Out of curiosity, how are trademarks derived from Wikimedia/Wikipedia handled and licensed? Since the Foundation doesn't necessarily impose content restrictions on other sites (except, perhaps, under legal constraints?) does the trademark license to non-English chapters include indemnification against liabilities based on content? Is the OTRS system effective at policing, say, libel in languages other than the most common European languages?
Has the Foundation been notified of any trademark infringement issues/pursued action? Theoretically (in extremis, or a change in opinion on the part of the majority of those responsible for electing Board members) could the Foundation could impose additional restrictions on chapter Wikipedias or revoke license to use the Wikipedia name? I haven't seen any mention of this in the bylaws, so I thought I'd ask and see if someone can clue me in.
Thanks,
Nathan
On 17/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Is the OTRS system effective at policing, say, libel in languages other than the most common European languages?
I can competently answer this bit, at least :-)
We've currently got OTRS queues, and someone on the end of them, for af, als, ar, cs, da, de, el, en, es, fi, fr, he, hr, it, ja, nds, nl, no/nn, pl, pt, ro, ru, sk, sr, sv, tr, zh.
(At a quick glance... wp's over 80k articles, the top tier or so, we're missing Catalan, Esperanto, Ukranian)
When material that *isn't* in one of those languages comes in (offhand I remember encountering Bulgarian or Indonesian) we usually beat around the bushes to find a trusted admin on that project who also speaks English (or some other common language), tell them about it, and see what can be worked out.
I don't know how good we are at it, but the world hasn't collapsed yet :-)
Admins with language proficiency who are also able to identify what is and what is not libel (or in violation of some other law) in a given state?
On Dec 17, 2007 7:18 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Is the OTRS system effective at policing, say, libel in languages other than the most common European languages?
I can competently answer this bit, at least :-)
We've currently got OTRS queues, and someone on the end of them, for af, als, ar, cs, da, de, el, en, es, fi, fr, he, hr, it, ja, nds, nl, no/nn, pl, pt, ro, ru, sk, sr, sv, tr, zh.
(At a quick glance... wp's over 80k articles, the top tier or so, we're missing Catalan, Esperanto, Ukranian)
When material that *isn't* in one of those languages comes in (offhand I remember encountering Bulgarian or Indonesian) we usually beat around the bushes to find a trusted admin on that project who also speaks English (or some other common language), tell them about it, and see what can be worked out.
I don't know how good we are at it, but the world hasn't collapsed yet :-)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Admins with language proficiency who are also able to identify what is and what is not libel (or in violation of some other law) in a given state?
OTRS isn't primarily a legal assessment system; it's an alerting one - once you've been pointed to a problematic article you can usually deal with it independent of what the actual email said! If it's bad enough to be [percieved as] libellous we shouldn't have it anyway, so really what needs to be done is to bounce it to someone with experience of dealing with bad content and let them solve the problem normally.
Common sense and the ability to say "yep, that's sucky content" is what you and I do on-wiki all the time, after all, whether OTRS is involved or not.
In the event that a) it was one of these odd language cases; and b) it did look like a confusing legal minefield that they didn't feel up to treading in, we'd probably encourage them to report back with notes on WTF is going on, with any useful editorial commentary they can provide, and we'd try to get some legal advice before continuing - much the same as we would do for a problem in a language we do routinely handle, like English or German.
[Legal problems are not very common overall, and complex legal problems that aren't "oops, sorry, we've removed the thing saying you screw goats, please don't sue" are rarer - especially on small projects!]
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
On Dec 17, 2007 7:46 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Admins with language proficiency who are also able to identify what is and what is not libel (or in violation of some other law) in a given state?
OTRS isn't primarily a legal assessment system; it's an alerting one - once you've been pointed to a problematic article you can usually deal with it independent of what the actual email said! If it's bad enough to be [percieved as] libellous we shouldn't have it anyway, so really what needs to be done is to bounce it to someone with experience of dealing with bad content and let them solve the problem normally.
Common sense and the ability to say "yep, that's sucky content" is what you and I do on-wiki all the time, after all, whether OTRS is involved or not.
