Florence Devouard wrote:
Hello,
The Foundation is aware that the community logo was PD. It was done on purpose so that the community could use a logo without having to request authorization.
As for the decision to switch meta from the Foundation logo to the community logo, I think I remember that the vote was announced on this list, so that the Foundation had the opportunity to jump in.
Thanks for the prompt reply! I understand why the community logo is PD, but I'm concerned about its suitability as an official project logo. The vote was announced on this list [ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-August/045572.html ], but no mention of the fact that a PD image was under consideration was made, so this easily could have been overlooked. It certainly is possible that policy has changed, but this definitely has been disallowed in the past. For example, the original Wikiversity logo had to be replaced because the image was available under a free license.
Additionally, I recall User:Elian stating that official project logos must receive approval from the public relations department, and I want to make sure that this occurred.
David,
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:12 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Hello,
The Foundation is aware that the community logo was PD. It was done on purpose so that the community could use a logo without having to request authorization.
As for the decision to switch meta from the Foundation logo to the community logo, I think I remember that the vote was announced on this list, so that the Foundation had the opportunity to jump in.
Thanks for the prompt reply! I understand why the community logo is PD, but I'm concerned about its suitability as an official project logo. The vote was announced on this list [ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-August/045572.html ], but no mention of the fact that a PD image was under consideration was made, so this easily could have been overlooked. It certainly is possible that policy has changed, but this definitely has been disallowed in the past. For example, the original Wikiversity logo had to be replaced because the image was available under a free license.
I can't see any reason why project logos cannot be PD, and personally love the idea of massively collaborative projects having PD logos -- that makes sense to me. I also did not recall that the wikiversity logo was replaced simply because it was available under a free license -- do you have a link to that discussion? I thought other issues dominated.
More than simply copyright issues, for trademark reasons it makes sense to ensure that others who do not support the proejct don't have any trademark claim against a widely used logo, but again, one very sensible trademark scheme for the logos of a massively collaborative site is to allow people to do anything they want with said logos, aside from fraud; which is usually against social and legal norms without the help of trademark law.
SJ
Samuel Klein wrote:
I can't see any reason why project logos cannot be PD, and personally love the idea of massively collaborative projects having PD logos -- that makes sense to me.
My understanding is that the Foundation doesn't (or didn't, at least) want anyone to be able to use its projects' logos for purposes other than identification of said projects.
As I noted, the image in question can be legally used by anyone for any purpose without any conditions. If Conservapedia wants to use it as their logo (provided that they make no claims of affiliation with Wikimedia), they can. If a company wants to use it as a logo for their bottled water, laundry detergent, or insecticide (random examples), they can. If a brothel wants to hang it over its door, it can. If the KKK wants to use it to promote hate speech, it can.
I also did not recall that the wikiversity logo was replaced simply because it was available under a free license -- do you have a link to that discussion? I thought other issues dominated.
I'm going from memory, but I recall that while the change was under discussion for other reasons, it was fast-tracked because of the urgency to replace the free image. In fact, the new logo was introduced before we were even certain that we could retain the blue color. (At the time, Elian from the public relations department had said that they were reluctant to allow the adoption of any more predominantly blue project logos.)
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:01 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
I can't see any reason why project logos cannot be PD, and personally love the idea of massively collaborative projects having PD logos -- that makes sense to me.
My understanding is that the Foundation doesn't (or didn't, at least) want anyone to be able to use its projects' logos for purposes other than identification of said projects.
As I noted, the image in question can be legally used by anyone for any purpose without any conditions. If Conservapedia wants to use it as their logo (provided that they make no claims of affiliation with Wikimedia), they can. If a company wants to use it as a logo for their bottled water, laundry detergent, or insecticide (random examples), they can. If a brothel wants to hang it over its door, it can. If the KKK wants to use it to promote hate speech, it can.
I believe this is an incorrect description of trademark law. You can have an "Apple Computer", "Apple Records" and "Apple Dry Cleaning". Each of them can have an apple image in their logo. However, they can't each have The Same apple image in their logo because the specific logo still identifies a specific company. In other words, using the exact logo is by definition implying an association, just as if they had used the word "Wikimedia" on their product.
-Robert Rohde
I believe this is an incorrect description of trademark law.
I'm not an attorney, but my understanding of trademark law is that it protects against uses likely to generate confusion among members of the general public. It's unlikely that anyone seeing a brothel with the same logo as Meta-Wiki is going to assume that the two entities legally affiliated.
You can have an "Apple Computer", "Apple Records" and "Apple Dry Cleaning". Each of them can have an apple image in their logo. However, they can't each have The Same apple image in their logo because the specific logo still identifies a specific company.
All of those logos (well, the first two, at least) are copyrighted. The image in question is in the public domain.
In other words, using the exact logo is by definition implying an association, just as if they had used the word "Wikimedia" on their product.
Companies called "Peace Computer", "Peace Records" and "Peace Dry Cleaning" can all use exactly the same public-domain CND peace symbol as their logos without committing trademark infringement.
And of course, the image in question has been in the public domain since 2006, so there might be many uses that predate Meta-Wiki's.
But as I noted, I'm not an attorney. My only concern is that Foundation policy is being met. If it is (and the Foundation is okay with Meta-Wiki having a PD logo), that's good enough for me.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Hello,
The Foundation is aware that the community logo was PD. It was done on purpose so that the community could use a logo without having to request authorization.
As for the decision to switch meta from the Foundation logo to the community logo, I think I remember that the vote was announced on this list, so that the Foundation had the opportunity to jump in.
Thanks for the prompt reply! I understand why the community logo is PD, but I'm concerned about its suitability as an official project logo. The vote was announced on this list [ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-August/045572.html ], but no mention of the fact that a PD image was under consideration was made, so this easily could have been overlooked. It certainly is possible that policy has changed, but this definitely has been disallowed in the past. For example, the original Wikiversity logo had to be replaced because the image was available under a free license.
Additionally, I recall User:Elian stating that official project logos must receive approval from the public relations department, and I want to make sure that this occurred.
Meta is not a project that needs marketing, branding, or trademark protection.
If someone else sets up a wiki using the "Community Logo", our meta project is not affected greatly.
-- John Vandenberg
John Vandenberg wrote:
Meta is not a project that needs marketing, branding, or trademark protection.
If someone else sets up a wiki using the "Community Logo", our meta project is not affected greatly.
If that's the Foundation's official policy, it's fine by me. I just want to make sure of this. I've e-mailed User:Elian (from the public relations department) for confirmation.
David Levy wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
Meta is not a project that needs marketing, branding, or trademark protection.
If someone else sets up a wiki using the "Community Logo", our meta project is not affected greatly.
If that's the Foundation's official policy, it's fine by me. I just want to make sure of this. I've e-mailed User:Elian (from the public relations department) for confirmation.
That's the best move.
Additional point I forgot to add: Mediawiki also has a PD logo. But then, originally, Mediawiki was not a wikimedia project, though it seems to be increasingly presented as such.
Ant
2008/9/7 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com
Additional point I forgot to add: Mediawiki also has a PD logo. But then, originally, Mediawiki was not a wikimedia project, though it seems to be increasingly presented as such.
Ant
Stewards can change rights on that project, so I assume Wikimedia hosts their database?
It's a "Related project" according to the Our Projects page on the foundation's webpage: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects Bence Damokos
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
2008/9/7 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com
Additional point I forgot to add: Mediawiki also has a PD logo. But then, originally, Mediawiki was not a wikimedia project, though it seems to be increasingly presented as such.
Ant
Stewards can change rights on that project, so I assume Wikimedia hosts their database?
-- Alex (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org