(Resent with correct subject header)
John Vandenberg writes:
By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. ?I hope no one
thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo
logo
without a license.
That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of originality. Why do they do not need a license?
Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo "does not meet the threshold of originality" and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this?
--Mike
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
(Resent with correct subject header)
John Vandenberg writes:
By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. ?I hope no one
thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo
logo
without a license.
That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of originality. Why do they do not need a license?
Are you saying that Volvo takes the position that the Volvo logo "does not meet the threshold of originality" and therefore is not copyrightable? Can you cite a source on this?
Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect?
Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that -- I'm saying I don't know whether Volvo would accept the declaration that the logo is not protected by copyright.
--Mike
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect?
Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that -- I'm saying I don't know whether Volvo would accept the declaration that the logo is not protected by copyright.
Mike,
Of course we don't know - the only two ways of knowing is for Volvo to explicitly state this in a legally binding wording, or for it to be decided by a court.
There have been similar decisions by courts, both overseas and in the US, and it is on that basis that we have a "PD-text" tag.
In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing:
"I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license."
Do you now accept that it is quite possible that this logo could be appropriately tagged as PD and its use in Sv.Wp articles is congruent with their position about the removal of non-free WMF logos from articles?
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing:
"I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license."
Not quite. I think Sv.Wp is doing the right thing but with the wrong justification. And I was trying to say I don't think downstream re-users should infer the appearance of the Volvo logo on Sv.Wp that they have the right to reuse it as a public-domain image.
Do you now accept that it is quite possible that this logo could be
appropriately tagged as PD and its use in Sv.Wp articles is congruent with their position about the removal of non-free WMF logos from articles?
I wouldn't say "quite possible," no. I suspect Volvo's IP attorneys have a different opinion about whether the Volvo logo is public-domain than perhaps you do.
As I see the energy poured into the question of whether the Wikipedia should use copyrighted and trademarked logos (which they are already licensed to use!), I cannot help but agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that the Swedish Wikipedians have come up with a solution in search of a problem.
--Mike
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing:
"I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo logo without a license."
Not quite. I think Sv.Wp is doing the right thing but with the wrong justification. And I was trying to say I don't think downstream re-users should infer the appearance of the Volvo logo on Sv.Wp that they have the right to reuse it as a public-domain image.
It is tagged by Commons as PD. If you don't believe the PD justification is appropriate, or opens us up to legal disputes, then we need to spawn a separate discussion about PD-text.
As I see the energy poured into the question of whether the Wikipedia should use copyrighted and trademarked logos (which they are already licensed to use!), I cannot help but agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that the Swedish Wikipedians have come up with a solution in search of a problem.
The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in article space should meet the definition of "free content".[http://freedomdefined.org/] The reason for using this criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable.
The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free content. If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as well.
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in article space should meet the definition of "free content".[http://freedomdefined.org/]
I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all right.
The reason for using this criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable.
The issue, though, is that there's no specific problem at all associated with the appearances of the Wikimedia copyrighted and trademarked logos in the contexts in which they are used. *In other words, all this attention has been focused on a problem that has never occurred with regard to the images in question.*
I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them.
What seems to me to be happening here is a kind of nervous insistence on a very simplistic kind of ideological consistency, which, if it were followed further along this extreme, would threaten to make Wikipedia unusable. Consider for example the famous quotation mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance .
The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some
purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free content.
And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly.
If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as well.
This is perhaps too broad a use of the word "understandable" than I am used to.
--Mike
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...] And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly.
Please stop using this example. You're living in California again; recall that the earth does crack open here at regular intervals. If you keep saying it enough it will come true, and then you'll be Prophet Mike, and we'll all be doomed.
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...] And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly.
Please stop using this example. You're living in California again; recall that the earth does crack open here at regular intervals. If you keep saying it enough it will come true, and then you'll be Prophet Mike, and we'll all be doomed.
You may be thinking about another Usenet legend,, you are talking to Mike Godwin, not James D. Nicoll of the "Nicoll Event" fame.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...] And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly.
Please stop using this example. You're living in California again; recall that the earth does crack open here at regular intervals. If you keep saying it enough it will come true, and then you'll be Prophet Mike, and we'll all be doomed.
