David Castor writes:
The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of
stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused, without any further permission.
Is there any obvious legal problem with stating that (for example) "All material from Swedish Wikipedia may be freely reused, without further permission, with the exception of the Wikimedia trademarks and copyrighted logos, for which separate, specific permission for reuse must be sought"?
Yes, that is a longer sentence. But in my experience the kinds of people who agonize over copyright permissions are uniformly capable of parsing longer sentences.
Note that my suggestion handily dodges the need to instruct anyone about whether the Wikipedia image in the corner of the page is freely licensed for reuse. It also avoids the need to explain to someone what constitutes part of the user interface and what doesn't. It also doesn't require a non-law-trained user to parse issues of trademark versus copyright. So in fact it is a simpler, user-friendlier solution that seems consistent with David's statement of what Swedish Wikipedians want to be able to do.
--Mike
Dear folks,
I was attending a meeting of the Northern California Copyright Society today, and I mentioned to a colleague the discussions we have had on this list and elsewhere regarding whether the Wikimedia logos, which are trademarked, should be freely licensed as copyrighted works. My colleague immediately said this: "Do they realize that if you freely license the trademarked logo, that may be interpreted by a court in trademark litigation as abandonment of the trademark?"
Me: "Well, I've tried to suggest this, but perhaps I haven't said it clearly enough. There's a tendency for some non-lawyers to assume that trademark issues are wholly and necessarily separate from copyright issues."
Colleague: "Well, you'd better tell them that freely licensing the logos might undermine your ability to defend your trademarks in them."
And so, here I am, telling you just that.
Best regards,
--Mike
Thanks for the input, Mike. For those who, like me, were wondering what the heck you were talking about, I believe the title of the thread this belongs in is "Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos".
However, I have another question, which wasn't answered by that thread. Your colleague said that "if you freely license the trademarked logo, that may be interpreted by a court in trademark litigation as abandonment of the trademark". And that certainly makes sense. Most free licenses don't even mention copyright when they grant a license to do certain things. CC-BY-SA, for instance, gives you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license...to Reproduce the Work...[and]...to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work". It may not be a complete abandonment of the trademark, but you can't exactly successfully sue someone for reproducing and distributing your logo without permission after you've explicitly granted them permission to do so!
1) But what if the copyright on the logo is not held by the foundation in the first place? Then the foundation isn't the one that granted the free license. And 2) I think most of the people who want the Wikimedia logos released under a free license realize that this would mean the effective abandonment of the trademark rights, and that actually that's the whole point.
Finally, I'd like to quote something that you said and make a comment: "My experience has been that those who object to this haven't given adequate attention to the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses we operate under -- neither license is "free,""
Umm, WTF? The GFDL and CC licenses aren't free? What's that whole thing about Wikipedia being "the free encyclopedia", then? Did I misunderstand the context in which you said that or did you misspeak or something?
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Dear folks,
I was attending a meeting of the Northern California Copyright Society today, and I mentioned to a colleague the discussions we have had on this list and elsewhere regarding whether the Wikimedia logos, which are trademarked, should be freely licensed as copyrighted works. My colleague immediately said this: "Do they realize that if you freely license the trademarked logo, that may be interpreted by a court in trademark litigation as abandonment of the trademark?"
Me: "Well, I've tried to suggest this, but perhaps I haven't said it clearly enough. There's a tendency for some non-lawyers to assume that trademark issues are wholly and necessarily separate from copyright issues."
Colleague: "Well, you'd better tell them that freely licensing the logos might undermine your ability to defend your trademarks in them."
And so, here I am, telling you just that.
Best regards,
--Mike
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Finally, I'd like to quote something that you said and make a comment: "My experience has been that those who object to this haven't given adequate attention to the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses we operate under -- neither license is "free,""
Umm, WTF? The GFDL and CC licenses aren't free? What's that whole thing about Wikipedia being "the free encyclopedia", then? Did I misunderstand the context in which you said that or did you misspeak or something?
What I mean is that "free" in the context of "free licensing" doesn't precisely mean "free as in free speech" any more than it means "free as in free beer." Whether you're talking GFDL or CC-BY-SA or any other "free license," you're talking imposing downstream obligations on re-users that are more onerous than those imposed on (for example) re-users of public domain works.
Properly understood, we know exactly why we're imposing these downstream obligations, and we believe that doing so supports a larger sense of "freedom," but we must remember that free licenses are themselves tools designed to invoke rights in copyright and impose obligations relating to rights in copyright, even as they also provide rights to re-users.
--Mike
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org