Anthony writes:
The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a property right.
This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake.
--Mike
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a property right.
This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake.
--Mike
Hopefully you can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution and fix it, specifically this paragraph:
"Trademark law is generally focused on the need for consumer protectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection. Consequently, trademark law traditionally concerned itself with situations where an unauthorized party sold goods that are directly competitive with or at least related to those sold by the trademark owner. However, in many jurisdictions the concept of dilution has developed recently to protect trademarks as a property right, securing the investment the trademark owner has made in establishing and promoting a strong mark. The concept of dilution is much newer than the rest of trademark law; only in the mid-1990s did the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States enact a law against trademark dilution, although various states had begun adopting such laws shortly after World War IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II, and the idea was floated in academic writing as early as the late 1920s."
However, I've done a bit of research on this, and I haven't found anything to contradict it, so make sure you cite your sources.
Please note that I wasn't talking here about "trademark law", I was talking specifically about "trademark dilution law". These types of laws both share the term "trademark", but they are actually not all that similar otherwise.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a property right.
This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake.
More important than the legalism...
Trademark law exists in order for organizations (businesses, companies, charities) to avoid having people misrepresent that they are associated with, or are, the organization.
This can be Chevron preventing a fake gas station from opening up on some streetcorner, or the Red Cross keeping people from soliciting money for another charity using their symbols.
In our case - Wikipedia stands for some things (freedom of information, primarily), and doesn't stand for a bunch of other things, some of which we are actively against (restrictions on information and public discussion), and some of which really don't matter one way or the other (like selling coffee).
Trademark law is the method we have available to prevent fraudulent association of Wikipedia with things we aren't involved in or associated with.
I don't want Wikipedia being used to sell Coffee, or shares in Citibank.
I don't mind it being used in association with other free information projects we have some legit connection with.
Sure, any restriction on use of the logo/name is offensive to a "information and ideas are completely free" absolutist philosophy. But if we don't restrict it some, we'll get crap like Wikipedia brand Dog Food, and that sucks.
Out of all the people in the world, Mike Godwin is probably one of the best we could have trying to balance out the larger community of open-information people's interests here.
Picking a fight with Mike over this is essentially arguing that we should let Wikipedia brand Dog Food run free. I disagree...
or the Red Cross keeping people from soliciting money for another charity using their symbols.
Not a great example - the Red Cross symbol is protected by more than just trademark law, there are international treaties explicitly governing its use.
No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a cut?)?
________________________________ From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:44:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a property right.
This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake.
More important than the legalism...
Trademark law exists in order for organizations (businesses, companies, charities) to avoid having people misrepresent that they are associated with, or are, the organization.
This can be Chevron preventing a fake gas station from opening up on some streetcorner, or the Red Cross keeping people from soliciting money for another charity using their symbols.
In our case - Wikipedia stands for some things (freedom of information, primarily), and doesn't stand for a bunch of other things, some of which we are actively against (restrictions on information and public discussion), and some of which really don't matter one way or the other (like selling coffee).
Trademark law is the method we have available to prevent fraudulent association of Wikipedia with things we aren't involved in or associated with.
I don't want Wikipedia being used to sell Coffee, or shares in Citibank.
I don't mind it being used in association with other free information projects we have some legit connection with.
Sure, any restriction on use of the logo/name is offensive to a "information and ideas are completely free" absolutist philosophy. But if we don't restrict it some, we'll get crap like Wikipedia brand Dog Food, and that sucks.
Out of all the people in the world, Mike Godwin is probably one of the best we could have trying to balance out the larger community of open-information people's interests here.
Picking a fight with Mike over this is essentially arguing that we should let Wikipedia brand Dog Food run free. I disagree...
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a cut?)?
See standard discussion of whether we want to accept advertising onsite. Same general logic.
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a cut?)?
See standard discussion of whether we want to accept advertising onsite. Same general logic.
Of course, Wikipedia brand dog food is a pretty far-fetched idea, and as such might not provide the most interesting thought experiment for us to feel our way forward to an understanding of the values that we want to uphold. No one is likely to want to do Wikipedia brand dog food in the first place, and the puzzlement that consumers would feel over what it is about ("the dog food that anyone can edit"? "Imagine a world in which every single dog on the planet..." :-)) would be substantial.
Tougher calls and more interesting thought experiments might involve products that people might actually be interested in making and selling (perhaps even successfully!).
(I am just randomly brainstorming to pose a few interesting challenges.)
1. Wikipedia books - these have been done in Germany with some success, but imagine this being done on a massive scale, hiring some people in the community, but also being done in part by people we never met.
2. Wikipedia television quiz program - with some sort of wiki flair and with educational segments about our projects and goals in the developing world... but what if the program *itself* isn't freely licensed? (That's part of the thought experiment.)
3. Wikipedia series of documentaries - like National Geographic programs - these are to be produced in the old fashioned way, with large budgets, and will be run on television (perhaps on a pay channel like HBO) and then subsequently revenues are expected from DVD sales. There is no community collaborative production. But the end product will be proprietary for 5 years and then released under a free license.
--Jimbo
I wonder whether Proctor and Gamble will ever sue Wikimedia Foundation because of its brand *Wick MediNite*...
Here my little brainstorming:
Wikipedia on USB-stick, with WP-logo, updates automatically (put it into an online computer over night).
A lap top beveridge holder (certainly already on the market in the US?) or high coffeine beveridge. School bags with Wikipedia logo. Writing implement.
There are young people with certain nerd problems, and in Wikipedia summer camps they could follow their interests but also get education in fitting into society. Parents would prefer paying for that than for Star Wars conventions. Kinda scouting for the clumsy.
Ziko
2008/11/26 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
wrote:
No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive
a cut?)?
See standard discussion of whether we want to accept advertising onsite. Same general logic.
Of course, Wikipedia brand dog food is a pretty far-fetched idea, and as such might not provide the most interesting thought experiment for us to feel our way forward to an understanding of the values that we want to uphold. No one is likely to want to do Wikipedia brand dog food in the first place, and the puzzlement that consumers would feel over what it is about ("the dog food that anyone can edit"? "Imagine a world in which every single dog on the planet..." :-)) would be substantial.
Tougher calls and more interesting thought experiments might involve products that people might actually be interested in making and selling (perhaps even successfully!).
(I am just randomly brainstorming to pose a few interesting challenges.)
- Wikipedia books - these have been done in Germany with some success,
but imagine this being done on a massive scale, hiring some people in the community, but also being done in part by people we never met.
- Wikipedia television quiz program - with some sort of wiki flair and
with educational segments about our projects and goals in the developing world... but what if the program *itself* isn't freely licensed? (That's part of the thought experiment.)
- Wikipedia series of documentaries - like National Geographic
programs - these are to be produced in the old fashioned way, with large budgets, and will be run on television (perhaps on a pay channel like HBO) and then subsequently revenues are expected from DVD sales. There is no community collaborative production. But the end product will be proprietary for 5 years and then released under a free license.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikipedia on USB-stick, with WP-logo, updates automatically (put it into an online computer over night).
I like the sound of that. (It wouldn't need to be overnight, a patch containing a week's worth, say, of (vetted) edits to a selection of articles small enough to fit on a USB-stick (with images) would be pretty small, I expect.)
If we could design the software for this, implement FlaggedRevs and a update script, this might be a winner. Also, if we can have a Wikimedia Suite (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons, Wikinews, Wikisources) we could have a hell of a deal.
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:23:26 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks
Wikipedia on USB-stick, with WP-logo, updates automatically (put it into an online computer over night).
I like the sound of that. (It wouldn't need to be overnight, a patch containing a week's worth, say, of (vetted) edits to a selection of articles small enough to fit on a USB-stick (with images) would be pretty small, I expect.)
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
But melamine adds texture. Plus then who else can say "bringing the sum of all low grade dog food to dogs everywhere"
________________________________ From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:52:44 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a cut?)?
We just need to hope it's not a cut with melamine.
Ec
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
George Herbert wrote:
I don't want Wikipedia being used to sell Coffee, or shares in Citibank.
On a lighter note, have no fear about the latter - obviously the only thing capable of selling shares in Citi right now is a massive government bailout. Our little brand would hardly make a dent.
The point is well taken, though. As I indicated earlier, our trademark strategy is subservient to our larger mission. Trademark licensing that is purely commercial with no other benefit is not the direction we want to go.
--Michael Snow
Anthony, Mike - I'm sure you haven't forgotten that this is Foundation-l, not Trademark 01 (or Intro to rhetoric, for that matter), but maybe we can draw the discussion back to matters Wikimedia?
Did we ever get a definitive answer on where the Wikimedia marks were trademarked, or where the marks are protected without registration?
Has someone with some expertise weighed in on what steps the Foundation might take, wrt trademarks, in the case of illegitimate use by a chapter, former chapter or unapproved chapter-like group? Would this type of situation fall into the category of significant enough to combat in court if necessary, given the plausibility of an association in the minds of any prospective audience? (Mike may not be able to answer this last question, I suppose).
Nathan
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, Mike - I'm sure you haven't forgotten that this is Foundation-l, not Trademark 01 (or Intro to rhetoric, for that matter), but maybe we can draw the discussion back to matters Wikimedia?
I would think the general council's philosophical position on trademarks is a matter quite Wikimedia, especially since Mike says that it influences what he does pretty much on a daily basis.
That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a philosophy-l.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, Mike - I'm sure you haven't forgotten that this is Foundation-l, not Trademark 01 (or Intro to rhetoric, for that matter), but maybe we can draw the discussion back to matters Wikimedia?
I would think the general council's
Oh, we created yet another council? I thought a board of trustees, an advisory board and a wikicouncil is enough. SCNR.
philosophical position on trademarks is a matter quite Wikimedia, especially since Mike says that it influences what he does pretty much on a daily basis.
Yes and maybe we want to leave legal issues to the legal staff? I'm all for discussions, but there is a certain point where laymen's advice becomes less-than-usable/efficient.
Michael
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, Mike - I'm sure you haven't forgotten that this is
Foundation-l,
not Trademark 01 (or Intro to rhetoric, for that matter), but maybe we
can
draw the discussion back to matters Wikimedia?
I would think the general council's
Oh, we created yet another council? I thought a board of trustees, an advisory board and a wikicouncil is enough. SCNR.
Right, I can't spell.
philosophical position on trademarks is
a matter quite Wikimedia, especially since Mike says that it influences
what
he does pretty much on a daily basis.
Yes and maybe we want to leave legal issues to the legal staff? I'm all for discussions, but there is a certain point where laymen's advice becomes less-than-usable/efficient.
Legal issues should be left to the legal staff. Philosophical issues, on the other hand, should absolutely not be left to legal taff. Hence my question about separating the two, you know, the one which was derided as disparaging.
2008/11/26 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
George Herbert wrote:
I don't want Wikipedia being used to sell Coffee, or shares in Citibank.
On a lighter note, have no fear about the latter - obviously the only thing capable of selling shares in Citi right now is a massive government bailout. Our little brand would hardly make a dent.
Oh, ye of little faith! With the power of Wikipedia behind it, Citigroup's shares would go through the roof!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org