You may be thinking about another Usenet legend,, you are talking to Mike Godwin, not James D. Nicoll of the "Nicoll Event" fame.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Are you suggesting I don't remember my formative net years, Jussi? I'm far too young for Alzheimers, but old enough that the Morris Worm was a firsthand experience...
I remember Mike from before the Law. Long before the Law. I know James Nicoll. I helped untangle Kent Paul Dolan's stunt with the speculative fiction newsgroups.
.cabal and sci.physics.edward.teller.boom.boom.boom were a couple of my pranks... Yes, I murdered B-news.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in article space should meet the definition of "free content".[http://freedomdefined.org/]
I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all right.
The reason for using this criteria is so that there is not a need to consult a different license for each logo in order to determine what uses are acceptable.
The issue, though, is that there's no specific problem at all associated with the appearances of the Wikimedia copyrighted and trademarked logos in the contexts in which they are used. *In other words, all this attention has been focused on a problem that has never occurred with regard to the images in question.*
The purpose of defining "free" is to ensure that there will be no problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case.
I haven't looked at the license in detail, but I take it for granted that you have crafted it clearly define the reuse possibilities. However the WMF logos are available under a license that only covers the WMF logos, and isn't compatible with the prevailing definitions of "free".
I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them.
Those are not copyright - there are different laws which protect them in various ways. The WMF logos (marks) are protected by copyright.
What seems to me to be happening here is a kind of nervous insistence on a very simplistic kind of ideological consistency, which, if it were followed further along this extreme, would threaten to make Wikipedia unusable. Consider for example the famous quotation mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance .
The Sv.Wp decision is removing the inconsistency in its copyright stance by removing the loop hole for WMF logos. Overly simplistic? Maybe. However lots of foreign language projects have adopted very strict positions on copyright issues.
Christophe Henner suggested earlier in this thread that Swedish Wikipedia is just ahead of the curve. I agree. Sooner or later a Wikipedia is going to try to be turned into a Debian package! I'd bet on Debian legal requiring that the WMF logos are stripped, even if they are used in compliance with the WMF policy.
This is not to say that Swedish Wikipedia won't have other problems which prevent being packaged into Debian. Has there been any debian legal discussion about Wikipedia? The closest I can see is an RFP for aarddict.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=533328
The availability of a WMF license for their logos is useful for some purposes, however the Wikimedia logos do not meet the criteria of free content.
And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will start living together openly.
Re-iterating the relationship between project and the host (WMF) doesn't help, as strong stances on rejecting non-free elements (copyright & trademark) are usually made to protect the right to fork, etc.
AFAICS, the trademark policy protects the right of a (hypothetical) commercial fork of sv.wp to use the old {{wikisource}}, which includes the wikisource logo, in conjunction with a link to wikisource.org.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mall:Wikisource&oldid=11192788
If Wp.Sv doesn't want to accept non-free licenses in article space, then it is understandable that the WMF logos need to go as well.
This is perhaps too broad a use of the word "understandable" than I am used to.
I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the project, and fall under fair use of the trademark.
However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance on it.
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of defining "free" is to ensure that there will be no problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case.
Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either.
I also can't see any scenarios that lead to "a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case." This seems to be a phantom hazard.
I haven't looked at the license in detail, but I take it for granted
that you have crafted it clearly define the reuse possibilities. However the WMF logos are available under a license that only covers the WMF logos, and isn't compatible with the prevailing definitions of "free".
I'm pleased that you recognize that the problem is one with how you use words like "compatible" and "free." The problem is that you are applying imprecise notions of "compatible" and "free" that, in your mind, hint at something awful (dogs and cats living together?) without actually posing the risk of something awful.
I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish
Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them.
Those are not copyright - there are different laws which protect them in various ways.
Of course it's not copyright. But the word "free" is not defined solely by copyright law, is it?
The WMF logos (marks) are protected by copyright.
They're protected by other areas of law too.
I realize that a non-practitioner may suppose that different areas of intellectual-property law can and must be considered in analytical isolation from one another, but in the real world, as you may imagine, different areas of law intersect and interact all the time.
The Sv.Wp decision is removing the inconsistency in its copyright stance by removing the loop hole for WMF logos. Overly simplistic? Maybe. However lots of foreign language projects have adopted very strict positions on copyright issues.
