Wikimedia's logos are copyrighted and trademarked. Notwithstanding this, the logos have been placed on a large number of pages under circumstances where other copyrighted works would never be used. Often this is done simply for identification (e.g. this page is about Wikipedia, so it has the Wikipedia logo), and other times it is done for what might be called promotional reasons. Most such uses undoubtedly occur without any direct input from the Foundation.
For examples, see the links on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png
In addition, any image that incorporates a Wikimedia logo has generally been marked "Copyright by Wikimedia", regardless of the image's immediate author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CopyrightByWikimedia
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CopyrightByWikimedia
Some of these have apparently been created by Wikipedians specifically to promote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_promotion
Recently, one of these promotional banners(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg) was deleted (and now temporarily undeleted, subject to deletion review) essentially for violating Wikipedia's rules on the use of copyrighted works. (Or in other words, because it was a copyrighted image not being used in an article.)
Now many of us believe that there could reasonably be an exception to Wikipedia's copyright rules when it comes to images owned by Wikimedia itself, especially if they serve a useful purpose like promoting Wikipedia. However, because of the unique role that the logos play in the visual identity of Wikipedia, I wanted to come here and get guidance from the Foundation about what constitutes acceptable use. I would appreciate it if people would review the materials on the pages linked above and give some direction on when logos can be incorporated in other images and what kinds of pages they might reasonably be used on. In particular, are promotional tools like banners and the like acceptable?
-Robert Rohde aka Dragons_flight on EN
____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
DF wrote:
Wikimedia's logos are copyrighted and trademarked. Notwithstanding this, the logos have been placed on a large number of pages under circumstances where other copyrighted works would never be used.
<*snip*>
Now many of us believe that there could reasonably be an exception to Wikipedia's copyright rules when it comes to images owned by Wikimedia itself, especially if they serve a useful purpose like promoting Wikipedia. However, because of the unique role that the logos play in the visual identity of Wikipedia, I wanted to come here and get guidance from the Foundation about what constitutes acceptable use. I would appreciate it if people would review the materials on the pages linked above and give some direction on when logos can be incorporated in other images and what kinds of pages they might reasonably be used on. In particular, are promotional tools like banners and the like acceptable?
-Robert Rohde aka Dragons_flight on EN
While I understand the rationale for trademarking these images formally (is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png formally regsitered yet?) and asserting trademark status on other logos and names, I would like to contrast this to the use of the Linux trademark, both the name and the classical Linux penguin.
I will suggest, however, that the Linux trademark is not being used with the eye to a potential future fundraising activity or two, and is not as strongly defended as a result. The main attitude that Linus Torvald seems to have about its usage is that somebody ought to hold the trademark in order to keep those who would abuse it (as did happen) from using trademark law to extort people in the legal system. It is being held as a community trust.
There is the "official policy" that has been discussed on Meta at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_and_trademark_policy
There is also the derivitive logo policy that is perhaps more closely related to what you are talking about:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_logo_derivatives
Although on both of these pages it should be apparent that the policy is still "in progress" and not something that has been formally decided.
I would like to add my voice that I think the current ambigous policies are insufficent to offer clear direction on where to proceed, or to even find somebody to contact if you think you have a practical application that would use Wikimedia logos and trademarks but would like to seek "permission" first. I know that such a person could very easily be flooded with a so many requests as to turn it into a full time job, which is one reason why I think it may not be happening right now and why it is deliberately ambigous.
I would hope that some sort of "happy medium" could be created that would allow creative expression such as the "NotSuckBanner.jpg" from the community that would also promote generally Wikimedia projects nor detract from any future fundraising efforts. But that if you wanted to use a Wikimedia logo such as is being done by http://www.wikipress.de/ that its usage could be done for a reasonable fee and not necessarily be exclusive. I could also imagine several blatant abuses of Wikimedia logos that would not be appropriate due to content (imagine an Terropedia or other group that promotes bomb making and coordinates terrorist activities) that would very likely be turned down flat.
On 2/7/07, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
There is the "official policy" that has been discussed on Meta at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_and_trademark_policy
There is also the derivitive logo policy that is perhaps more closely related to what you are talking about:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_logo_derivatives
Although on both of these pages it should be apparent that the policy is still "in progress" and not something that has been formally decided.
Keep in mind that there are the formal visual identity guidelines:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
Although these seem mainly to apply to the Wikimedia logo and not to the individual project logos also.
On 06/02/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Keep in mind that there are the formal visual identity guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines Although these seem mainly to apply to the Wikimedia logo and not to the individual project logos also.
Delphine clarified that this was the case on the comcom list as well - the visual identity guidelines are specifically about the Wikimedia logo, not the puzzle globe.
Which may be something worth reconsidering, seeing as it's "Wikipedia" (and the puzzle globe) that's the number four brand by some reckoning or other, and no-one's ever heard of Wikimedia.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
On 06/02/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Keep in mind that there are the formal visual identity guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines Although these seem mainly to apply to the Wikimedia logo and not to the individual project logos also.
Delphine clarified that this was the case on the comcom list as well - the visual identity guidelines are specifically about the Wikimedia logo, not the puzzle globe.
Which may be something worth reconsidering, seeing as it's "Wikipedia" (and the puzzle globe) that's the number four brand by some reckoning or other, and no-one's ever heard of Wikimedia.
- d.
Hoi, It is one thing to communicate this on the comcom list. This does not make it universally known. Thanks, GerardM
On 06/02/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Delphine clarified that this was the case on the comcom list as well - the visual identity guidelines are specifically about the Wikimedia logo, not the puzzle globe. Which may be something worth reconsidering, seeing as it's "Wikipedia" (and the puzzle globe) that's the number four brand by some reckoning or other, and no-one's ever heard of Wikimedia.
It is one thing to communicate this on the comcom list. This does not make it universally known.
You have read something that I didn't write. I didn't say it did. What I said was that she emphasised it there. Your response also says nothing about the actual point of what I wrote, which was the second paragraph.
- d.
On 2/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/02/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Keep in mind that there are the formal visual identity guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines Although these seem mainly to apply to the Wikimedia logo and not to the individual project logos also.
Delphine clarified that this was the case on the comcom list as well - the visual identity guidelines are specifically about the Wikimedia logo, not the puzzle globe.
Which may be something worth reconsidering, seeing as it's "Wikipedia" (and the puzzle globe) that's the number four brand by some reckoning or other, and no-one's ever heard of Wikimedia.
Yes. I think that the guideline about the minimum margins to be placed around the logo (when printed, or combined with other material) is one that should be applied to all of the project logos, for example.
On 2/6/07, DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com wrote:
Now many of us believe that there could reasonably be an exception to Wikipedia's copyright rules when it comes to images owned by Wikimedia itself, especially if they serve a useful purpose like promoting Wikipedia.
The amount of energy required to police such a system that it would be much less work simply to limit the use of the logo in the same way we limit use of other unfree media.
2007/2/6, geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 2/6/07, DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com wrote:
Now many of us believe that there could reasonably be an exception to Wikipedia's copyright rules when it comes to images owned by Wikimedia itself, especially if they serve a useful purpose like promoting Wikipedia.
The amount of energy required to police such a system that it would be much less work simply to limit the use of the logo in the same way we limit use of other unfree media.
In other words, no, we may not use the logo on Wikipedia.
On 2/6/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, no, we may not use the logo on Wikipedia.
On en it would be allowed in [[wikipedia]] and perhaps [[wikimedia foundation]].
This is cute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg
It strikes me that images such as this one, which use project logos (not the Foundation logo) should
a) be available under a specific license describing how they can be reused without permission b) be fairly unrestricted for community use, allowing derivations
Of course there are trademark recourses for those who use the images to mislead others; but community members illustrating or celebrating work they are doing on and for Wikipedia are not being misleading.
