My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled.
First off, we have not yet made any final decisions; the topic is still open for discussion at the Swedish village pump. No changes have yet been widely implemented.
As a background it is important to know that there is an almost unchallenged consensus on Swedish Wikipedia not to allow fair use imagery, in part because the "fair use" concept is not applicable in Swedish law, Sweden being of course home soil for a majority of the users. It's been years since we blocked local media upload, now depending solely on Commons. This means, as far as I am aware, that the WMF logos are the only pictures used on Swedish Wikipedia that are not being spread under a "free" license, free in this case concerning copyright of course, and not trademark or personality rights (making comparisons to proper names irrelevant to the discussion). 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. (The license template on the WMF logos reserve all rights and call for specific permission for use.)
The argument is not, and has never been, whether or not we are allowed to use the logos. Some users on Swedish Wikipedia as well as in this thread have given replies suggesting that they think that is what the issue is about. It is not. The issue is whether it is compliable with the principles of Wikipedia to include copyrighted material, which may not be re-used by others. I suppose that this dilemma is less problematic in jurisdictions that implement a "fair use" system, but where such are not present a copyrighted picture may not be freely redistributed.
The current discussion on Swedish Wikipedia is divided into three main branches:
1. Should we keep even the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner?
2. Should we keep the WMF logos of navigation templates placed in articles?
3. Should we illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects with the logos?
The discussions have, as far as I can tell, led to a near consensus "yes" for question 1, with the rationale that the picture is part of the GUI rather than of the article, and a near consensus "no" for number "3". Most of a lengthy debate has been over discussion number 2.
The opinions on how to relate to number two diverge greatly. Some of us, including myself, would prefer to have all WMF logos removed from article space, including template use, making it free to redistribute printouts and PDF:s from Wikipedia articles. Some argue that since WMF will not pursuit any copyright breaches, we don't need to bother. This viewpoint is supported by those who think that the usability of the logos is too important to let the copyright issues take effect. A few have, in support of status quo, stated that there may be more to it, legally, than we know, but such claims have yet to be supported.
For some users a main perspective is that of NPOV. They argue that since no other external links are supported by pictures, neither should the links to sister projects be. Also, since no other copyrighted logo are allowed, neither should WMF:s logos be. To some of these users, the use of the logos in well framed templates is agreeable, since this implies that the links are part of the GUI rather than of the article itself.
Right now it seems like one of two suggestions will be the result of the discussions. Either (1.) to allow the WMF logos in a few specific navigation templates. These may be javascript-controlled to exclude the logos from printouts and PDF:s. This has been tested and seems to work. The second (2.) solution discussed is to implement a separate section for sister project links, including logos, in the GUI menu section on the left.
I hope that I, despite having made rather clear stands on the issue, have managed to convey a fair description of the discussion.
/David Castor
Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send this some 50 messages ago. :|
MarianoC.-
--- El mié 31-mar-10, David Castor e-post@pastorcastor.se escribió:
De: David Castor e-post@pastorcastor.se Asunto: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia Para: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: miércoles, 31 de marzo de 2010, 13:40 My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled.
First off, we have not yet made any final decisions; the topic is still open for discussion at the Swedish village pump. No changes have yet been widely implemented.
As a background it is important to know that there is an almost unchallenged consensus on Swedish Wikipedia not to allow fair use imagery, in part because the "fair use" concept is not applicable in Swedish law, Sweden being of course home soil for a majority of the users. It's been years since we blocked local media upload, now depending solely on Commons. This means, as far as I am aware, that the WMF logos are the only pictures used on Swedish Wikipedia that are not being spread under a "free" license, free in this case concerning copyright of course, and not trademark or personality rights (making comparisons to proper names irrelevant to the discussion). 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. (The license template on the WMF logos reserve all rights and call for specific permission for use.)
The argument is not, and has never been, whether or not we are allowed to use the logos. Some users on Swedish Wikipedia as well as in this thread have given replies suggesting that they think that is what the issue is about. It is not. The issue is whether it is compliable with the principles of Wikipedia to include copyrighted material, which may not be re-used by others. I suppose that this dilemma is less problematic in jurisdictions that implement a "fair use" system, but where such are not present a copyrighted picture may not be freely redistributed.
The current discussion on Swedish Wikipedia is divided into three main branches:
1. Should we keep even the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner?
2. Should we keep the WMF logos of navigation templates placed in articles?
3. Should we illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects with the logos?
The discussions have, as far as I can tell, led to a near consensus "yes" for question 1, with the rationale that the picture is part of the GUI rather than of the article, and a near consensus "no" for number "3". Most of a lengthy debate has been over discussion number 2.
The opinions on how to relate to number two diverge greatly. Some of us, including myself, would prefer to have all WMF logos removed from article space, including template use, making it free to redistribute printouts and PDF:s from Wikipedia articles. Some argue that since WMF will not pursuit any copyright breaches, we don't need to bother. This viewpoint is supported by those who think that the usability of the logos is too important to let the copyright issues take effect. A few have, in support of status quo, stated that there may be more to it, legally, than we know, but such claims have yet to be supported.
For some users a main perspective is that of NPOV. They argue that since no other external links are supported by pictures, neither should the links to sister projects be. Also, since no other copyrighted logo are allowed, neither should WMF:s logos be. To some of these users, the use of the logos in well framed templates is agreeable, since this implies that the links are part of the GUI rather than of the article itself.
