[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Toolserver-l] [TS logo] Fwd: Free as in Wikimedia Foundation

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

well put. I think that clearly WMF legal department assumed that having the
trademark registered is such a good idea that it does not require a
dialogue with the community, while the symbolic beginnings and the history
of logo creation make such a move, especially without a prior discussion
and explanation, clearly awkward.

I believe that a lot of unnecessary ruckus and bad faith assumptions stem
from poor dialogue between WMF and the community at large...

dj


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Heather Ford <heather.ford at oii.ox.ac.uk>wrote:

> +1, Nathan. I think you very articulately pointed out the key problem
> that's been misidentified in this i.e. that the problem is *not* in WMF's
> protection of Wikimedia TM's generally (although I think there is still
> much to be improved about a process that results in stories like this
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-) but rather
> where the WMF chose to register a logo that was specifically designed by a
> member of the community to be used by groups who do not purport to
> represent the WMF but want something they can remix for their own thematic
> projects or use for unaffiliated events.
>
> And I think it's unfair to suggest that any time someone complains about
> something the Foundation is doing they're exhibiting bad faith. If that was
> true, any critique would be an act of bad faith. We're all, in our own way,
> trying to help Wikimedia grow and flourish. The truth is that we have
> different ideas about how to get there.
>
> best,
> Heather.
>
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> I won't argue the fact that there is value in protecting the
> iconography of the Wikimedia movement from abuse. What I argue with is
> the approach of the legal department - to unilaterally, and without
> notice, contradict the purpose of a set of logos by declaring
> ownership over them, and then to at the same time suggest the
> community hold a contest to create a whole new set of logos over which
> the WMF will supposedly not take the same action.
>
> To then frame the discussion with repeated notes about the distinction
> between copyright and trademark makes it sound like they see this as a
> problem of a lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of their
> critics', which simply isn't the case.
>
> The reality is if they had suggested last year that "hey, the
> Foundation wants to make sure these marks are protected from abuse,
> would anyone mind if we registered them just to make sure they aren't
> abused? We'll allow them to be used with a standard permission set
> that doesn't require a request process." then the response would've
> been absolutely minimal and positive. But they didn't.
>
> If you're familiar with my posts to this list, I'm not normally on the
> anti-WMF side of debates (for instance, wrt WCA). But when they make a
> boob move, I don't think its bad faith to point it out. And, not for
> nothing, accusing others of bad faith is generally ill advised.
> Anyway, this is a small bore issue, and the consequences of any
> outcome are mild to say the least. But, a few posts on a wiki and on
> wikimedia-l don't cost much ;)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org<mailto: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
>