There has been work in other communities regarding distinguishing between "official" and open-use community logos. For instance, you can see Debian's dual logos here: http://www.debian.org/logos/ [1]
--SJ
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, DF wrote:
Wikimedia's logos are copyrighted and trademarked. Notwithstanding this, the logos have been placed on a large number of pages under circumstances where other copyrighted works would never be used. Often this is done simply for identification (e.g. this page is about Wikipedia, so it has the Wikipedia logo), and other times it is done for what might be called promotional reasons. Most such uses undoubtedly occur without any direct input from the Foundation.
For examples, see the links on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png
In addition, any image that incorporates a Wikimedia logo has generally been marked "Copyright by Wikimedia", regardless of the image's immediate author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CopyrightByWikimedia
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CopyrightByWikimedia
Some of these have apparently been created by Wikipedians specifically to promote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_promotion
Recently, one of these promotional banners(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg) was deleted (and now temporarily undeleted, subject to deletion review) essentially for violating Wikipedia's rules on the use of copyrighted works. (Or in other words, because it was a copyrighted image not being used in an article.)
Now many of us believe that there could reasonably be an exception to Wikipedia's copyright rules when it comes to images owned by Wikimedia itself, especially if they serve a useful purpose like promoting Wikipedia. However, because of the unique role that the logos play in the visual identity of Wikipedia, I wanted to come here and get guidance from the Foundation about what constitutes acceptable use. I would appreciate it if people would review the materials on the pages linked above and give some direction on when logos can be incorporated in other images and what kinds of pages they might reasonably be used on. In particular, are promotional tools like banners and the like acceptable?
-Robert Rohde aka Dragons_flight on EN
Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/7/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
This is cute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg
It strikes me that images such as this one, which use project logos (not the Foundation logo) should
a) be available under a specific license describing how they can be reused without permission b) be fairly unrestricted for community use, allowing derivations
Sounds extreamly messy. Define community.
There has been work in other communities regarding distinguishing between "official" and open-use community logos. For instance, you can see Debian's dual logos here: http://www.debian.org/logos/ [1]
--SJ
From what I understand the result of that is that most people use the
free one for pretty much everything.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, geni wrote:
On 2/7/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
This is cute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg
It strikes me that images such as this one, which use project logos (not the Foundation logo) should
a) be available under a specific license describing how they can be reused without permission b) be fairly unrestricted for community use, allowing derivations
Sounds extreamly messy. Define community.
Certainly any project taking place on Wikipedia wikis counts.
There has been work in other communities regarding distinguishing between "official" and open-use community logos. For instance, you can see Debian's dual logos here: http://www.debian.org/logos/ [1]
--SJ
From what I understand the result of that is that most people use the free one for pretty much everything.
That sounds a bit like the history of Wikipedia itself.
SJ
On 2/7/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
There has been work in other communities regarding distinguishing between "official" and open-use community logos. For instance, you can see Debian's dual logos here: http://www.debian.org/logos/ [1]
And we have our own open-use community logo, although not widely recognized yet. Please take a look at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos
On 2/7/07, Łukasz Garczewski lgarczewski@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/7/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
There has been work in other communities regarding distinguishing between "official" and open-use community logos. For instance, you can see Debian's dual logos here: http://www.debian.org/logos/ [1]
And we have our own open-use community logo, although not widely recognized yet. Please take a look at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos
Wikipe-tan is more popular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TAN
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Łukasz Garczewski wrote:
On 2/7/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
There has been work in other communities regarding distinguishing between "official" and open-use community logos. For instance, you can see Debian's dual logos here: http://www.debian.org/logos/ [1]
And we have our own open-use community logo, although not widely recognized yet. Please take a look at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos
Since we also have the benefit of an official Foundation logo, perhaps the project logos can themselves be open-use. What are the problems we are trying to avoid, and what things that we want are being held back due to licensing issues?
For the latter point, there is a joy of creativity and project-identification when a WikiProject develops its own visual identity, whether that is in the form of style guidelines, unified template or infobox format, or icons and logos. And there is a wider remix culture around a project that is encouraged by incorporating community icons into images and other media in innovative ways.
SJ
On 2/9/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Since we also have the benefit of an official Foundation logo, perhaps the project logos can themselves be open-use. What are the problems we are trying to avoid, and what things that we want are being held back due to licensing issues?
the foundation wishes to be able to raise money by lisenceing the use of the logo to third parties
For the latter point, there is a joy of creativity and project-identification when a WikiProject develops its own visual identity, whether that is in the form of style guidelines, unified template or infobox format, or icons and logos. And there is a wider remix culture around a project that is encouraged by incorporating community icons into images and other media in innovative ways.
Community icons yes. The logo no unless you ask permission.
geni wrote:
On 2/9/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Since we also have the benefit of an official Foundation logo, perhaps the project logos can themselves be open-use. What are the problems we are trying to avoid, and what things that we want are being held back due to licensing issues?
the foundation wishes to be able to raise money by lisenceing the use of the logo to third parties
yes. Plus another reason: avoiding other parties to misuse the logo (such as using it to promote a right wing encyclopedic website) and as such damaging our image.
These two reasons (image and possibility to raise money) explain why the Foundation will not put the logos under a free licence.
For the latter point, there is a joy of creativity and project-identification when a WikiProject develops its own visual identity, whether that is in the form of style guidelines, unified template or infobox format, or icons and logos. And there is a wider remix culture around a project that is encouraged by incorporating community icons into images and other media in innovative ways.
Community icons yes. The logo no unless you ask permission.
There is now a community logo.
ant
On 2/11/07, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Plus another reason: avoiding other parties to misuse the logo (such as using it to promote a right wing encyclopedic website) and as such damaging our image.
How do you think they would do that without violating your trademark?
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Anthere wrote:
geni wrote:
On 2/9/07, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Since we also have the benefit of an official Foundation logo, perhaps the project logos can themselves be open-use. What are the problems we are trying to avoid, and what things that we want are being held back due to licensing issues?
the foundation wishes to be able to raise money by lisenceing the use of the logo to third parties
yes. Plus another reason: avoiding other parties to misuse the logo (such as using it to promote a right wing encyclopedic website) and as such damaging our image.
These two reasons (image and possibility to raise money) explain why the Foundation will not put the logos under a free licence.
The first reason you mention (misuse, misrepresenting the projects) sounds like a trademark matter, not a copyright matter.
As to the second reason: free use by wikiProjects, on-wiki, and in other non-commercial ways, would not prevent raising money by licensing logos to people selling something.
An -NC license makes sense here, as does trademark protection; I don't see why derivatives should not be allowed beyond these points.
SJ
Hi,
I installed mediawiki 1.6 and am trying to put featured article, popular article, etc on the home page, just like wikipedia. Any ideas on how I can do that?
Thanks in advance,
regards, Wilson
I'd answer, but I don't want to encourage posting MediaWiki questions to the Foundation listserv. Please use the MediaWiki listserv or other MediaWiki-specific resources, like #mediawiki.
Wilson Abigaba wrote:
Hi,
I installed mediawiki 1.6 and am trying to put featured article, popular article, etc on the home page, just like wikipedia. Any ideas on how I can do that?
Thanks in advance,
regards, Wilson
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This seems to have been a cross-post to foundation-l by a newbie - it has been posted to mediawiki-l, where I will respond :)
On 2/11/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
I'd answer, but I don't want to encourage posting MediaWiki questions to the Foundation listserv. Please use the MediaWiki listserv or other MediaWiki-specific resources, like #mediawiki.
Wilson Abigaba wrote:
Hi,
I installed mediawiki 1.6 and am trying to put featured article, popular article, etc on the home page, just like wikipedia. Any ideas on how I can do that?
Thanks in advance,
regards, Wilson
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org