Because of an ongoing editwar in the Dutch wiki, I have a question about the use of the Wikimedia logo's.
Like most Wikipedia's, we have an article about Wikipedia itself ( http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ). Recently, this article was the center of an editwar. The discussion is about the logo's: some editors say the content of Wikipedia is GFDL, and the logo is not, so the logo should not be in the article. Others think the use is allowed, because the logo's are the Wikipedia-logo's, and if we themselve can't use them, they are just obsolete. Eve other just say: it's on Commons, so it's alright.
I've been looking for a policy on meta and on the foundation's site, but I really can't find any clear and definite policy: only that they are looking into it 'now', and that the board is talking about it.
Does anyone have a solid and conclusive answer on the question if the logo's may be used in the articles or not. Also, is there some official policy of the board about this, and if not, can a policy be written about this matter.
We really need solid answers on this question, to stop this kind of editwars once and for all.
Greetings, Tuvic (nl-wiki)
(P.S. Apologies for any typo's, or for incorrect spelling or bad grammar)
On 03/09/06, Tuvic tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com wrote:
We really need solid answers on this question, to stop this kind of editwars
It would depend I think on nl:wp policy on corporate logos in general. Does nl: allow fair use images? On en:, corporate logos in articles about a corporation are allowed as fair use - it's clearly academic fair use to use the logo when talking about a company in an article about the company.
Saying "it's on Commons so we can use it" is specious - Wikimedia copyright logos are the one variety of image on Commons that is *not* free content.
once and for all.
That trick *never* works. ;-p
- d.
You could find the solution here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-af.png
I only see the normal Wikimedia-copyright-template, like on all other Wikimedia logo's. (Am I overlooking something?)
it seems to be under guidelines:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
and you should ask a permission, but it is also strange look for a permission for a Wikipedia logo in Wikipedia contents: it is a paradox.
The webpage only talks about how to use the Wikimedia Logo, and how not, is doesn't tell anything about when it can't be used or not. I agree: it looks a paradox or something like that.
It would depend I think on nl:wp policy on corporate logos in general. Does nl: allow fair use images? On en:, corporate logos in articles about a corporation are allowed as fair use - it's clearly academic fair use to use the logo when talking about a company in an article about the company.
NL policy does not allow fair use. But, it the logo's are removed from the articles, shouldn't they also be removed from the template like {{Commons}} and so? Wouldn't that mean that the logo's (our 'own' logo's) are totally useless to us?
I was actually hoping for some reaction of the Board or so, because this isn't only about NL-wiki, but apparently about every wiki not allowing Fair-use, if I understand this correctly.
Greetings, Tuvic (NL-wiki)
On 9/4/06, Tuvic tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com wrote:
NL policy does not allow fair use. But, it the logo's are removed from the articles, shouldn't they also be removed from the template like {{Commons}} and so? Wouldn't that mean that the logo's (our 'own' logo's) are totally useless to us?
In certian respects yes time to reactivate:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_mascot
On 04/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
In certian respects yes time to reactivate: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_mascot
I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png
- d.
On 9/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png
unfortunetly there is a dark side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png
That's what happens when you're no longer allowed to use the logos for unauthorized Wikiprojects -- you have to break out the anime.
On 9/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png
unfortunetly there is a dark side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/09/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
That's what happens when you're no longer allowed to use the logos for unauthorized Wikiprojects -- you have to break out the anime.
It's when the vandals start queueing up to be hit over the head I'll start worrying.
- d.
On 04/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
unfortunetly there is a dark side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png
Oh, that's MUCH better than using a Wikimedia logo. Just the thing!
- d.
On 9/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png
unfortunetly there is a dark side:
I really like this. :-)
It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL (which it doesn't).
There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...
Ok, that would be nice. Only a little vote and we can move on.
You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are removed on sight these days.
Damn, not nice any more :-( Bye-Bye, vote!
I really like this. :-)
That's not quite what I had in mind when I was talking about the logo's :-)
So, it seems like nobody actually knows exactly what is allowed or what not. Use will probably be permitted by the Foundation (can they sue themselves for using it in an article?), but reuse of forking could be problematic, which is against Wikipedia idealogy.
