masti writes:
It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :)
It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity.
This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content.
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," and each imposes restrictions and obligations on reusers of content. What we're doing with the Wikimedia trademarks is designed to reinforce this insistence on the freedom of the content we are disseminating.
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision.
Robert Rohde writes:
Personally, I also feel that it sets a bad example for a free content
company like WMF not to have any formal policy on the third party use of their logos. Even within Wikimedia there is no agreement about what is allowed and what isn't, except that Mike and others have generally said they don't object to most uses by the community, even while reserving full copyright control and the right to object in the future.
I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste!
It has been three or four years since I first asked members of the WMF to draft a policy on logo use that would be clear about what is allowed both in the community and for reusers.
And now I really, really feel it was wasted!
Given that we don't have clear policies regarding logo use, I think
the Swedish Wikipedia decision is entirely defensible.
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
--Mike
Mike Godwin wrote:
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice to know it's there!
MZMcBride
Thanks, MZ!
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice to know it's there!
MZMcBride
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice to know it's there!
I don't know if was announced on the lists, but it was in the Signpost news a few weeks ago :D
-- phoebe, who was just looking at the old logo contest submissions yesterday: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_suggestions
and who would love love love to find a copy of the main page with the American flag as logo, circa Jan 15 2001 :)
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision.
Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so share your knowledge. What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with it's PD-old logo and Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions to protect our projects when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization with non-copyrighted logo) does not?
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the
Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision.
Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so share your knowledge. What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with it's PD-old logo and Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions to protect our projects when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization with non-copyrighted logo) does not?
This is explained in the policy document I posted a link for.
--Mike
This is a thread that accidentally became off-list due to a wrong reply-to header.
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org
wrote:
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Marcus Buck
me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Mike Godwin hett schreven: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Marcus Buck
me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
> > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck
me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
> > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > > > My guess, admittedly based on nothing but
anecdotal evidence, is that the
> > > > > Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely
artificial and unnecessary
> > > > > dispute have not consulted independent trademark
and copyright experts with
> > > > > regard to the rationale for their decision. > > > > > > > > > Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so
share your knowledge.
> > > > What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with
it's PD-old logo and
> > > > Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions
to protect our projects
> > > > when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization
with non-copyrighted
> > > > logo) does not? > > > > > > This is explained in the policy document I posted a
link for.
> > > > Perhaps there's some magic sentence in that policy
document
> >
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy) that explains the
> > difference and is obvious to an expert. I am no expert,
so it's not obvious
> > to me. The word "copyright" is not even mentioned in
the document. My
> > question was: why is trademark protection insufficient
for Wikimedia when
> > it is sufficient to protect the rights of the Coca Cola
Company? Why do we
> > need additional copyright protection when the Coca Cola
Company is fine
> > with an uncopyrighted logo? > Why do you think the word "copyright" has to be used in
the trademark document
> when when copyright terms like "content" are used? It's
true that the policy
> document assumes that a reader will know that content is
subject to copyright
> law, and that "free license" refers to "free copyright
license."
The reason I think that is that my question specifically
was about copyright.
You said the answer to my question is in the policy. It is
not. Let me once
again repeat my question: Why would logos licensed under a
license like
CC-by-sa weaken our legal position when e.g. Coca Cola has
no problem at all
to legally protect itself although the logo is PD?
The benefit comes from being able to prevent deceptive and
confusing re-use of
the logo through copyright remedies as well as trademark
remedies. As soon as
the puzzle >globe becomes as widely recognized as the
Coca-Cola logo, we can
revisit the issue.
Thanks. That's what I thought. Basically you are saying you
want the logos to
be copyrighted to be able to fight trademark infringement (like
"deceptive and
confusing re-use") with non-trademark-law tools.
That's not quite right. What I'm saying is that we reserve the
right to use any
lawful tools to prevent others from misrepresenting themselves as
us, and to
ensure the freedom of Wikimedia content, including both
trademark-law tools and
non-trademark-law tools that are available to us.
That's the same as I said, isn't it? Just rendered in words that
try to sound
nicer.
It's not the same, no.
Weakening our legal ability to enforce free licenses in the name
of a
misconception about ideological purity is very much an
ill-considered idea.
Trademark law is designed to protect trademarks. Copyright law is
designed to
protect the author's rights. Copyright law can be (ab)used to put
legal pressure
on a trademark infringer but if your case is valid trademark law is
sufficient
to stop the infringer.
No lawyer I know assumes that trademark law is a magical cure-all for
cases of
infringement. Nor is infringement the only issue that needs to be
addressed.
And you may call it a "misconception about ideological purity" but
free licenses
are part of the Foundation's mission statement. It's not
"ideological purity",
it's "integrity" to follow your own ideals.
You are perhaps unfamiliar with my career if you imagine that I lack
integrity or
ideals.
Yes, I am indeed unfamiliar with your fine career (except for the famous "law") but I never suggested anything like that. Anybody re-reading my sentence will recognize that that was not what I said.
What I am trying to explain to you is that you have a very unsophisticated, un-nuanced understanding of what free licenses are,
what
trademark law can and cannot do, and what tools can serve the mission of Wikipedia, which is to ensure that free knowledge is available to
everyone.
If you do not see how the Wikimedia Foundation's use of both
trademark law and
copyright law is designed to promote the mission, then let me suggest
you have
not given adequate thought to the mission, or adequate study to the
legal issues
involved.
You may have a great career and expertise but until now you haven't used this expertise much in this discussion. Instead you have used argumentum ab auctoritate and have tried to depict people disagreeing with you as incompetent.
Marcus Buck User:Slomox
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste!
<snip>
And now I really, really feel it was wasted!
<snip>
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
My sincere apologies to Mike (and whoever else worked on that). I am glad to see it. Though I do wonder why I've never noticed it before now.
That document also doesn't seem to be referenced from the Copyright-by-Wikimedia templates, but we can go and fix that.
-Robert Rohde
Poor Mike. You could blog it on Wikimedia blog, even from now?
Now we have the policy with a detailed FAQ though, still I guess I'll keep posting some questions - it doesn't mean the policy is poorly written, but just I'd love to see you around.
/me ducks
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
masti writes:
It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :)
It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity.
This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content.
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," and each imposes restrictions and obligations on reusers of content. What we're doing with the Wikimedia trademarks is designed to reinforce this insistence on the freedom of the content we are disseminating.
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision.
Robert Rohde writes:
Personally, I also feel that it sets a bad example for a free content
company like WMF not to have any formal policy on the third party use of their logos. Even within Wikimedia there is no agreement about what is allowed and what isn't, except that Mike and others have generally said they don't object to most uses by the community, even while reserving full copyright control and the right to object in the future.
I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer, liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste!
It has been three or four years since I first asked members of the WMF to draft a policy on logo use that would be clear about what is allowed both in the community and for reusers.
And now I really, really feel it was wasted!
Given that we don't have clear policies regarding logo use, I think
the Swedish Wikipedia decision is entirely defensible.
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
--Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :)
It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity.
This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content.
But how about with trademark and without copyright restrictions? Or
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with regard to the rationale for their decision.
Suppose they had, what would those experts have answered. I am not an expert, but I think I know enough of it to say that the type of organization that owns the copyright on a logo makes no difference regarding the question whether it is or is not allowed to include the logo.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.comwrote:
This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions
on
the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary
vendors
to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree content.
But how about with trademark and without copyright restrictions?
Why do you think trademark restrictions are okay but copyright restrictions aren't?
If you are against copyright restrictions, why don't you favor releasing all Wikimedia content into the public domain rather than using CC-BY-SA and GFDL?
--Mike
The thread is interesting. What sv. did is, from my perspective, applying the same rules to Wikimedia logos that applies to all the other logos. Wich is just rational for me. Not that I agree, just it's rational.
