Wikimedia logos on Commons

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

Wikimedia logos on Commons

Bryan Tong Minh
I know this has come up some more times, but this time somebody
actually filed a deletion request about all Wikimedia logos, see
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Copyright_by_Wikimedia>.

Note that the nomination is correct by the letter, so unless the
foundation changes the licensing policy, we will have to delete the
images. Nobody wants them deleted, so I would ask the board to clarify
on this issue.

Bryan

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Gregory Maxwell
On 8/23/07, Bryan Tong Minh <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I know this has come up some more times, but this time somebody
> actually filed a deletion request about all Wikimedia logos, see
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Copyright_by_Wikimedia>.
>
> Note that the nomination is correct by the letter, so unless the
> foundation changes the licensing policy, we will have to delete the
> images. Nobody wants them deleted, so I would ask the board to clarify
> on this issue.

Staff/foundation folks should also look at the images listed before commenting.

For the true Foundation logos. It would be best to remove them from
commons, and make them accessible from the skins... but thats not
really technically feasible to achieve without a lot of needless work,
so they should say. ... and for these images I think that the
nominator is being intentionally and needlessly disruptive.

A number of these images, however, are not official foundation logos
and I expect the foundation would not and should not approve of them.

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Erik Moeller-4
On 8/23/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For the true Foundation logos. It would be best to remove them from
> commons, and make them accessible from the skins...

I hacked a MediaWiki option $wgAllowExternalImagesFrom a while ago
that makes it possible to use MediaWiki's URL-to-image translation
with a defined basepath URL. So it would theoretically at least be
easy to allow basic image usage by putting the logos in a protected
path somewhere and referencing them as URLs. That limits the usage
possibilities though.

Personally I feel that the real answer is to figure out what
"free/libre" truly means in the context of identifying works such as
logos. I don't believe existing free content licenses are appropriate
for such works. The main purpose of a logo is to identify something.
To "liberate" it in the sense of permitting completely unrestricted
use is to render it useless.  But perhaps "liberation" here should
mean something different.

For example:
- a free/libre logo could be one which can be used in a list of
defined scenarios without permission.
- a free/libre logo could be one which always has a corresponding,
freely licensed "community" logo (Debian style).
- a free/libre logo could be one which makes the frictionless model of
"don't ask for permission but respect requests for removal" explicit.

The problem is not unique to us, and conflicts over the meaning of
freedom in the context of trademarks/logos have led to
counterproductive infighting in the free culture movement (such as the
renaming of Firefox to Iceweasel in Debian GNU/Linux for trademark
reasons).

To me, it sounds like a job for a workgroup of interested people who
would bring both a legal and an ethical  perspective to the subject.
Is anyone interested in pursuing this line of reasoning further?

--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Bryan Tong Minh
On 23/08/07, Bryan Tong Minh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I know this has come up some more times, but this time somebody
> actually filed a deletion request about all Wikimedia logos, see
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Copyright_by_Wikimedia>.
> Note that the nomination is correct by the letter, so unless the
> foundation changes the licensing policy, we will have to delete the
> images. Nobody wants them deleted, so I would ask the board to clarify
> on this issue.


This is a canonical case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT -
you even say yourself you don't want the outcome you're asking for.


- d.

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

metasj
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Personally I feel that the real answer is to figure out what
> "free/libre" truly means in the context of identifying works such as
> logos. I don't believe existing free content licenses are appropriate
> for such works. The main purpose of a logo is to identify something.
> To "liberate" it in the sense of permitting completely unrestricted
> use is to render it useless.  But perhaps "liberation" here should
> mean something different.

Copyright and trademark are distinct.  I don't know of a reason to impose
copyright restrictions on logos.  You still retain the right to protect
the use of the logo in a way that might be confusing (with respect
to identifying something).

It should be possible in a copyright sense to use an image in a variety of
ways as long as the result isn't confusing in the trademark sense.


> For example:
> - a free/libre logo could be one which can be used in a list of
> defined scenarios without permission.
> - a free/libre logo could be one which makes the frictionless model of
> "don't ask for permission but respect requests for removal" explicit.

A combination of these two would be great.  Clear permission scenarios,
and some fuzzy ones in which the 'dont ask but respect requests' kicks in.


> - a free/libre logo could be one which always has a corresponding,
> freely licensed "community" logo (Debian style).

This would be a mistake.  Who in the Debian community thinks this was a
good idea?  Nowadays noone uses the non-community logo.


> To me, it sounds like a job for a workgroup of interested people who
> would bring both a legal and an ethical  perspective to the subject.
> Is anyone interested in pursuing this line of reasoning further?

Yes.

SJ

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Gregory Maxwell
On 8/23/07, SJ Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Copyright and trademark are distinct.  I don't know of a reason to impose
> copyright restrictions on logos.  You still retain the right to protect
> the use of the logo in a way that might be confusing (with respect
> to identifying something).

+1 +1 +1 +1.

