[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

[Marcus Buck]

This is a thread that accidentally became off-list due to a wrong 
reply-to header.

Mike Godwin hett schreven:
 > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
 > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:
 > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org> 
wrote:
 > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:
 > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Marcus Buck 
<me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
 > > > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:
 > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Marcus Buck 
<me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
 > > > > > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:
 > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck 
<me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
 > > > > > > > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven:
 > > > > > > > > > > >  My guess, admittedly based on nothing but 
anecdotal evidence, is that the
 > > > > > > > > > > >  Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely 
artificial and unnecessary
 > > > > > > > > > > >  dispute have not consulted independent trademark 
and copyright experts with
 > > > > > > > > > > >  regard to the rationale for their decision.
 > > > > > > > > > > >
 > > > > > > > > > >  Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so 
share your knowledge.
 > > > > > > > > > >  What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with 
it's PD-old logo and
 > > > > > > > > > >  Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions 
to protect our projects
 > > > > > > > > > >  when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization 
with non-copyrighted
 > > > > > > > > > >  logo) does not?
 > > > > > > > > >
 > > > > > > > > > This is explained in the policy document I posted a 
link for.
 > > > > > > > >
 > > > > > > > > Perhaps there's some magic sentence in that policy 
document
 > > > > > > > > 
(<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy>) that explains the
 > > > > > > > > difference and is obvious to an expert. I am no expert, 
so it's not obvious
 > > > > > > > > to me. The word "copyright" is not even mentioned in 
the document. My
 > > > > > > > > question was: why is trademark protection insufficient 
for Wikimedia when
 > > > > > > > > it is sufficient to protect the rights of the Coca Cola 
Company? Why do we
 > > > > > > > > need additional copyright protection when the Coca Cola 
Company is fine
 > > > > > > > > with an uncopyrighted logo?
 > > > > > > > Why do you think the word "copyright" has to be used in 
the trademark document
 > > > > > > > when when copyright terms like "content" are used? It's 
true that the policy
 > > > > > > > document assumes that a reader will know that content is 
subject to copyright
 > > > > > > > law, and that "free license" refers to "free copyright 
license."
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > > The reason I think that is that my question specifically 
was about copyright.
 > > > > > > You said the answer to my question is in the policy. It is 
not. Let me once
 > > > > > > again repeat my question: Why would logos licensed under a 
license like
 > > > > > > CC-by-sa weaken our legal position when e.g. Coca Cola has 
no problem at all
 > > > > > > to legally protect itself although the logo is PD?
 > > > > >
 > > > > > The benefit comes from being able to prevent deceptive and 
confusing re-use of
 > > > > > the logo through copyright remedies as well as trademark 
remedies. As soon as
 > > > > > the puzzle >globe becomes as widely recognized as the 
Coca-Cola logo, we can
 > > > > > revisit the issue.
 > > > >
 > > > > Thanks. That's what I thought. Basically you are saying you 
want the logos to
 > > > > be copyrighted to be able to fight trademark infringement (like 
"deceptive and
 > > > > confusing re-use") with non-trademark-law tools.
 > > >
 > > > That's not quite right.  What I'm saying is that we reserve the 
right to use any
 > > > lawful tools to prevent others from misrepresenting themselves as 
us, and to
 > > > ensure the freedom of Wikimedia content, including both 
trademark-law tools and
 > > > non-trademark-law tools that are available to us.
 > >
 > > That's the same as I said, isn't it? Just rendered in words that 
try to sound
 > > nicer.
 >
 > It's not the same, no.
 > > >
 > > > Weakening our legal ability to enforce free licenses in the name 
of a
 > > > misconception about ideological purity is very much an 
ill-considered idea.
 > >
 > > Trademark law is designed to protect trademarks. Copyright law is 
designed to
 > > protect the author's rights. Copyright law can be (ab)used to put 
legal pressure
 > > on a trademark infringer but if your case is valid trademark law is 
sufficient
 > > to stop the infringer.
 >
 > No lawyer I know assumes that trademark law is a magical cure-all for 
cases of
 > infringement. Nor is infringement the only issue that needs to be 
addressed.
 > >
 > > And you may call it a "misconception about ideological purity" but 
free licenses
 > > are part of the Foundation's mission statement. It's not 
"ideological purity",
 > > it's "integrity" to follow your own ideals.
 >
 > You are perhaps unfamiliar with my career if you imagine that I lack 
integrity or
 > ideals. 

Yes, I am indeed unfamiliar with your fine career (except for the famous 
"law") but
I never suggested anything like that. Anybody re-reading my sentence will
recognize that that was not what I said.

 > What I am trying to explain to you is that you have a very
 > unsophisticated, un-nuanced understanding of what free licenses are, 
what
 > trademark law can and cannot do, and what tools can serve the mission of
 > Wikipedia, which is to ensure that free knowledge is available to 
everyone. 
 > If you do not see how the Wikimedia Foundation's use of both 
trademark law and
 > copyright law is designed to promote the mission, then let me suggest 
you have
 > not given adequate thought to the mission, or adequate study to the 
legal issues
 > involved.

You may have a great career and expertise but until now you haven't used 
this
expertise much in this discussion. Instead you have used argumentum ab 
auctoritate
and have tried to depict people disagreeing with you as incompetent.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox