Wikimedia-l March 2010

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

124 participants
119 discussions

[Foundation-l] Logo Copyright
by Mike Godwin 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Klaus Graf writes: Nobody can be in doubt that the Volvo Logo isn't copyrighted at least > in the US. Of course they can. Plenty of letterform-based designs are copyrighted in the United States. > If attorneys are confusing trademark and copyright > protection Wikimedia counsel should not imitate them. I'm not imitating anyone, but thanks. > Would you PLEASE > read > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality > I hope you will understand why I choose not to ignore my understanding of copyright law and defer instead to a Wikipedia article, no matter how well-intentioned it is, and no matter how highly I respect Wikipedia as a general-knowledge resource. Wikipedia is not an authority on what copyright is, or on what is copyrightable. > > Thank you. > Oh, no, thank *you*. --Mike

1 0

[Foundation-l] Logo Copyright
by Klaus Graf 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

> Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:37:38 -0700 > From: Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia > logos > Do you now accept that it is quite possible that this logo could be >> appropriately tagged as PD and its use in Sv.Wp articles is congruent >> with their position about the removal of non-free WMF logos from >> articles? >> > > I wouldn't say "quite possible," no. I suspect Volvo's IP attorneys have a > different opinion about whether the Volvo logo is public-domain than perhaps > you do. Nobody can be in doubt that the Volvo Logo isn't copyrighted at least in the US. If attorneys are confusing trademark and copyright protection Wikimedia counsel should not imitate them. Would you PLEASE read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality Thank you. Klaus Graf

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
by Dan Rosenthal 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Assuming that other people care about ones own form of mailing choice is crap also, as far as this list is concerned. Let people do as they choose. Nobody forces you to read their posts. On Mar 30, 2010 7:45 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: Top posting is not what *creates* the crap. Copying the entire email is a standard setting in some clients (toggleable) and an optional setting in others (toggleable) and probably there are some which don't let you select to do that, or undo it either! Personally I don't want to scroll down through a 200 word email just to see "me too" at the very bottom. The real issue to me, is that those who have an email client which copies the entire email in response, don't trim the verbage. W.J. In a message dated 3/30/2010 4:15:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jayvdb(a)gmail.com writes: > I am often in "outback" Australia, with only dialup or very slow > mobi... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimed...

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
by WJhonson＠aol.com 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Top posting is not what *creates* the crap. Copying the entire email is a standard setting in some clients (toggleable) and an optional setting in others (toggleable) and probably there are some which don't let you select to do that, or undo it either! Personally I don't want to scroll down through a 200 word email just to see "me too" at the very bottom. The real issue to me, is that those who have an email client which copies the entire email in response, don't trim the verbage. W.J. In a message dated 3/30/2010 4:15:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jayvdb(a)gmail.com writes: > I am often in "outback" Australia, with only dialup or very slow > mobile broadband available. It is very annoying to need to download > many copies of the same "crap" because people top post.

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
by Mike Godwin 30 Mar '10

30 Mar '10

masti writes: It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :) > It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity. > This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content. My experience has been that those who object to this haven't given adequate attention to the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses we operate under -- neither license is "free," and each imposes restrictions and obligations on reusers of content. What we're doing with the Wikimedia trademarks is designed to reinforce this insistence on the freedom of the content we are disseminating. My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision. Robert Rohde writes: Personally, I also feel that it sets a bad example for a free content > company like WMF not to have any formal policy on the third party use > of their logos. Even within Wikimedia there is no agreement about > what is allowed and what isn't, except that Mike and others have > generally said they don't object to most uses by the community, even > while reserving full copyright control and the right to object in the > future. > I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste! > > It has been three or four years since I first asked members of the WMF > to draft a policy on logo use that would be clear about what is > allowed both in the community and for reusers. And now I really, really feel it was wasted! Given that we don't have clear policies regarding logo use, I think > the Swedish Wikipedia decision is entirely defensible. Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy>. --Mike

11 15

[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
by Lennart Guldbrandsson 30 Mar '10

30 Mar '10

Hello, After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar), the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed "unfree" (since they are copyrighted) and have since been removed from the article namespace, for example in links to the sister project, such as the template linking to Commons: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Commons, but also the article about Wikipedia itself has no logo ( http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). I have been in contact with Mike Godwin, and got the response that the "unfree" logos can be used, as I had suspected. But a growing number of Swedish Wikipedians felt that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't follow any other rules than other organisations whose logos are copyrighted. The argument was that we shouldn't use images that any third-party user cannot use in the same fashion. The changes were implemented, although there was not a clear consensus to do so. I myself was opposed to this, citing from several emails from Mike Godwin. My viewpoint is that if we cannot even use our own logos in our own articles, something is very wrong. I also argued that we will not gain anything by removing these logos - as this is a non-issue for most ordinary users of Wikipedia. Anyways, I just wanted to hear if anybody else have had encountered this topic and how the matter was resolved. Is Swedish Wikipedia the first language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? Do any of you find this discussion strange? Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the curve? Best wishes, Lennart -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för svenskspråkiga Wikipedia

16 25

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 63
by Mike Godwin 30 Mar '10

30 Mar '10

John Vandenberg writes: > By the way, check out <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo>. ?I hope no one > > thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo > logo > > without a license. > > That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of > originality. Why do they do not need a license? > > Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo "does not meet the threshold of originality" and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this? --Mike

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
by Mike Godwin 30 Mar '10

30 Mar '10

The Cunctator writes: > No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A > "free" > license is a copyright license. > The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses. And our purpose in protecting the Wikimedia trademarks is partly to make sure that downstream reusers stick to the free licenses under which we distribute free content. By the way, check out <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo>. I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license. --Mike

2 1

[Foundation-l] Presentación de Nuevo Proyecto
by Laura Gisselle Vargas Latorre 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

Les presentamos el nuevo Proyecto para Wikimedia: *WIKIGRAMAS* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikigramas -- http://sites.google.com/site/cteachc/ LAURA GISSELLE VARGAS Coordinación Proyecto CteachC Formación Continuada Fundación Alberto Merani Cel. 310 3352514 6377800 Ext 117-123

1 0

[Foundation-l] Mind-boggling (was: Wikipedia e-mail)
by Magnus Manske 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Genuinelyawikiquizzling <> Date: Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Magnus Manske <> Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English Wikipedia to user "Magnus Manske". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l March 2010