In the event that a) it was one of these odd language cases; and b) it did look like a confusing legal minefield that they didn't feel up to treading in, we'd probably encourage them to report back with notes on WTF is going on, with any useful editorial commentary they can provide, and we'd try to get some legal advice before continuing - much the same as we would do for a problem in a language we do routinely handle, like English or German.
[Legal problems are not very common overall, and complex legal problems that aren't "oops, sorry, we've removed the thing saying you screw goats, please don't sue" are rarer - especially on small projects!]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I see that trademarks are listed as a 'future pending issue' on the legal page... Ruh roh. ;-)
On Dec 17, 2007 7:52 PM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
On Dec 17, 2007 7:46 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Admins with language proficiency who are also able to identify what is and what is not libel (or in violation of some other law) in a given state?
OTRS isn't primarily a legal assessment system; it's an alerting one - once you've been pointed to a problematic article you can usually deal with it independent of what the actual email said! If it's bad enough to be [percieved as] libellous we shouldn't have it anyway, so really what needs to be done is to bounce it to someone with experience of dealing with bad content and let them solve the problem normally.
Common sense and the ability to say "yep, that's sucky content" is what you and I do on-wiki all the time, after all, whether OTRS is involved or not.
In the event that a) it was one of these odd language cases; and b) it did look like a confusing legal minefield that they didn't feel up to treading in, we'd probably encourage them to report back with notes on WTF is going on, with any useful editorial commentary they can provide, and we'd try to get some legal advice before continuing - much the same as we would do for a problem in a language we do routinely handle, like English or German.
[Legal problems are not very common overall, and complex legal problems that aren't "oops, sorry, we've removed the thing saying you screw goats, please don't sue" are rarer - especially on small projects!]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
All our content is published in the United States, on servers hosted in the United States (speaking of, are they going to be moved to California when the office moves?) and as such is subject to US law. Simply writing in Korean doesn't make you subject to a court in Seoul...
On the last bit, I would say that is not necessarily the case. In fact, it frequently is not. That is nominally the way jurisdictional law works in the US, as far as I know, but even then there are exceptions based on the effect of your actions (i.e. if you shoot a gun in Texas and hit someone in Mexico, Mexico might reasonably request your extradition).
On Dec 17, 2007 8:00 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
All our content is published in the United States, on servers hosted in the United States (speaking of, are they going to be moved to California when the office moves?) and as such is subject to US law. Simply writing in Korean doesn't make you subject to a court in Seoul...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On the last bit, I would say that is not necessarily the case. In fact, it frequently is not. That is nominally the way jurisdictional law works in the US, as far as I know, but even then there are exceptions based on the effect of your actions (i.e. if you shoot a gun in Texas and hit someone in Mexico, Mexico might reasonably request your extradition).
The law tends to have different views on how to handle libelling people versus killing them... Criminal charges and extradition are pretty much glaringly improbable for defamation suits, but jurisdictional forum-shopping is plausible. If that happens, of course, we deal with it as and when.
But it's worth remembering that the biggest and most glaring likelihood of such forum-shopping is not an obscure defamation somewhere on the Albanian Wikipedia and a summons to Tirana, but someone suing us in a British (or Australian?) court, and that could happen *now*, with material published on enwp!
On Dec 17, 2007 8:00 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
All our content is published in the United States, on servers hosted in the United States (speaking of, are they going to be moved to California when the office moves?) and as such is subject to US law. Simply writing in Korean doesn't make you subject to a court in Seoul...
I'm decently certain that most of the servers aren't in the United States. I think many of them are in Korea, some are in Europe. I doubt that any/many are in the US, and those that are are not likely to move around just because the foundation is moving. This is a mixture of guessing, speculation, and vague remembrances, however, so take it with a grain of salt.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 18/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I'm decently certain that most of the servers aren't in the United States. I think many of them are in Korea, some are in Europe. I doubt that any/many are in the US, and those that are are not likely to move around just because the foundation is moving. This is a mixture of guessing, speculation, and vague remembrances, however, so take it with a grain of salt.
The main server farm is in Tampa; there's a handful of squid servers in Seoul and another set in Amsterdam, which act as local caches.
https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/All_servers
On 18/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
All our content is published in the United States, on servers hosted in the United States (speaking of, are they going to be moved to California when the office moves?) and as such is subject to US law. Simply writing in Korean doesn't make you subject to a court in Seoul...
I'm pretty sure the announcement about the move said the servers currently in Florida would be staying there.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can see that, although I would think that there would be more issues relating to speech restrictions issued by various governments that are more restrictive than the US (specifically Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.).
All our content is published in the United States, on servers hosted in the United States (speaking of, are they going to be moved to California when the office moves?)
There are not currently any plans to move our main servers from Tampa.
Note that the location of the main office and the locations of the various server farms are pretty much entirely independent questions. If and when the time is right to move things, that'll be a separate decision.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
On 18/12/2007, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
There are not currently any plans to move our main servers from Tampa.
Note that the location of the main office and the locations of the various server farms are pretty much entirely independent questions. If and when the time is right to move things, that'll be a separate decision.
Thanks for the clarification. It makes a lot more sense to leave them in situ when I remember the servers are in Tampa - when I originally wrote that, I'd been vaguely thinking they were in St. Petersberg along with the office.
On Dec 18, 2007 12:57 AM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity, how are trademarks derived from Wikimedia/Wikipedia handled and licensed? Since the Foundation doesn't necessarily impose content restrictions on other sites (except, perhaps, under legal constraints?) does the trademark license to non-English chapters include indemnification against liabilities based on content? Is the OTRS system effective at policing, say, libel in languages other than the most common European languages?
Has the Foundation been notified of any trademark infringement issues/pursued action? Theoretically (in extremis, or a change in opinion on the part of the majority of those responsible for electing Board members) could the Foundation could impose additional restrictions on chapter Wikipedias or revoke license to use the Wikipedia name? I haven't seen any mention of this in the bylaws, so I thought I'd ask and see if someone can clue me in.
I am sorry, but this is now the second time I see you referring to "chapter wikipedias" and I am still not sure I understand what you are referring to.
Can you please clarify?
Thank you.
Delphine
Sure, my fault for not being clear and perhaps not understanding fully the structure of the relationships involved. Maybe it would be more clear to say
1. What special rights do Wikimedia chapters get regarding the trademarks of the US Wikimedia Foundation?'
2. Is the use of WMF marks by WMF local chapters governed by indemnification agreements?
3. Is the extent of WMF exposure to the various state speech and publication laws known in areas outside of the US and Europe, and do we actively try to adhere to local standards when we know them? (I'm reminded of Yahoo and China here).
4. How effective is OTRS at policing legal issues in languages with few members?
5. Has WMF had any trademark infringement/misuse issues so far?
6. If the marks of the WMF are registered to the WMF to the extent possible, is there a mechanism for revoking license to those marks if a Wikimedia chapter violates the spirit of WMF?
Apoligies for not being clear before. Feel free to tell me to take a hike if this information is none of my business ;-)
Nathan
Nathan Awrich wrote:
Sure, my fault for not being clear and perhaps not understanding fully the structure of the relationships involved. Maybe it would be more clear to say
- What special rights do Wikimedia chapters get regarding the
trademarks of the US Wikimedia Foundation?'
- Is the use of WMF marks by WMF local chapters governed by
indemnification agreements?
- Is the extent of WMF exposure to the various state speech and
publication laws known in areas outside of the US and Europe, and do we actively try to adhere to local standards when we know them? (I'm reminded of Yahoo and China here).
How effective is OTRS at policing legal issues in languages with few members?
Has WMF had any trademark infringement/misuse issues so far?
If the marks of the WMF are registered to the WMF to the extent
possible, is there a mechanism for revoking license to those marks if a Wikimedia chapter violates the spirit of WMF?
I'd add, how are presumed trademark infringements handled? I found weeks ago a paper advertisement on which the character was browsing wikipedia (identifiable by the logo). IMHO they'd need WMF permission to do so but maybe they have! How could i know? There must be a better way than snail mail to the US (suggested by cary).
