hummm... No! I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about values​​, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argenton(a)gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884

So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argenton(a)gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884

I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions. This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German "Recht am eigenen Bild" is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person. What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception. Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com:

From my experience the re-users barely read any of the licenses and already expect every of our images to be "free beer". Sometimes i looked where my images and articles are used and i noticed quite a lot of copyright violations. I took my time to mail the re-users and informed them what they have to do to comply with the licenses. As the result i saw two general pattern. The small private pages were users expected that our images would be "free beer" and the bigger (typical copyright violation) pages that didn't respond at all. The first group was usually very surprised and immediately corrected the content of the pages after i informed them about their mistake. From this experience i learned that not many are really aware of the copyright issues or license requirements. So i can't expect that the logos are seen or used any different, despite the missing free license. If i would apply your logic on trademarks to the many other logos we host, then we could upload them without any licensing condition or not at all, since you deny that this images would be useful outside of Wikipedia. But there are cases in which this missing license information is an actual problem. Every of our mirrors by now is a copyright violation and could be sued by the WMF (unlikely, but possible), since they can't comply with the licensing, given the fact that this images have no valid license. Overall i see no real harm to release this images under a free license, because it would not change much. People either read the license text and understand or they ignore it because of the two basic reasons I explained above. The advantage would be that we now could use the logos in collections which are freely licensed itself. Up till now it is impossible to release a collection under CC-BY-SA which contains one of the logos and i also can't incorporate them into other images, just because i can't mix "no license" with "free license". This example is an actual copyright violation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beziehung_zwischen_Wikipedia_und_der… The used press logo is under the LGPL. The Wikipedia ball has no license. Not mentioning the LGPL would be a copyright violation, but putting it on the image is also a copyright violation regarding the logo. So what to do? The logical consequence would be to delete the image, despite its many uses... Am 04.07.2012 05:46, schrieb Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com:

The current definition is very protective and incompatible with free licenses. I can't take a free licensed photo and put the Wikipedia logo in the background. It's not because the Logo can't be used, it's because i can't release the the end result under a free license. If i would create such an image and release it with the license from the photo then it would be effectively the same as releasing the logo under this license. If the copyright holder disagrees then i created a copyright violation and could be sued. If i would publish such an image under a free license then it would mean: A) I'm creating a copyright violation since i have not the right to release the image, which includes the logo, under a free license. B) The copyright holder agrees to include the logo and he also agrees with the viral license, which is effectively the same as releasing the logo itself. What now? Am 04.07.2012 11:10, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:

The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks. It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I do not understand at all. Birgitte SB On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <rodrigo.argenton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton < rodrigo.argenton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You're not winning any hearts and minds communicating in this style. Perhaps you should find someone who can more persuasively and politely argue your points and hand it off to them; repeating yourself in progressively more surly tones is not going to get you what you want.

On 09/07/12 06:17, Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com wrote: To be precise, the logos were not released under a free license because it was imagined that some day they would be trademarks. According to the trademark searches I did just now, the Wikipedia logo was only registered as a trademark in 2008, and the other projects as late as May 2012. The WMF felt that trademark licensing would be a useful way to raise money, as a complement to donations. For example, this website has a trademark license: http://wikipedia.wp.pl/ Obviously to support that sort of licensing arrangement, you need at least one sort of protection (copyright or trademark). Also, there was concern that a free license like the GFDL might be argued to be an implicit trademark license. Lawyers tend to be conservative on that type of issue. Currently, WMF does not even publish the 3D source files for the Wikipedia logo, or a high-resolution rendered image. I think that's a bigger problem than the lack of a free license, since it prevents people from improving the current poor-quality 3D rendering and contributing the results back to the project. -- Tim Starling

This is a perennial suggestion, and a good one. On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:43 PM, John Vandenberg &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I agree. SJ

The trademark doesn't protect only the owner, it can protect also the user. Imagine that a fashion house would release his trademark under free license. Imagine that you buy a Gucci or Armani shirt and you are sure that it's a Gucci or Armani shirt. And you pay as you may pay the original one or probably more. It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the original trademark because it has been released under free license. You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but you have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than the original. Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the trademark cannot assure that you have an original product. On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch