DF wrote:
Wikimedia's logos are copyrighted and trademarked. Notwithstanding this, the logos have been placed on a large number of pages under circumstances where other copyrighted works would never be used.
<*snip*>
Now many of us believe that there could reasonably be an exception to Wikipedia's copyright rules when it comes to images owned by Wikimedia itself, especially if they serve a useful purpose like promoting Wikipedia. However, because of the unique role that the logos play in the visual identity of Wikipedia, I wanted to come here and get guidance from the Foundation about what constitutes acceptable use. I would appreciate it if people would review the materials on the pages linked above and give some direction on when logos can be incorporated in other images and what kinds of pages they might reasonably be used on. In particular, are promotional tools like banners and the like acceptable?
-Robert Rohde aka Dragons_flight on EN
While I understand the rationale for trademarking these images formally (is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png formally regsitered yet?) and asserting trademark status on other logos and names, I would like to contrast this to the use of the Linux trademark, both the name and the classical Linux penguin.
I will suggest, however, that the Linux trademark is not being used with the eye to a potential future fundraising activity or two, and is not as strongly defended as a result. The main attitude that Linus Torvald seems to have about its usage is that somebody ought to hold the trademark in order to keep those who would abuse it (as did happen) from using trademark law to extort people in the legal system. It is being held as a community trust.
There is the "official policy" that has been discussed on Meta at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_and_trademark_policy
There is also the derivitive logo policy that is perhaps more closely related to what you are talking about:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_logo_derivatives
Although on both of these pages it should be apparent that the policy is still "in progress" and not something that has been formally decided.
I would like to add my voice that I think the current ambigous policies are insufficent to offer clear direction on where to proceed, or to even find somebody to contact if you think you have a practical application that would use Wikimedia logos and trademarks but would like to seek "permission" first. I know that such a person could very easily be flooded with a so many requests as to turn it into a full time job, which is one reason why I think it may not be happening right now and why it is deliberately ambigous.
I would hope that some sort of "happy medium" could be created that would allow creative expression such as the "NotSuckBanner.jpg" from the community that would also promote generally Wikimedia projects nor detract from any future fundraising efforts. But that if you wanted to use a Wikimedia logo such as is being done by http://www.wikipress.de/ that its usage could be done for a reasonable fee and not necessarily be exclusive. I could also imagine several blatant abuses of Wikimedia logos that would not be appropriate due to content (imagine an Terropedia or other group that promotes bomb making and coordinates terrorist activities) that would very likely be turned down flat.