After nearly a month of voting, the logo has been chosen for Wikimedia Incubator (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Incubator/logo).
I'm writing on behalf of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NielsF, who created the logo. He wishes to know how to tranfer copyright over to the Wikimedia Foundation.
What would need to be included in a transferal statement, and where should it be put?
Thank you very much.
Daniel Bregman wrote:
After nearly a month of voting, the logo has been chosen for Wikimedia Incubator (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Incubator/logo).
I'm writing on behalf of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NielsF, who created the logo. He wishes to know how to tranfer copyright over to the Wikimedia Foundation.
What would need to be included in a transferal statement, and where should it be put?
Probably to permissions@wikimedia.org and probably something to the effect of "I, <name>, permanantly and irrevocably transfer all claims and copyrights to the Wikimedia Foundation."
Or, I could be completely wrong. Ask Brad :)
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Daniel Bregman wrote:
After nearly a month of voting, the logo has been chosen for Wikimedia Incubator (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Incubator/logo).
I'm writing on behalf of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NielsF, who created the logo. He wishes to know how to tranfer copyright over to the Wikimedia Foundation.
What would need to be included in a transferal statement, and where should it be put?
Probably to permissions@wikimedia.org and probably something to the effect of "I, <name>, permanantly and irrevocably transfer all claims and copyrights to the Wikimedia Foundation."
Or, I could be completely wrong. Ask Brad :)
I concur, "ask Brad". I will also ask a question to Brad. Is that a problem that the logo is so similar to the logo of the Foundation (which seems to breech http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines ?)
Anthere
On 31/07/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I concur, "ask Brad". I will also ask a question to Brad. Is that a problem that the logo is so similar to the logo of the Foundation (which seems to breech http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines ?)
Anthere
I disagree with them looking too similar, they are part of a theme. But, in the future, perhaps a member of the board should monitor logo votes to prevent this kind of thing happening?
It seems rather silly (and very bureaucratic) that dozens of users have participated in a discussion about the Incubator logo, that several have invested time designing logos, and that dozens have voted, only to be shot down after the completion of the vote (so community selection of the logo) by the Foundation.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 31/07/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I concur, "ask Brad". I will also ask a question to Brad. Is that a problem that the logo is so similar to the logo of the Foundation (which seems to breech http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines ?)
Anthere
I disagree with them looking too similar, they are part of a theme.
That's debatable. There are good sides and bad sides. I am rather neutral toward the idea of using a "theme".
On the "good" side, it may help promote a new project that readers automatically "connect" it with a bigger project they already love and understand (except that the project they love is actually Wikipedia, so they do not connect anything at all).
On the "good" side, it may help that it be "connected" with meta.
On the "bad" side, we may wonder how the logo of our 15th project will look... it might become a bit confusing to see all these so-similar logos. I like the egg-concept. It may be that always using the same colors might be interpretated as a lack of creativity.
BUT *here*, my question was essentially legalistic.
Imagine Oldak... that for some reasons the projects (one or several) separate from the Foundation. Do you think it is "legally" wise that a project logo is actually a distorsion of the Foundation logo ?
But, in the future, perhaps a member of the board should monitor logo votes to prevent this kind of thing happening?
Yes. Which would require board to be informed such a vote is taking place. I mean *really* informed. We can see *something* is going on, but we can not be everywhere and can not follow all discussions.
It seems rather silly (and very bureaucratic) that dozens of users have participated in a discussion about the Incubator logo, that several have invested time designing logos, and that dozens have voted, only to be shot down after the completion of the vote (so community selection of the logo) by the Foundation.
A board member is not the Foundation
And a board member is not a rubber stamp
http://blog.anthere.org/index.php/2006/07/22/68-tiens-signe-la
On 8/1/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Imagine Oldak... that for some reasons the projects (one or several) separate from the Foundation. Do you think it is "legally" wise that a project logo is actually a distorsion of the Foundation logo ?
What's wrong with waiting until the project separates from the foundation to make it change its logo?
Anthony
Anthere wrote:
Imagine Oldak... that for some reasons the projects (one or several) separate from the Foundation. Do you think it is "legally" wise that a project logo is actually a distorsion of the Foundation logo ?
Since project logos and names are trademarked by the WMF, what would be the difference? I really don't see what the problem would be here for the Incubator logo, as it really is intended to be a service to the Wikimedia projects and is in a way a child of the WMF. Approval for such a project (like this incubator project) should in theory have been before the board before it gets started, which already implies a huge legal connection to the WMF anyway.
If a project did decide to go off on its own, do its own fundraising etc., it is likely to be schismatic anyway due to a major policy dispute. In that case, it would simply be a fork of the content and not necessarily a project leaving quietly being "spun-off" as a completely seperate legal entity. Even then, logos would likely need to be changed substantially and perhaps even new project names created.
Hi.
I am sorry to say that this logo violates the Wikimedia Visual identity guidelines [1].
On a personal note, I am saddened to see that we don't seem to come up with any grand ideas, a little fresh and different, for new logos that are needed. As much as I like the idea behind the logo, I find it disheartening that people keep adapting the same logos again and again. For an incubator, this is even sadder.
In any case, before a new logo is used on any of the Wikimedia projects/websites, it should be approved by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Cheers,
Delphine [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
On 7/31/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Bregman wrote:
After nearly a month of voting, the logo has been chosen for Wikimedia Incubator (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Incubator/logo).
I'm writing on behalf of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NielsF, who created the logo. He wishes to know how to tranfer copyright over to the Wikimedia Foundation.
What would need to be included in a transferal statement, and where should it be put?
Probably to permissions@wikimedia.org and probably something to the effect of "I, <name>, permanantly and irrevocably transfer all claims and copyrights to the Wikimedia Foundation."
Or, I could be completely wrong. Ask Brad :)
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 01/08/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On a personal note, I am saddened to see that we don't seem to come up with any grand ideas, a little fresh and different, for new logos that are needed. As much as I like the idea behind the logo, I find it disheartening that people keep adapting the same logos again and again. For an incubator, this is even sadder.
I entirely disagree. I think all Wikimedia logos should conform to a particular theme (stylistic, colour, &c.). It gives Wikimedia a unifying identity ([[corporate identity]]?) and makes our projects quickly recognisable.
Many logos were nominated, some completely different to existing logos, others not. Users chose this one by majority and we should work to preserve this decision (perhaps by minimally modifying the logo to escape the problem and resubmitting it to a vote). --- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
On 8/1/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I entirely disagree. I think all Wikimedia logos should conform to a particular theme (stylistic, colour, &c.). It gives Wikimedia a unifying identity ([[corporate identity]]?) and makes our projects quickly recognisable.
As long as nobody gets the idea to color our lovely Wikipedia puzzle ball in the Wikimedia colors .. ;-)
Erik
Delphine Ménard wrote:
Hi.
I am sorry to say that this logo violates the Wikimedia Visual identity guidelines [1].
On a personal note, I am saddened to see that we don't seem to come up with any grand ideas, a little fresh and different, for new logos that are needed. As much as I like the idea behind the logo, I find it disheartening that people keep adapting the same logos again and again. For an incubator, this is even sadder.
Reminds me of the Wikisource problem - people kept trying to make variations of the Wikipedia logo...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org