[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I
see it as something contradictory.

--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
[hidden email]
+55 11 7971-8884
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Pedro Sanchez-2
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I
> see it as something contradictory.
>
> --
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> [hidden email]
> +55 11 7971-8884
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

It had something to do with defending the trademark, if I recall
correctly, although I think Commons makes a difference between
copyrighted and trademarked images. ~~~~

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Fajro
Maybe this could be clarified in the FAQ

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#FAQ

Also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_of_Wikipedia


--
Fajro

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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?

--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
[hidden email]
+55 11 7971-8884
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Richard Symonds-3
What purpose would it serve to release the WMF's logos? Surely it would
damage the project rather than help it... copyright isn't always a bad
thing!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk



On 3 July 2012 22:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <[hidden email]>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?
>
> --
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> [hidden email]
> +55 11 7971-8884
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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?
>


--
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
In reply to this post by Richard Symonds-3
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?

--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
[hidden email]
+55 11 7971-8884
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

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?
>


--
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Tobias Oelgarte
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?
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing
free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to
make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not
release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't
agree to do that.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
[hidden email]> 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?
>
> --
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> [hidden email]
> +55 11 7971-8884
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Tobias Oelgarte
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?
>>>
>>
>>
>


--
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Marcus Buck-2
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
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?
>>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Tobias Oelgarte
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Birgitte_sb
I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the logo listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as "free" of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.

It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of "Do not use."

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <[hidden email]> 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.
>
> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Tobias Oelgarte
We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the
user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any
context due to additional trademark restrictions.

This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for
public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in
some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to
different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content
that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are
personal rights. For example the German "Recht am eigenen Bild" is very
restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person.

What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in
our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws
aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and
including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common
practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception.

Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb [hidden email]:

> I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the logo listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as "free" of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.
>
> It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of "Do not use."
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<[hidden email]>  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.
>>
>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Birgitte_sb
That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it seems to make practical sense?

Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do not find that consistency is inherently desirable.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions.
>
> This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German "Recht am eigenen Bild" is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person.
>
> What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception.
>
> Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb [hidden email]:
>> I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the logo listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as "free" of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.
>>
>> It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of "Do not use."
>>
>> Birgitte SB
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<[hidden email]>  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.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Tobias Oelgarte
 From my experience the re-users barely read any of the licenses and
already expect every of our images to be "free beer". Sometimes i looked
where my images and articles are used and i noticed quite a lot of
copyright violations. I took my time to mail the re-users and informed
them what they have to do to comply with the licenses. As the result i
saw two general pattern. The small private pages were users expected
that our images would be "free beer" and the bigger (typical copyright
violation) pages that didn't respond at all. The first group was usually
very surprised and immediately corrected the content of the pages after
i informed them about their mistake.

 From this experience i learned that not many are really aware of the
copyright issues or license requirements. So i can't expect that the
logos are seen or used any different, despite the missing free license.

If i would apply your logic on trademarks to the many other logos we
host, then we could upload them without any licensing condition or not
at all, since you deny that this images would be useful outside of
Wikipedia.

But there are cases in which this missing license information is an
actual problem. Every of our mirrors by now is a copyright violation and
could be sued by the WMF (unlikely, but possible), since they can't
comply with the licensing, given the fact that this images have no valid
license.

Overall i see no real harm to release this images under a free license,
because it would not change much. People either read the license text
and understand or they ignore it because of the two basic reasons I
explained above. The advantage would be that we now could use the logos
in collections which are freely licensed itself. Up till now it is
impossible to release a collection under CC-BY-SA which contains one of
the logos and i also can't incorporate them into other images, just
because i can't mix "no license" with "free license".

This example is an actual copyright violation:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beziehung_zwischen_Wikipedia_und_der_Presse.svg

The used press logo is under the LGPL. The Wikipedia ball has no
license. Not mentioning the LGPL would be a copyright violation, but
putting it on the image is also a copyright violation regarding the
logo. So what to do? The logical consequence would be to delete the
image, despite its many uses...


Am 04.07.2012 05:46, schrieb [hidden email]:

> That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it seems to make practical sense?
>
> Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do not find that consistency is inherently desirable.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions.
>>
>> This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German "Recht am eigenen Bild" is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person.
>>
>> What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception.
>>
>> Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb [hidden email]:
>>> I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance.  Many people, when seeing the logo listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image.  They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as "free" of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.
>>>
>>> It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of "Do not use."
>>>
>>> Birgitte SB
>>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte<[hidden email]>   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.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Tobias Oelgarte
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 <
[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [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<
> [hidden email]>  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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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
[hidden email]
+55 11 7971-8884
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12