Our logo competitions have landed us such excellent trademarks as the puzzle globe, the WMF logo and the MediaWiki flower. But most entries are an excellent demonstration of why graphic designers are paid money.
This one did make the b3ta newsletter, though. Could be a very profitable bit of visual identity for us.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikty_no_text_up.png
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Our logo competitions have landed us such excellent trademarks as the puzzle globe, the WMF logo and the MediaWiki flower. But most entries are an excellent demonstration of why graphic designers are paid money.
Sigh. Of course you know, Bob, the MediaWiki flower isn't a trademark or anything remotely of the sort "owned" or even claimed in other than authorship fashion by anyone.
This one did make the b3ta newsletter, though. Could be a very profitable bit of visual identity for us.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/8/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
David Gerard wrote:
Our logo competitions have landed us such excellent trademarks as the puzzle globe, the WMF logo and the MediaWiki flower. But most entries are an excellent demonstration of why graphic designers are paid money.
Sigh. Of course you know, Bob, the MediaWiki flower isn't a trademark or anything remotely of the sort "owned" or even claimed in other than authorship fashion by anyone.
You're probably wrong there, actually - even if the MediaWiki flower isn't a registered trademark, it could probably be quite well defended by use as a trademark. Slippery thing, law.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Sigh. Of course you know, Bob, the MediaWiki flower isn't a trademark or anything remotely of the sort "owned" or even claimed in other than authorship fashion by anyone.
You're probably wrong there, actually -
I am virtually sure I am not wrong in fact.
even if the MediaWiki flower isn't a registered trademark, it could probably be quite well defended by use as a trademark.
Perhaps, if it weren't for the inconvenient - for your theory - fact that the author (Florence Devouard) explicitly freed the image into the public domain, so as to be utilizable everywhere where mediawiki is used, regardless of licensing scheme.
Slippery thing, law.
It may be slippery, but trying to claim trademark protection for a PD image, is even beyond the unctuousness of the legal profession.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Sigh. Of course you know, Bob, the MediaWiki flower isn't a trademark or anything remotely of the sort "owned" or even claimed in other than authorship fashion by anyone.
You're probably wrong there, actually -
I am virtually sure I am not wrong in fact.
even if the MediaWiki flower isn't a registered trademark, it could probably be quite well defended by use as a trademark.
Perhaps, if it weren't for the inconvenient - for your theory - fact that the author (Florence Devouard) explicitly freed the image into the public domain, so as to be utilizable everywhere where mediawiki is used, regardless of licensing scheme.
Slippery thing, law.
It may be slippery, but trying to claim trademark protection for a PD image, is even beyond the unctuousness of the legal profession.
There are many trademarks that are in the public domain due either to old age or due to their design being too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the first place (e.g. text logos). The Coca-Cola logo is a famous example of public domain image (by age) that is also still a current trademark.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Trademarks
There is no reason that public domain images can't also be a trademarks, though it may be harder to establish it as such.
In the specific case of "Bob the flower", the bigger problem is that no one has been actively defending its use as a trademark. The more examples of use there are unaffiliated with Mediawiki, the more difficult it would be to assert that it is a trademark representing Mediawiki. It is also unclear who would be in the position to authorize the use of such a trademark, i.e. who would own the rights to the mark.
-Robert Rohde.
PS. Since when did the flower have the name "Bob"?
2009/8/14 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
In the specific case of "Bob the flower", the bigger problem is that no one has been actively defending its use as a trademark. The more examples of use there are unaffiliated with Mediawiki, the more difficult it would be to assert that it is a trademark representing Mediawiki. It is also unclear who would be in the position to authorize the use of such a trademark, i.e. who would own the rights to the mark.
Looks like WMF doesn't claim it as a trademark either, so I'm actually just wrong about that :-)
The MediaWiki logo is GFDL+CC-by-sa (originally just GFDL) with no trademark claim listed on the page, as other Wikimedia logos have:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki-logo.png
Tournesol.png is GFDL, may be CC-by-sa as well (unless it's definitely past eligibility):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tournesol.png
PS. Since when did the flower have the name "Bob"?
Since this thread, as far as I can recall ;-) Presumably in reference to angryflower.com.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org