[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

The current definition is very protective and incompatible with free 
licenses. I can't take a free licensed photo and put the Wikipedia logo 
in the background. It's not because the Logo can't be used, it's because 
i can't release the the end result under a free license. If i would 
create such an image and release it with the license from the photo then 
it would be effectively the same as releasing the logo under this 
license. If the copyright holder disagrees then i created a copyright 
violation and could be sued.

If i would publish such an image under a free license then it would mean:

A) I'm creating a copyright violation since i have not the right to 
release the image, which includes the logo, under a free license.
B) The copyright holder agrees to include the logo and he also agrees 
with the viral license, which is effectively the same as releasing the 
logo itself.

What now?

Am 04.07.2012 11:10, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
> I have no time to find the page, but the logo of Wikipedia may be used for
> no commercial use. So it's not public domain, but has a sufficient freedom
> of use.
>
> The question is to understand what is the feeling of the normal people in
> internet.
>
> So, in this specific case I would really associate copyright law and
> trademark law because for cases like Wikipedia the difference is a "nuance".
>
> The logo of Wikipedia is a symbol not in terms of mark, but it is a symbol
> because if you use it, the persons associate it with a specific idea of
> good will and extend this idea to the project or the product using it.
>
> Any project or initiative would have the logo of Wikipedia because they
> would have people associating a good feeling to the project, but are we
> sure that all projects are useful and good projects ans socially innovative?
>
> Wikipedia is an useful project, you use the logo of Wikipedia, so you are
> useful. And I think that the persons assume that someone supervises that
> this logo is used appropriately.
>
> The current definition of the use of the Wikipedia logo, it is sufficiently
> protective for a world based on the simple rule that what is in my screen
> is mine and that anything is free can be used for any purposes.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Tobias Oelgarte<
> tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>