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.
--
Robert Scott Horning
){kind=link}