Right now it seems like one of two suggestions will be the result of the discussions. Either (1.) to allow the WMF logos in a few specific navigation templates. These may be javascript-controlled to exclude the logos from printouts and PDF:s. This has been tested and seems to work. The second (2.) solution discussed is to implement a separate section for sister project links, including logos, in the GUI menu section on the left.
I hope that I, despite having made rather clear stands on the issue, have managed to convey a fair description of the discussion.
/David Castor
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yahoo! Cocina
Encontra las mejores recetas con Yahoo! Cocina.
Mariano Cecowski hett schreven:
Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send this some 50 messages ago. :|
I doubt that that would have spared you from receiving the 50 messages. Almost all of the facts presented by David were known right at the start of the discussion or were easy to find for anybody who cared to look. It was not lack of information that produced the 50 messages. It's just that people disagree about the conclusions drawn from the facts.
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
I was notified that this discussion was taking place via the Swedish village pump at a rather late state, not previously being signed up for this list. After reading all previous posts I posted mine as soon as I had time to do it properly.
/David Castor
-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] För Mariano Cecowski Skickat: den 31 mars 2010 19:04 Till: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Ämne: Re: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send this some 50 messages ago. :|
MarianoC.-
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, David Castor e-post@pastorcastor.se wrote:
My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled.
Thank you, David, for the very clear explanation of the issues at hand. I'm sure all of us who don't speak Swedish appreciate having the facts, rather than having to rely on the collective speculation/conjecture of a mailing list.
Austin
Short update for anyone interested:
The discussions referred to below and in other messages now seem to be near a conclusion as we have implemented a new version of the links to sister projects, placed in the left margin just above iw links, still using the logos but well separated from article texts. It is still to be widely implemented, but examples can be seen in the articles on the Bible (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibeln) and on August Strindberg (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Strindberg).
/David Castor (user dcastor)
-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] För David Castor Skickat: den 31 mars 2010 18:40 Till: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Ämne: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at Swedish Wikipedia
My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to clarify and announce a few things on the way the dilemma is presently being handled.
First off, we have not yet made any final decisions; the topic is still open for discussion at the Swedish village pump. No changes have yet been widely implemented.
As a background it is important to know that there is an almost unchallenged consensus on Swedish Wikipedia not to allow fair use imagery, in part because the "fair use" concept is not applicable in Swedish law, Sweden being of course home soil for a majority of the users. It's been years since we blocked local media upload, now depending solely on Commons. This means, as far as I am aware, that the WMF logos are the only pictures used on Swedish Wikipedia that are not being spread under a "free" license, free in this case concerning copyright of course, and not trademark or personality rights (making comparisons to proper names irrelevant to the discussion). 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. (The license template on the WMF logos reserve all rights and call for specific permission for use.)
The argument is not, and has never been, whether or not we are allowed to use the logos. Some users on Swedish Wikipedia as well as in this thread have given replies suggesting that they think that is what the issue is about. It is not. The issue is whether it is compliable with the principles of Wikipedia to include copyrighted material, which may not be re-used by others. I suppose that this dilemma is less problematic in jurisdictions that implement a "fair use" system, but where such are not present a copyrighted picture may not be freely redistributed.
The current discussion on Swedish Wikipedia is divided into three main branches:
1. Should we keep even the Wikipedia logo in the top left corner?
2. Should we keep the WMF logos of navigation templates placed in articles?
3. Should we illustrate articles on the Wikimedia projects with the logos?
The discussions have, as far as I can tell, led to a near consensus "yes" for question 1, with the rationale that the picture is part of the GUI rather than of the article, and a near consensus "no" for number "3". Most of a lengthy debate has been over discussion number 2.
The opinions on how to relate to number two diverge greatly. Some of us, including myself, would prefer to have all WMF logos removed from article space, including template use, making it free to redistribute printouts and PDF:s from Wikipedia articles. Some argue that since WMF will not pursuit any copyright breaches, we don't need to bother. This viewpoint is supported by those who think that the usability of the logos is too important to let the copyright issues take effect. A few have, in support of status quo, stated that there may be more to it, legally, than we know, but such claims have yet to be supported.
For some users a main perspective is that of NPOV. They argue that since no other external links are supported by pictures, neither should the links to sister projects be. Also, since no other copyrighted logo are allowed, neither should WMF:s logos be. To some of these users, the use of the logos in well framed templates is agreeable, since this implies that the links are part of the GUI rather than of the article itself.
Right now it seems like one of two suggestions will be the result of the discussions. Either (1.) to allow the WMF logos in a few specific navigation templates. These may be javascript-controlled to exclude the logos from printouts and PDF:s. This has been tested and seems to work. The second (2.) solution discussed is to implement a separate section for sister project links, including logos, in the GUI menu section on the left.
I hope that I, despite having made rather clear stands on the issue, have managed to convey a fair description of the discussion.
/David Castor
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Castor wrote:
Short update for anyone interested:
The discussions referred to below and in other messages now seem to be near a conclusion as we have implemented a new version of the links to sister projects, placed in the left margin just above iw links, still using the logos but well separated from article texts. It is still to be widely implemented, but examples can be seen in the articles on the Bible (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibeln) and on August Strindberg (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Strindberg).
I like it. For me, the aesthetic aspect is much the bigger benefit, actually, as articles that have sufficiently diverse relationships to warrant cross-project links often have a good deal of other template clutter. I much prefer, if we're going to decorate these articles (and we should), that we focus on real visual, interactive, or other multimedia supplements, and not poor substitutes for these.
--Michael Snow
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org