Well, by all means, then, if some foreign language projects have adopted overly simplistic positions, we will increase the world's source of free knowledge by following their example, right?
Christophe Henner suggested earlier in this thread that Swedish Wikipedia is just ahead of the curve. I agree. Sooner or later a Wikipedia is going to try to be turned into a Debian package! I'd bet on Debian legal requiring that the WMF logos are stripped, even if they are used in compliance with the WMF policy.
So what? We don't require that the WMF logos be used in some future Debian package, nor is it likely we will, absent a formal partnership of some sort (which seems unlikely).
Re-iterating the relationship between project and the host (WMF) doesn't help, as strong stances on rejecting non-free elements (copyright & trademark) are usually made to protect the right to fork, etc.
I wasn't reiterating a relationship. I was reiterating the fact that the uses in question are clearly and completely and nonrestrictively allowed by the copyright holder.
I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the project, and fall under fair use of the trademark.
That seems like an eminently rational approach -- far more "understandable" as I use that word.
However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance on it.
I have seen it for a quarter century. I don't think we serve freedom by reducing our understanding of free culture to the lowest-common-denominator, most simplistic, most un-nuanced, most legally unsophisticated notions of freedom. That is fanaticism for its own sake, and not at all a service to free culture.
--Mike
On Wednesday, March 31, 2010, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either.
Consider a re-user displaying article contents including, for example, an interwiki link template with the destination project's logo, but displaying the text without hyperlinks. The original use case, linking to a Wikimedia project, would not apply.
Some mirrors will strip some or all links, or replace them with their own links. Similarly offline-readable versions of Wikimedia content may strip or substitute links while retaining images (though you would hope they would strip most templates too).
Stephen Bain, - managing to trim replies and avoid top-posting from his mobile device
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of defining "free" is to ensure that there will be no problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case.
Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either.
I also can't see any scenarios that lead to "a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case." This seems to be a phantom hazard.
The general issue is non-free logos associated with links to other websites where it is clear that the logo is descriptive and useful, yada, yada.
We *could* include many copyrighted logos in this way, if we were happy that the other party would not sue. For example, imagine Springer had a trademark policy like the WMF policy, granting liberal use of their logo in the same way.
We could use this icon:
http://www.springerlink.com/favicon.ico
beside these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/springerlink.com
This is a silly example for most of those links, as we would use doi's instead. In which case we could use the DOI logo if they had an acceptable trademark policy.
http://www.doi.org/images/logo1.gif
Repeat this for every logo which could be appropriately used, and we have a lot of non-free licensed logos in use, with individually crafted licenses that need to be reviewed for compliance on a regular basis.
I haven't looked at the license in detail, but I take it for granted that you have crafted it clearly define the reuse possibilities. However the WMF logos are available under a license that only covers the WMF logos, and isn't compatible with the prevailing definitions of "free".
I'm pleased that you recognize that the problem is one with how you use words like "compatible" and "free." The problem is that you are applying imprecise notions of "compatible" and "free" that, in your mind, hint at something awful (dogs and cats living together?) without actually posing the risk of something awful.
I am not using imprecise notions of free. I linked to freedomdefined.org and indirectly referenced the debian-legal criteria.
I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living Persons or the true names of contributors who choose to share them.
Those are not copyright - there are different laws which protect them in various ways.
Of course it's not copyright. But the word "free" is not defined solely by copyright law, is it?
The WMF logos (marks) are protected by copyright.
They're protected by other areas of law too.
I realize that a non-practitioner may suppose that different areas of intellectual-property law can and must be considered in analytical isolation from one another, but in the real world, as you may imagine, different areas of law intersect and interact all the time.
non-practitioners often need to tackle each potential problem one by one. Slowly, the problems are resolved.
The Sv.Wp decision is removing the inconsistency in its copyright stance by removing the loop hole for WMF logos. Overly simplistic? Maybe. However lots of foreign language projects have adopted very strict positions on copyright issues.
Well, by all means, then, if some foreign language projects have adopted overly simplistic positions, we will increase the world's source of free knowledge by following their example, right?
The wikisource logo beside the wikisource link isn't increasing the world's source of free knowledge. It may help increase the use of wikisource. Sv.Wp being distributed as a Debian package is more likely to increase the world's consumption of that free knowledge.
