[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Your answer would imply that we never ever should try to combine a free 
image with any of our logos in a single work (not a collection). I wrote 
the reason in a previous mail already. We would have a copyright 
violation if the new work is released under a free license since the 
logo isn't free or we don't release it under a free license which is a 
copyright violation of the free image. This is a dilemma and the only 
reasonable/responsible consequence is to not create such an image and to 
delete all images which are subject to this issue.

Given this ugly situation i have to ask: Why?

We have hundreds, thousands if not millions of files which have 
restrictions (de minimis, personal rights, FOP, ...) aside from 
copyright law. The logos are just the same but are treated entirely 
differently, despite the fact that it is much more like that one of the 
other (not so) free images is reused in cases which are against the law. 
I just don't get your argument.

nya~

Am 08.07.2012 22:17, schrieb Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com:
> The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks.
>
> It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally.
>
> In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I do not understand at all.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton<rodrigo.argenton at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and
>> no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, with
>> the trademark rights guaranteed.
>>
>> Again why is not free?
>>
>> -- 
>> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
>> rodrigo.argenton at gmail.com
>> +55 11 7971-8884
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>