[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Marcus Buck]

Ilario, please keep apart copyright and trademarks. Rodrigo did not 
question the decision to have the logos trademarked. He just questioned 
the decision to keep them copyrighted.

As Tobias Oelgarte pointed out, a logo can be in the public domain and 
still be protected as a trademark.

The Coca Cola logo for example is pre-1923 and therefore public domain. 
But the copyright status does not affect the status as a trademark. Coca 
Cola is still a strong trademark and there is no cheaply produced 
low-quality fake counterfeit Cola that tries to ship as "Coca Cola". 
Trademark laws work fine without copyright.

The reason why the WMF claims copyright on our logos is, that it's 
easier to get rid of people who do stuff the WMF doesn't like. Even if 
that stuff is perfectly legal under trademark law.

Let me try to construct an example: A company hosts an evil ad-ridden, 
malware-infested copy of Wikipedia with a Wikipedia logo on the front 
page saying "all content from Wikipedia [LOGO]". The WMF wants to get 
rid of it. They sue for trademark infringement. The court decides 
against the WMF, because it thinks that the Wikipedia logo on the front 
page will not be understood by readers as affiliation but as a source 
statement. The WMF can now say "Hah, we lost our case, but now we sue 
them a second time, this time for copyright infringement!"

So the WMF's copyright claim is a method to have an ace up your sleeve 
if you're actually in the wrong legally.

I don't like the concept. I'd rather see the logos freely licensed.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

An'n 03.07.2012 23:29, hett Ilario Valdelli schreven:
> The trademark doesn't protect only the owner, it can protect also the 
> user.
>
> Imagine that a fashion house would release his trademark under free 
> license.
>
> Imagine that you buy a Gucci or Armani shirt and you are sure that 
> it's a Gucci or Armani shirt. And you pay as you may pay the original 
> one or probably more.
>
> It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the 
> original trademark because it has been released under free license.
>
> You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but 
> you have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than 
> the original.
>
> Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the 
> trademark cannot assure that you have an original product.
>
> On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>> hummm... No!
>> I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is 
>> more about
>> values​​, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos?
>>
>
>