[Foundation-l] Foundation logo : pain and suffering

[Anthere]

Imagine a person makes a photo of a sunflower field. There are several 
sunflowers, some green stuff, light, insects... I am sure you would 
agree it is a "copyrigtable" picture. There is a creative work here.

Then, imagine you put this image under GFDL.
As such, any derivative of the image ... must say under GFDL.

Now, imagine a new person comes and decide to pick up an element in the 
image. Make a crop of a flower. Then remove all the background. Enhance 
a bit the color. Smooth the borders. Add a pinch of light here. Darken a 
bit there. There is a creative work here. And it is a derivative.

Should not it stay under GFDL ?

I'd say yes.

At best, you may consider it a sort of something under fair use.

But to claim it is not copyrightable is, at best, shocking.

Ant




ATR wrote:
> After thinking about it and reading the comments of
> the two individuals (who just happen both to be WMF
> board members) whose alleged PD content makes
> up the logo and reconsidering what I posted before
> I have several comments/clarifications:
> 
> First, if something is so generic that it has no real content,
> i.e. a closeup of a sunflower and a set of brackets, it cannot
> be "released into the public domain" because it is already
> uncopyrightable; IMHO any such "license" is irrelevant as a
> matter of law. How is anyone going to know if one photo of a
> sunflower close up is the same as another? Can someone
> copyright a set of brackets? I don't think so, that seems silly
> to me, there is no real creativity there. Not everthing we do
> is protected by copyright law, so you cannot PD something
> that can't be PD, or if you want to suggest that it is PD
> that does not mean that trademark law cannot superseded
> by copyright law and people can use it in violation of trademark
> law just because someone said, "hey I released this into the
> public domain because I was just a volunteer for the
> organization that is now using it."
> 
> Putting together those two elements creates a logo, and
> a logo is covered by statutory & common trademark law.
> The basis principle of trademark law is that the trademark
> belongs to whomever uses it, here it has been in use by the
> Wikimedia Foundation, it was created on its servers and it
> belongs to it, anyone, even board members of the WMF
> cannot suggest that it belongs to them or can be transfered to
> some kind of "public ownership" because they are not
> using it "in commerce" and never did. Correct me if I am
> wrong.  Otherwise it is Wikimedia Foundation that "owns"
> the logo, and all the underlying intellectual property rights
> to said logo, whatever such rights may be notwithstanding
> whatever anyone says or whatever they might have did,
> i..e., declaring such logo as being "public domain."
> 
> Creating a logo for "public domain use" is an absurdity,
> it is like mixing apples with oranges.There is no such thing as
> releasing a logo into the public domain, once logos fall into
> disuse they are no longer logos, just graphics; as Eric
> points out people can certainly create graphics that use
> parts of other graphics that are generic, that happens all
> the time and does not depend on the "public domain" just
> as no one "owns" words, no one owns basic symbols or
> reproductions of images that are so generic that no one
> can really tell who made those images. However if someone
> creates a "logo" that causes confusion with another logo,
> especially one that is protected by statutory trademark law
> the question is, does the owner care if the mark is diluted by
> such wrongful infringement? If the owner does nothing and/or
> its board members condone such action eventually that
> trademark will be worthless, but I would like to point out
> that board members owe a fiduciary duty to the organization(s)
> on which they sit.
> 
> I would like to note that I am discussing this issue publicly as
> volunteer not in any "official" or "unofficial" capacity. I am
> not disclosing anything here that is not a matter of public record.
> 
>  Alex T Roshuk
> Attorney at law
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Erik Moeller" <erik at wikimedia.org>
> To: "ATR" <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation logo : pain and suffering
> 
> 
> | The MW logo is PD content and Anthere and I explicitly designated it
> | as such. I'm not even going to get into any discussion about whether
> | we could retroactively "un-PD" it, as I find such attempts to put
> | content that has been explicitly released to the public under a
> | proprietary license unethical.
> |
> | Is it valuable for the MW logo to be copyrighted by the WMF? Maybe it
> | is, maybe it isn't. I'm skeptical. I've seen dozens of wikis which
> | have "remixed" the MW logo to make their own (put something else
> | between the double square brackets etc.). I think that's pretty cool
> | and has not created any confusion as far as I know, since MediaWiki is
> | primarily a product rather than a community website of its own.
> |
> | I suggest distinguishing strongly between the brand name MediaWiki and
> | the picture used to represent it. One can be protected while the other
> | is not.
> | -- 
> | Peace & Love,
> | Erik
> |
> | Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> |
> | DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> | in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> | position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.