On Dec 18, 2007 2:36 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan Awrich wrote:
Sure, my fault for not being clear and perhaps not understanding fully the structure of the relationships involved. Maybe it would be more clear to say
(Note, I'm not replying officially or from a lawyer perspective, just from a chapters perspective. Take everything I say here with caution ;-)
- What special rights do Wikimedia chapters get regarding the
trademarks of the US Wikimedia Foundation?'
Depends on the agreement they have with the foundation. AFAIK it ranges from "can just use it themselves" via "can use it and license it for non-commercial use"can use it and license it for commercial use". I guess this would be standardises some day...
- Is the use of WMF marks by WMF local chapters governed by
indemnification agreements?
I'm not sure what you mean by "indemnification agreements". The agreement basically provide that the TMs can be used without royalties.
- Is the extent of WMF exposure to the various state speech and
publication laws known in areas outside of the US and Europe, and do we actively try to adhere to local standards when we know them? (I'm reminded of Yahoo and China here).
Interesting question... There are btw speech and publication laws in Europe too, refer e.g. to the denial of genocides, which is punishable in Switzerland (and, more limitedly, the denial of holocaust which is punishable in Germany).
- How effective is OTRS at policing legal issues in languages with few members?
I doubt that there are statistics on that, however for *most languages*, it should be possible to find a trusted user such as a bureaucrat who can deal with the matter.
- Has WMF had any trademark infringement/misuse issues so far?
This question probably goes to Mike Godwin, Legal Counsel WMF.
- If the marks of the WMF are registered to the WMF to the extent
possible, is there a mechanism for revoking license to those marks if a Wikimedia chapter violates the spirit of WMF?
As the TM use is regulated in an agreement, the WMF can just terminate the agreement, whereupon the chapter loses its rights to use the Trademarks (if the trademarks in this country are registered to the WMF).
I'd add, how are presumed trademark infringements handled?
By the Legal Counsel, WMF, I guess.
I found weeks ago a paper advertisement on which the character was browsing wikipedia (identifiable by the logo). IMHO they'd need WMF permission to do so but maybe they have! How could i know? There must be a better way than snail mail to the US (suggested by cary).
Try contacting Mike Godwin by email: mgodwin at wikimedia dot org It is usually the fastest way.
Michael
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 2:36 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I found weeks ago a paper advertisement on which the character was browsing wikipedia (identifiable by the logo). IMHO they'd need WMF permission to do so but maybe they have! How could i know? There must be a better way than snail mail to the US (suggested by cary).
Try contacting Mike Godwin by email: mgodwin at wikimedia dot org It is usually the fastest way.
Many, if not all, of the cases where an organisation asks permission to use TM'd logos like the puzzle globe pass through the OTRS system, I have forwarded several on to Mike Godwin and in all the cases I've dealt with they've been reasonable - and thus authorised - uses.
For an example, I had one where someone was publishing an algebra textbook and wanted a question based on a formula to predict when the English Wikipedia will reach six million articles. Permission was sought, and granted, to illustrate that question with the puzzle globe logo.
Most cases are like this, newspapers are often a case where they can use the logo under fair use provisions (as we do on Wikinews for Google &c). Yes, we need to encourage people to ask, yes we need to be generous in granting rights to use, and NO, we don't want to persecute people who in ignorance use the logo unless it is to defame the Foundation.
I would suggest not emailing Mike on this one, and instead hammering things out on this list. Mike reads stuff here and will likely respond when he thinks it is appropriate. Something from several weeks ago in a periodical or newspaper is likely too late to deal with beyond sending a polite letter or email as "for future reference ask" so I think it would be inappropriate to directly bother Mike when the issue can be discussed on this list and Mike can give a single response that explains the issue to everyone here who may be concerned about it.
Brian McNeil
On 18/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Most cases are like this, newspapers are often a case where they can use the logo under fair use provisions (as we do on Wikinews for Google &c). Yes, we need to encourage people to ask, yes we need to be generous in granting rights to use, and NO, we don't want to persecute people who in ignorance use the logo unless it is to defame the Foundation.
Yeah. These are fair use anyway, but they keep asking, so we put a blanket permission on the press page of wikimediafoundation.org ;-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Most cases are like this, newspapers are often a case where they can use the logo under fair use provisions (as we do on Wikinews for Google &c). Yes, we need to encourage people to ask, yes we need to be generous in granting rights to use, and NO, we don't want to persecute people who in ignorance use the logo unless it is to defame the Foundation.
Yeah. These are fair use anyway, but they keep asking, so we put a blanket permission on the press page of wikimediafoundation.org ;-)
If they keep asking, especially where they could ignore us and claim free use, then we keep cooperating. It gives us an access into these news organisations where we have been reasonable with their requests and to reciprocate they simply have to listen to us. If we're generous about use of the logos and just ask for a right to reply we're going to catch a lot more media groups. They may want to run the bad press because it generates the page views, but if WMF is saying, "let us have our say and you can use the logo" then they are going to come to us for comment.
If you can understand that not all bad press is bad for the foundation then you probably understand what I'm trying to get at. From my perspective one of the last things we want to do is make the press think we are secretive or likely to hide things from them.
Brian McNeil
I'm less interested in the issue as it relates to fair use (which, by its nature, doesn't require input from the WMF) but commercial or other use (a la Wikipedia Review, if they sell ads - do they?). The blanket permission is, as David notes, convenience rather than a requirement. But if the WMF doesn't protect its trademarks, then someone could dump the software and database and set up a new site and call it 'Wikipedia.'
On Dec 18, 2007 3:49 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Most cases are like this, newspapers are often a case where they can use the logo under fair use provisions (as we do on Wikinews for Google &c). Yes, we need to encourage people to ask, yes we need to be generous in granting rights to use, and NO, we don't want to persecute people who in ignorance use the logo unless it is to defame the Foundation.
Yeah. These are fair use anyway, but they keep asking, so we put a blanket permission on the press page of wikimediafoundation.org ;-)
If they keep asking, especially where they could ignore us and claim free use, then we keep cooperating. It gives us an access into these news organisations where we have been reasonable with their requests and to reciprocate they simply have to listen to us. If we're generous about use of the logos and just ask for a right to reply we're going to catch a lot more media groups. They may want to run the bad press because it generates the page views, but if WMF is saying, "let us have our say and you can use the logo" then they are going to come to us for comment.
If you can understand that not all bad press is bad for the foundation then you probably understand what I'm trying to get at. From my perspective one of the last things we want to do is make the press think we are secretive or likely to hide things from them.
Brian McNeil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It occurs to me that this forum (public, archived list) may not be appropriate for an official response on this subject from the Foundation. My bad.
~Nate
On Dec 18, 2007 4:01 PM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm less interested in the issue as it relates to fair use (which, by its nature, doesn't require input from the WMF) but commercial or other use (a la Wikipedia Review, if they sell ads - do they?). The blanket permission is, as David notes, convenience rather than a requirement. But if the WMF doesn't protect its trademarks, then someone could dump the software and database and set up a new site and call it 'Wikipedia.'
On Dec 18, 2007 3:49 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Most cases are like this, newspapers are often a case where they can use the logo under fair use provisions (as we do on Wikinews for Google &c). Yes, we need to encourage people to ask, yes we need to be generous in granting rights to use, and NO, we don't want to persecute people who in ignorance use the logo unless it is to defame the Foundation.
Yeah. These are fair use anyway, but they keep asking, so we put a blanket permission on the press page of wikimediafoundation.org ;-)
If they keep asking, especially where they could ignore us and claim free use, then we keep cooperating. It gives us an access into these news organisations where we have been reasonable with their requests and to reciprocate they simply have to listen to us. If we're generous about use of the logos and just ask for a right to reply we're going to catch a lot more media groups. They may want to run the bad press because it generates the page views, but if WMF is saying, "let us have our say and you can use the logo" then they are going to come to us for comment.
If you can understand that not all bad press is bad for the foundation then you probably understand what I'm trying to get at. From my perspective one of the last things we want to do is make the press think we are secretive or likely to hide things from them.
Brian McNeil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 19/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that this forum (public, archived list) may not be appropriate for an official response on this subject from the Foundation. My bad.
If you're going to get any response at all, this is as good a place as any, I would think.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org