Christophe Henner suggested earlier in this thread that Swedish Wikipedia is just ahead of the curve. I agree. Sooner or later a Wikipedia is going to try to be turned into a Debian package! I'd bet on Debian legal requiring that the WMF logos are stripped, even if they are used in compliance with the WMF policy.
So what? We don't require that the WMF logos be used in some future Debian package, nor is it likely we will, absent a formal partnership of some sort (which seems unlikely).
So you agree that a debian edition of en:template:wikisource would probably need to be different from the one used currently on English Wikipedia?
My guess is that it would be an exercise in madness trying to create a "free" edition of English Wikipedia.(using freedomdefined.org or debian definitions of "free") Trying to keep it up to date would be sadistic.
The "so what" is that Sv.Wp has made their "trunk" version of template:wikisource compatible with "free content" and able to be used in a debian edition without modification.
Re-iterating the relationship between project and the host (WMF) doesn't help, as strong stances on rejecting non-free elements (copyright & trademark) are usually made to protect the right to fork, etc.
I wasn't reiterating a relationship. I was reiterating the fact that the uses in question are clearly and completely and nonrestrictively allowed by the copyright holder.
I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the project, and fall under fair use of the trademark.
That seems like an eminently rational approach -- far more "understandable" as I use that word.
However it is more complex. The result of this taken to the extreme is English Wikipedia, which is full of special cases which do threaten to make Wikipedia unusable for commercially purposes.
However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance on it.
I have seen it for a quarter century. I don't think we serve freedom by reducing our understanding of free culture to the lowest-common-denominator, most simplistic, most un-nuanced, most legally unsophisticated notions of freedom. That is fanaticism for its own sake, and not at all a service to free culture.
freedomdefined, CC, debian, etc are hardly the lowest-common-denominator, most simplistic, etc. The benefits are uniformity and "compliance". WMF has decided to not use an existing "free" license. Neither did Debian for their 'official' logo ;-)
-- John Vandenberg
2010/3/30 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
I would prefer that Sv.Wp make an exception for WMF logos being used in conjunction with interwiki links, such as on sv:template:wikisource. To me, those uses are part of the UI of the project, and fall under fair use of the trademark.
However, I've seen this non-free logo debate too many times to be surprised that there are lots of people willing to make a tough stance on it.
They have at least kept the logos on the Main Page.
I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with logos being listed as an example. The Swedish Wikipedia community can make a community decision to remove these logos from articles and templates, but there's no hobgoblin of consistency that forces them to. In fact, the Swedish Wikipedia community could develop an explicit exemption policy only for WMF logos within the boundaries of the policy. The policy also requires exempt files to be properly tagged, so any third party re-user can exclude them if they want to be on the safe side.
Even without going into the licensing policy, I would personally express the view that it would be completely reasonable to interpret sister project templates to be a part of the navigational elements of our websites that just happens to live inside article space. These templates are in fact frequently filtered by re-users because they provide limited utility outside the Wikimedia context. Categorizing them in ways that are friendly to re-users is probably a greater service to them than a logo purge, and the elimination of identifying marks from our navigational structure clearly harms our own ability to develop a coherent reader experience.
On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with logos being listed as an example.
So are you saying that a Wikipedia community is allowed to develop an EDP saying that _logos_ received from 3rd party owners under, say, CC-BY-ND [and possibly even -NC, but let's not get to the problems with that] are acceptable? I was told that this is not correct and the resolution allows only for EDP recognizing copyright limitations existing in national copyright laws (even though I do not see this in the resolution text).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
2010/3/31 Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com:
On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) specifically permits project communities to develop exemptions, with logos being listed as an example.
So are you saying that a Wikipedia community is allowed to develop an EDP saying that _logos_ received from 3rd party owners under, say, CC-BY-ND [and possibly even -NC, but let's not get to the problems with that] are acceptable? I was told that this is not correct and the resolution allows only for EDP recognizing copyright limitations existing in national copyright laws (even though I do not see this in the resolution text).
No, EDPs do indeed have to be grounded in "the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project". But an EDP which recognizes those limitations only for logos of organizations whose trademark policies explicitly acknowledge reasonable uses of their marks within the confines of those limitations (as the WMF trademark policy does) would be acceptable, as would be one which recognizes them only for WMF's logos (for all the reasons that have already been given to make such an exception).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org