Also, is it deliberate that the Board is silent, or do they just didn't notice this thread. (stupid question to ask: either way, I won't receive answer :-)).
Greeting, Tuvic
Tuvic wrote:
It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL (which it doesn't).
There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...
Ok, that would be nice. Only a little vote and we can move on.
You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are removed on sight these days.
Damn, not nice any more :-( Bye-Bye, vote!
I really like this. :-)
That's not quite what I had in mind when I was talking about the logo's :-)
So, it seems like nobody actually knows exactly what is allowed or what not. Use will probably be permitted by the Foundation (can they sue themselves for using it in an article?), but reuse of forking could be problematic, which is against Wikipedia idealogy.
Also, is it deliberate that the Board is silent, or do they just didn't notice this thread. (stupid question to ask: either way, I won't receive answer :-)).
Greeting, Tuvic
Uh, no. I noticed it. I just have no idea what to say. The logo is copyright. Period. It is correct that using it is "with permission", so by some standards, not allowed (not free content).
I have no comment to make on this, because I think it would be stupid to remove it as obviously the Foundation is not gonna argue, nor sue. On the other hand, if we follow the will of our most convinced editors, indeed the logo should not be there.
I will propose a rule of thumb. If the logo is in an article, who may be published or republished by any website without us feeling unconfortable with, then do publish it. If the logo use is of such type we would prevent reuse by legal means or ask money for the re-use, then do not put in the encyclopédia.
but well...
Anthere wrote:
Uh, no. I noticed it. I just have no idea what to say. The logo is copyright. Period. It is correct that using it is "with permission", so by some standards, not allowed (not free content).
I have no comment to make on this, because I think it would be stupid to remove it as obviously the Foundation is not gonna argue, nor sue. On the other hand, if we follow the will of our most convinced editors, indeed the logo should not be there.
I will propose a rule of thumb. If the logo is in an article, who may be published or republished by any website without us feeling unconfortable with, then do publish it. If the logo use is of such type we would prevent reuse by legal means or ask money for the re-use, then do not put in the encyclopédia.
but well...
Ok. I already suspected the Foundation wasn't going to sue themselves for use of the logo in an article about Wikipedia (for example).
The rule of thumb you're proposing actually says it can be used, but not to damage the Foundation, and not to make money from its use alone. I'll mention your mail in the village pump at nl-wiki, but the most convinced editors probably won't agree with the image being in the article. Maybe it's an idea to discuss this and make an offical policy about it, but in the mean time we'll try to cope with it as good as it gets.
Greetings, Tuvic
On 9/3/06, Tuvic tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com wrote:
The discussion is about the logo's: some editors say the content of Wikipedia is GFDL, and the logo is not, so the logo should not be in the article. Others think the use is allowed, because the logo's are the Wikipedia-logo's, and if we themselve can't use them, they are just obsolete. Eve other just say: it's on Commons, so it's alright.
It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL (which it doesn't).
There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...
Anthony
It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned, Dutch Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks. However, the concern would be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a fair use issue. I'm aware that most Wikimedia projects don't allow fair use.
On 9/4/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/3/06, Tuvic tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com wrote:
The discussion is about the logo's: some editors say the content of Wikipedia is GFDL, and the logo is not, so the logo should not be in the article. Others think the use is allowed, because the logo's are the Wikipedia-logo's, and if we themselve can't use them, they are just obsolete. Eve other just say: it's on Commons, so it's alright.
It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL (which it doesn't).
There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/5/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned, Dutch Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks.
You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are removed on sight these days.
However, the concern would be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a fair use issue.
Or any reuse in fact.
I didn't really mean to describe "with permission images" more than I meant to describe "the trademark and the website both belong to the same NGO". It's why Wikimedia logos (including projects) can be used out of context on the English Wikipedia (to an extent, at least).
On 9/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned,
Dutch
Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks.
You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are removed on sight these days.
However, the concern would be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a
fair
use issue.
Or any reuse in fact.
-- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/4/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned, Dutch Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks. However, the concern would be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a fair use issue. I'm aware that most Wikimedia projects don't allow fair use.
What is your concern, that Wikimedia is going to sue a fork for violating its copyright? I really don't see that as likely.
The only problem I see is that the image is proprietary in the first place.
Anthony
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org