I proudly present, those ghastly Olympics mascots, now available on Wikimedia Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympic_mascots.jpg
I shall now await being sued by Lord Coe and the LOGOC and/or a massive deletion debate on Commons.
OGL? Is it?
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 1 May 2012 16:30, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
I proudly present, those ghastly Olympics mascots, now available on
Wikimedia Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympic_mascots.jpg
I shall now await being sued by Lord Coe and the LOGOC and/or a massive
deletion debate on Commons.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply:
Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial...
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 1 May 2012 16:30, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
I proudly present, those ghastly Olympics mascots, now available on Wikimedia Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympic_mascots.jpg
I shall now await being sued by Lord Coe and the LOGOC and/or a massive deletion debate on Commons.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply:
Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial...
Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL.
http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy
There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible.
The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL.
Fantastic Tom! 10/10. I withdraw my earlier nonsensical question.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 1 May 2012 16:51, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply:
Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to
think it's non-commercial...
Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL.
http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy
There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible.
The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I imagine the mascots are trademarks, and that the OGL doesn't release the trademarks as well.... or does it?
Chris
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Fantastic Tom! 10/10. I withdraw my earlier nonsensical question.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 1 May 2012 16:51, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply:
Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to
think it's non-commercial...
Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL.
http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy
There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible.
The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Trademark and copyright law are two separate things - you can release the copyright on something whilst keeping the trademark. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Trademark_law
Thanks, Mike
On 1 May 2012, at 18:54, Chris Keating wrote:
I imagine the mascots are trademarks, and that the OGL doesn't release the trademarks as well.... or does it?
Chris
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Fantastic Tom! 10/10. I withdraw my earlier nonsensical question.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 1 May 2012 16:51, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote: On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply:
Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial...
Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL.
http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy
There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible.
The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I meant to add before clicking 'send': I imagine that's what OGL does, release the copyright but not the trademark (as is standard for free licenses).
Mike
On 1 May 2012, at 18:58, Michael Peel wrote:
Trademark and copyright law are two separate things - you can release the copyright on something whilst keeping the trademark. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Trademark_law
Thanks, Mike
On 1 May 2012, at 18:54, Chris Keating wrote:
I imagine the mascots are trademarks, and that the OGL doesn't release the trademarks as well.... or does it?
Chris
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Fantastic Tom! 10/10. I withdraw my earlier nonsensical question.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 1 May 2012 16:51, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote: On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply:
Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial...
Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL.
http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy
There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible.
The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
this should be a public community discussion. nominated for deletion.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Olympic_ma...
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 16:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
Perhaps I should rephrase my previous nonsensical reply:
Is this really OGL? I suppose it is, but the Flickr account seems to think it's non-commercial...
Yes. It's published by the DCMS, and according to their website, it's Crown Copyright, and thus under the terms of the PSI Framework, is OGL.
http://www.dcms.gov.uk/copyright.aspx http://www.dcms.gov.uk/7085.aspx#Flickr_policy
There's no indication on the Flickr page that it is owned by anyone other than the DCMS, and thus we have good reason to believe it's covered by the OGL. There is an existing license on the Flickr images, and reusers are free to reuse it under CC BY-NC-ND if they feel so inclined. But we've had other OGL images from other government departments that are also licensed on Flickr as some variant of CC that's not Commons compatible.
The DCMS are aware though, through Twitter and email. As are James Forrester and various other people who grok OGL.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org