack dab into a First Amendment challenge. You most certainly can use the CIA logo in an article ABOUT the CIA in a commercial context, as long as you don't imply that the CIA has endorsed the contents of the article.
I don't think that the mere storage of the logo in a repository "implies endorsement" and so I don't see it as making the logo unfree for the purposes of the Commons. However, editors in the United States need to exercise care in the use of this logo (as well as all other protected logos, including not only those of many federal agencies, but also most military insignia and the logos of the USOC, IOC, Red Cross/Red Crescent, and IIRC the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts) to avoid federal criminal liability for unauthorized use. Most states have similar laws relating to the use of their various state logos and insignia.
Kelly
Fastfission wrote:
Arf arf! No, no that kind of seal...
There are a number of U.S. federal agencies which have seals the usages of which are restricted by federal law. For example, about the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA):
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal Federal law prohibits use of the words Central Intelligence Agency, the initials CIA, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. http://www.cia.gov/cia/notices.html#seal
Now I don't know what it's *copyright* status is -- is it a work of the federal government and thus in the public domain, or is it considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
Any ideas? I tend to think that any image with this sort of legal restriction does NOT qualify as "free" in the sense required by Commons and is antithetical to its purpose -- to provide a repository of "free" images.
I generally concur that their prohibition in more in the nature of a trademark restriction than a copyright restriction. It all depends on how you interpret the word "use"
We may very well be more centrally intelligent, but it could be a problem if we started calling ourselves the Centrally Intelligent Association.
Ec
On 9/14/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
This is something to discuss on the Commons, or on commons-l. I don't see that a discussion of the Commons' policies can possibly be relevent on wikien-l.
Personally, I'd shoot at first suspicion that something was not really in the public domain
Perhaps that's why you aren't given a gun.
David Benbennick wrote:
On 9/14/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
considered an exception? -- but it seems clear to me, anyway, that it is not "free" in the sense required to be listed on Wikipedia Commons. In the United States its usage is restricted fairly heavily, including the "non-commercial" bugaboo. It looks to me like, in effect, this would be a "copyrighted with permission but no commercial use" tag. Which, as I understand it, is verboten.
This is something to discuss on the Commons, or on commons-l. I don't see that a discussion of the Commons' policies can possibly be relevent on wikien-l.
It's being discussed on commons-l and commons itself: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Trademarks
Personally, I'd shoot at first suspicion that something was not really in the public domain
Perhaps that's why you aren't given a gun.
I thought all admins got a mop, a bucket, and an M16!
On 9/15/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I thought all admins got a mop, a bucket, and an M16!
The M16 is *part of the mop*. This is why it's a sacred mop, not just a mop..
On 9/14/05, David Benbennick dbenbenn@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I'd shoot at first suspicion that something was not really in the public domain
Perhaps that's why you aren't given a gun.
...and have never asked for one!
FF
Fastfission wrote:
Of course, when I raise things like this on Commons, I seem to incite a lot of ire from people who want to pick nits about whether or not its usage is limited because of its *copyright* or because of federal laws.
Commons ought to be extremely conservative and cautious about what to accept. It is more important that Commons be free, than that it be comprehensive in every last detail.
Delete it.
Any ideas? I tend to think that any image with this sort of legal restriction does NOT qualify as "free" in the sense required by Commons and is antithetical to its purpose -- to provide a repository of "free" images.
Absolutely agreed.
--Jimbo