[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both 
concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that 
are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, 
depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed 
threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. 
Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i 
don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed 
freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at 
the same time.

Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
> Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.
>
> I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons 
> content in another website also commercial.
>
> So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, 
> the repository may be not free.
>
> Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, 
> it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
>
>
>
> On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>> I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German 
>> law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, 
>> but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo 
>> is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go 
>> strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be 
>> deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of 
>> the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission 
>> itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.
>>
>> Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
>>> A mark is not a simple image.
>>>
>>> A mark it's a symbol.
>>>
>>> On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>>>> So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a
>>>> picture?
>>>>
>>>> And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, 
>>>> instead of
>>>> checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk 
>>>> to our
>>>> volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
>>>> single
>>>> source?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>