No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a cut?)? ________________________________ From: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

George Herbert wrote: 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 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.)

Geoffrey Plourde wrote: We just need to hope it's not a cut with melamine. Ec

George Herbert wrote: 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

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 11:23 AM, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Right, I can't spell. 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.