Wikipedia should be made of free contents, logos are not free, they remove the logos from the main namespace.
That's fine for me.
So to answer Lennart questions : Is Swedish Wikipedia the first language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? As far as I know, yes.
Do any of you find this discussion strange? I don't. Why should we reuse our own unfree logo and not others unfree logos. We aim to creat a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused. Wikimedia Foundation logos prevent that, they get removed. I do think it's a rational decision, even if I do not agree with it :).
Or are Swedish Wikipedia just ahead of the curve? Yep :D
Christophe
Why should we reuse our own unfree logo and not others unfree logos. We aim to creat a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused.
What is rational about taking a scenario to the extreme?
We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is not the same as NO unfree content. It does not follow that because we cannot have ZERO unfree content, than we should be able to use everyone elses unfree stuff. That is not a logical conclusion, nor is it rational.
The fact is, regardless of any other circumstance, the Wikimedia logos are one, small, limited exception. Comparing them to Coca-Cola, or Volvo, or anything else is ridiculous, because those companies do not operate Wikipedia.
Nor does it make sense to complain about the logo hindering free reuse. We allow nearly all of our content to be reused, as Mike said, subject to the GFDL or CC-BY-SA licenses. This is not free reuse. It is reuse subject to some restrictions. The fact that we have trademark protection for the WMF logos has essentially no relationship to downstream use of content. Don't confuse the source identifier with the content itself. These are different things.
So again, I see nothing rational nor logical with what Sv.Wp is doing. They are taking these examples to hyperbolic extremes over an insignificant issue, in order to prove a point. A point, I should note, that does NOT further the success of WMF's mission; in fact it directly hinders it, as Mike pointed out with regard to the licenses. (this is ignoring, of course, all the misconstruals of copyright as trademark, and vice versa which add further unnecessary fuel to the fire).
-Dan
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is not the same as NO unfree content. It does not follow that because we cannot have ZERO unfree content, than we should be able to use everyone elses unfree stuff. That is not a logical conclusion, nor is it rational.
The fact is, regardless of any other circumstance, the Wikimedia logos are one, small, limited exception. Comparing them to Coca-Cola, or Volvo, or anything else is ridiculous, because those companies do not operate Wikipedia.
I think the point here is that different projects have a different attitude to non-free media, so that everyone wrote a different EDP when they were asked to. Some projects allow the use of non-free material under fair use (that's the case for en.wp and a lot more), some don't (I think that's the case for sv.wp, es.wp and others). Now, most company logos are copyrighted, so they can only be used in the projects that allow non-free media and in the pages regarding the company or its products. In this sense, since we adopt NPOV, the WMF is not different from any other company, like Coca-Cola or the WWF if we want to stick to non-profits. So, if we don't allow the use of the logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the articles describing them. The situation is different for the UI (we are Wikipedia and we identify ourselves by our logo) and possibly for the inter-project links icons (because they are a link to the project, not to the page describing the project). Therefore, I think the policy of sv.wp is logical and I support it, although I do not necessarily think it's the best decision.
Cruccone
How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own logo on their own website?
In what universe is this logical?
The problem with use of copyrighted/trademarked logos is the concern that the owner of that logo will disallow the use. We do not have this problem.
The trademark policy also makes it perfectly clear that downstream uses under the guise of nominative fair use are permissible, so that's not a concern either.
So....this is a "solution" in search of a problem.
-Dan On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
So, if we don't allow the use of the logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the articles describing them.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own logo on their own website?
In what universe is this logical?
The problem with use of copyrighted/trademarked logos is the concern that the owner of that logo will disallow the use. We do not have this problem.
The trademark policy also makes it perfectly clear that downstream uses under the guise of nominative fair use are permissible, so that's not a concern either.
So....this is a "solution" in search of a problem.
-Dan On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
So, if we don't allow the use of the logos of Coca-Cola or of the WWF (because they're copyrighted), then it seems logical not to use the logos of the WMF projects in the articles describing them.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hear, hear. *raps walking stick on the floor*
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org