[WikiEN-l] Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:36:48 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta at ateist.org> wrote:
> Hi Ævar,
> 
> Thank you for the elaboration.
> 
> I still don't see the problem. The logo is not "unfree". It is very much
> free, and even more so than permitted by a traditional GNU license - as I
> recall it.

Well no, the problem is that it must be used to represent atheism
specifically, and could not be placed on the agnosticism article for
instance.

> I do find it ironic that companies like Microsoft that has a long tradition
> of fighting free licenses with their more commercial and restrictive
> approach, are allowed to have their logo on Wikipedia, just because they
> belong to some other commercial or "ill-replaced" category.
> 
> As for the phrase "Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
> ill-replaceable image like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg
> it will get deleted [..]", you might as well be telling me that the
> Microsoft logos is allowed because they are Microsoft logos and the IPU is
> not. It comes very close to telling me that the IPU logo, with the identity
> invested in it, pr. definition simply is not allowed.

That might have been a bit quick of me, what i meant that some images
are more replaceable than others while some are unattainable under a
free licence, like the images on past events such as the Tiananmen
Square protests of 1989.

Make no mistake, we're currently seeking replacement for *all* our
none-free images, but since we have a large pile to go through it's
best to start at the simple things, like images of everyday objects or
not-so-notable subjects.

> The way I interpret all this, is that I now have 2 options:
> 
> 1. Define the IPU logo as a product, so that it would be strictly commercial
> and thus belong to a different set of rules.
> 
> 2. Alter the logo license to allow it to be used for whatever purpose, and
> thus totally obliterate the identity for which it was specifically designed.
> 
> Neither of the above is fair to the general idea of the IPU logo, and both
> would be very unfair (if not legally impossible by now) because there are
> people out there that has adopted the logo on the current license - and for
> what it represents. So I *cannot* alter the license by now, and based on the
> explanation that I've been given so far, this is luckily not something that
> I have any reason to regret.

Well actually you can, the copyright holder (you) can re-issue his or
her work under other licences at any time, all you would have to say
is "i grant permission to use this image under the GFDL" and it would
be so.

However since it's pretty clear at this point that you have no desire
to do so the purpose of this email is to better explain and elaborate
on my intentions and what i meant.

> Because...
> 
> We are talking about a free encyclopedia service that actively wants to
> alter the identity of the very object it sets out to document. It even wants
> to purge itself from facts of reality that does not conform to some dogma of
> how the reality "should" be like. (It gives me associations to when Libya
> removed certain countries from the World Map *LOL*) These matters can hardly
> be to be a desirable attributes of a media type from whom, one should be
> able to expect objectivity.
> 
> As far as I understand you, this is not your doing ;-) You're merely
> relaying some facts to me and I'm glad that you brought this matter to my
> attention. Thanks.
> 
> I will cc this mail correspondence to the mailing list mail address you
> provided to me, hoping that this matter can be settled in a prudent and
> rational way. Should this process, in contrary to my expectations, result in
> the logo being removed, I will also upload our mail correspondence on
> www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, urging the visitors to complain about this
> unfair and irrational ruling - and in the process I fear - undermining
> Wikipedia's credibility.

You can of course list this email on your website asking people to
object, i have no objection to you posting our email correspondence
since it was known all along that this was not a private email.

However you're unlikely to achive anything by it, Wikipedia is
specifically, to quote the Wikipedia article: "an online multilingual
'copyleft' encyclopedia designed to be read and edited by anyone.".
And images and content which does not fit the criteria is actively
being purged out or replaced.

> 
> Thank you for your time.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Tim Ahrentløv
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
> Sent: 27. december 2004 13:32
> To: ta at ateist.org
> Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> 
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:34:19 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta at ateist.org> wrote:
> > Hi Ævar,
> >
> > A simple search on Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft)
> shows
> > the Microsoft logo. A click on the Encarta link
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Encarta) shows the Encarta logo,
> and
> > so on.
> >
> > Are these logos under the GNU license? Can these logos be used for
> whatever
> > purpose *you* may choose? Can they even be used at all, without
> Microsoft's
> > written consent? I must admit I do not understand why the IPU license is a
> > problem for Wikipedia.
> >
> > Do you write to Microsoft or many of the other very restrictive license
> > holders, informing them that their logos and identities *must* be allowed
> to
> > be used for any purpose imaginable? I find that hard to believe. I also
> find
> > it counterproductive to Wikipedia's role of simply relaying facts.
> >
> > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, please allow me to doubt that your request
> actually
> > conforms to the standards set by Wikipedia, and please be aware that I
> will
> > protest to this seemingly unfair and illogical ruling.
> >
> > Mvh
> > Tim Ahrentløv
> 
> Not all images on wikipedia are "free", some, like the ones you
> mentioned are fair use logos, and others are under a none-commercial
> licence and more others have other terms, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_by_copyright_status
> 
> There is an active movement to purge these images from wikipedia
> and/or replace them with free ones which can be used without
> restriction, a central staging area for this "operation" is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images , your
> image got listed there (not by me) stating that it "imposes condition
> that [the] symbol must represent atheism".
> 
> Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
> ill-replaceable image like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg it will get deleted
> on January 10, 2005 (30 days from the initial listing) unless we can
> get a licence for it which is compatible with the GFDL.
> 
> The reason for doing this is because wikipedia is not simply a fact
> relaying device, but a free encyclopedia, most other languages than
> the english version of it do not even accept none-free images and en.
> is actively phasing them out.
> 
> As for any "official" protest please make them if you desire to do so,
> the english mailing list (wikien-l at wikipedia.org) would probably be
> the best way to do so, however note that I'm in no way making any sort
> of "ruling" on this, I simply saw the listing of the image on Possibly
> unfree images and decided to E-Mail the author of it to request that
> he grant permission to use it under a compatible licence.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 27. december 2004 02:48
> > To: ta at ateist.org
> > Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:04:37 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta at ateist.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Ævar,
> > >
> > > The IPU license is available here:
> > > http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu_logo_license.htm
> > >
> > > I fail to see what this license lacks in regard to the more formal GNU
> > > license. Basically, the license allows *anyone* to use the logo for
> *any*
> > > purpose (also commercial!) as long as it is used to represent atheism.
> The
> > > logo no longer belongs to me or www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, but to a
> > > purpose. I don't see that it can get any better or more public domain
> than
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Please elaborate on what seems to be missing from this current license,
> > > because I don't see any problems.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Tim Ahrentløv
> > >
> >
> > The problem specifically is the "used to represent atheism" part,
> > which does not give permission to use the image for porpoises other
> > than the representation of atheism which conflicts with PD and the
> > GFDL which allow the use of material for any porpoise.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: 26. december 2004 23:26
> > > To: ta at invisiblepinkunicorn.com
> > > Subject: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> > >
> > > Notice: Consider this a none-private email.
> > >
> > > The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on wikipedia will be deleted on the
> > > next few days if it is not placed under a licence compatible with the
> > > GNU Free Documentation Licence or similar within the next few days,
> > > would you be willing to dual licence the image under the IPU Logo
> > > License and the GFDL so that it can be used in the article?
> > >
> > > URLs:
> > > IPU Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
> > > IPU Photo:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>