> > - a free/libre logo could be one which always has a corresponding,
> > freely licensed "community" logo (Debian style).
>
> This would be a mistake.  Who in the Debian community thinks this was a
> good idea?  Nowadays noone uses the non-community logo.

I mostly agree.

People want to use the logo because it looks official. So either the
community logo out competes the official (bad), or people won't want
to use it (pointless).

In many cases the places where I've the users really interested in
using derivative logos they are trying to make something look more
official looking than it actually is... For example, the CVU ("counter
vandalism unit") using the Wikimedia Foundation logo.

In cases where the actual desires conflict, (groups wanting to wear
official badges, foundation, wisely, unwilling to give official status
to questionable projects) there is no solution which will make people
happy.

I agree that we should permit the use of logos in Wikipedia articles.
Thats why I support the policies which allow limited fair use images..
Logos and the like clearly fit inside of that.  As a result I don't
think we need to do anything else.

Erik, I understand that you're unhappy with Dewp's decisions about
these matters ... but their position is a long standing one. It's not
right of us to subvert their choices by redefining free licenses in
order to get content they have rejected into commons from where they
can't currently refuse it.

As far as the WMF logos go, I don't see anything wrong with keeping
them in commons for technical reasons.. If we can actually take them
out and still have scaling and the like, then we should do it. I
wasn't aware that we were able to do that already.  The deletion
debate is just a crazy violation of WP:POINT, ... a policy we
obviously need to copy to commons now.

If you think it makes sense to build a repository of non-free images
for things like logos which are widely used on many projects, then I
wouldn't oppose doing such a thing... but such content should stay out
of commons.

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Lilewyn
In reply to this post by Bryan Tong Minh
If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?

I don't know the details of how Commons image-sharing works, but if this is possible, just make it a closed project (similar to the foundation wiki itself) since uploads will be limited to "official" images.

Comments?




      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Mitchell-15
That sounds like it would work.

____________________
Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lilewyn
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:47 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons

If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a
similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the
like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?

I don't know the details of how Commons image-sharing works, but if this is
possible, just make it a closed project (similar to the foundation wiki
itself) since uploads will be limited to "official" images.

Comments?




      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to
Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Lilewyn
On 24/08/07, Lilewyn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?

THAT SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE THE FUNCTION OF COMMONS.

Sorry to shout. Commons accepts these images (despite the
contradiction with our policy). WMF accepts us hosting them (despite
the contradiction with the recent Licensing Resolution). If people
want to push for any change to resolve these contradictions, it should
be to ask WMF to release a statement stating the obvious, that it is
acceptable for Commons to host non-free logos copyrighted by WMF.
*Not* create a WMFLogos-Commons, *or* have the images deleted.

regards
Brianna

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Lilewyn
This entire conversation is making a mountain out of a molehill.

On 8/23/07, Lilewyn <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a
> similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the
> like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?
>
> I don't know the details of how Commons image-sharing works, but if this
> is possible, just make it a closed project (similar to the foundation wiki
> itself) since uploads will be limited to "official" images.
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
>
>       Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to
> Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Ayelie (Editor at Large)
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On 8/24/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 24/08/07, Lilewyn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a
> similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the
> like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?
>
> THAT SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE THE FUNCTION OF COMMONS.
>
> Sorry to shout. Commons accepts these images (despite the
> contradiction with our policy). WMF accepts us hosting them (despite
> the contradiction with the recent Licensing Resolution). If people
> want to push for any change to resolve these contradictions, it should
> be to ask WMF to release a statement stating the obvious, that it is
> acceptable for Commons to host non-free logos copyrighted by WMF.
> *Not* create a WMFLogos-Commons, *or* have the images deleted.
>
> regards
> Brianna


I SUPPORT ABOVE USE OF CAPS.

I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use its
own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos, and we
have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new project just
for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure that
only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly
pointless when WMF already has Commons.

--
Ayelie
  ~Editor at Large
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Gregory Maxwell
On 8/24/07, Ayelie <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use its
> own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos, and we
> have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new project just
> for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure that
> only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly
> pointless when WMF already has Commons.

Creating a whole new project for WMF logos is caps-worthy silly.
Creating a new one for non-WMF non-free logos is probably silly to,
but it's MUCH better than forcing commons to take them.

Both things have been discussed here, so lets be clear about which
ones were talking about.

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Ayelie (Editor at Large)
On 8/24/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/24/07, Ayelie <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use
> its
> > own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos, and
> we
> > have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new project
> just
> > for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure
> that
> > only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly
> > pointless when WMF already has Commons.
>
> Creating a whole new project for WMF logos is caps-worthy silly.
> Creating a new one for non-WMF non-free logos is probably silly to,
> but it's MUCH better than forcing commons to take them.
>
> Both things have been discussed here, so lets be clear about which
> ones were talking about.


Yes, pardon me. "Creating a whole new project just for *WMF* logos". I was
not speaking about non-free non-WMF logos. :)

--
Ayelie
  ~Editor at Large
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Effe iets anders
Why would you need a Wiki for that? Or a community? Logo's are supposed to
be static, so I guess this platform (server, whatever, i'm no techy, dont
catch me on this :) ) could be non-editable.

I think the idea is not as weird as it sounds. There is no need for a
Wiki-environment at all for the logo's, it would solve the contradiction and
make sure that the images are not deleted by accident (as happened a while
ago with the Wikibooks logo hosted on Commons, before the restoring of
images possibility (auch) and as well with some other logo's which were
forgotten to be replaced by the "superior" svg), but that is obviously not
the main reason.

However, I do agree with brianna that it makes things maybe even more
complicated. The category contains over 1500 images. Those are not all
logo's of the 9 projects Wikimedia has with all localization. Maybe we have
500 projects, so still 1000 left... Of course that is caused by logo
proposals and several sizes of the same image. Such a server would make
these proposal contests impossible. (Is that bad? I don't know...) But the
proposal is not "silly enough to use caps" if you think about it. It is a
serious proposal, with serious argumentation, please look seriously at it
then :) If you come to the conclusion it is not good, fine, but please be
polite.

Anyway, although I think it is a serious and good proposal, I think as well
that it brings more disadvantages then advantages compared with the current
situation. But it is also the least worse scenario when we really would have
to change the current way of acting.

BR, Lodewijk

2007/8/24, Ayelie <[hidden email]>:

>
> On 8/24/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/24/07, Ayelie <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use
> > its
> > > own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos,
> and
> > we
> > > have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new
> project
> > just
> > > for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure
> > that
> > > only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly
> > > pointless when WMF already has Commons.
> >
> > Creating a whole new project for WMF logos is caps-worthy silly.
> > Creating a new one for non-WMF non-free logos is probably silly to,
> > but it's MUCH better than forcing commons to take them.
> >
> > Both things have been discussed here, so lets be clear about which
> > ones were talking about.
>
>
> Yes, pardon me. "Creating a whole new project just for *WMF* logos". I was
> not speaking about non-free non-WMF logos. :)
>
> --
> Ayelie
>   ~Editor at Large
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Bryan Tong Minh
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 8/24/07, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is a canonical case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT -
> you even say yourself you don't want the outcome you're asking for.
>
Don't blame me for bringing this to your attention. I did not initiate
the request.

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 8/24/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree that we should permit the use of logos in Wikipedia articles.
> Thats why I support the policies which allow limited fair use images..
> Logos and the like clearly fit inside of that.  As a result I don't
> think we need to do anything else.
>
> Erik, I understand that you're unhappy with Dewp's decisions about
> these matters ... but their position is a long standing one.

1) My post has nothing to do with de.wp - please do not attribute false motives.

2) de.wp does permit non-free logos, under the assumption that they
are "public domain" due to insufficient creativity, an assumption
which they base on a German court ruling. They apply this logic even
to US logos, e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox ; this
is problematic and WMF is aware of it.

3) We are talking about a specific class of works: identifying works.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to try to come up with a standard
of freedom for such works, and to then open up our archives to allow
uploading of those works which meet this standard to a central
archive.  Whether that archive should or shouldn't be Commons and
whether one should use the vocabulary of the free culture movement for
those logos is open to debate.


--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The problem has been identified many times; a logo is part of a trademark
and consequently an organisation is limited in what it can allow to be done
with the materials that make up their trademark.

It is a general problem not restricted to the Wikimedia Foundation or
Debian. Based on the notion of "fair use" it is possible to use logos in
many Wikipedias. Based on the notion of "insufficient creativity" there is
another creative solution to the same problem. The issue is that Commons
does not allow fair use and the "insufficient creativity" notion is also
considered to be problematic.

What is needed is the acceptance that logos instil specific restrictions.
These restrictions will not go away. What these restrictions do is limit the
freedoms associated with this material. In essence they prohibit you from
using it to represent the organisation whose trademarked material it is.

Given what the purpose of a logo is and given why we want to use these logos
in the first place, this is reasonable. It is for this reason that we need
something like a CC-tm license. A license that is considered free but
restricts what is implied by being part of a trademark.

Thanks,
     GerardM



On 8/24/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/24/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I agree that we should permit the use of logos in Wikipedia articles.
> > Thats why I support the policies which allow limited fair use images..
> > Logos and the like clearly fit inside of that.  As a result I don't
> > think we need to do anything else.
> >
> > Erik, I understand that you're unhappy with Dewp's decisions about
> > these matters ... but their position is a long standing one.
>
> 1) My post has nothing to do with de.wp - please do not attribute false
> motives.
>
> 2) de.wp does permit non-free logos, under the assumption that they
> are "public domain" due to insufficient creativity, an assumption
> which they base on a German court ruling. They apply this logic even
> to US logos, e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox ; this
> is problematic and WMF is aware of it.
>
> 3) We are talking about a specific class of works: identifying works.
> I think it is perfectly reasonable to try to come up with a standard
> of freedom for such works, and to then open up our archives to allow
> uploading of those works which meet this standard to a central
> archive.  Whether that archive should or shouldn't be Commons and
> whether one should use the vocabulary of the free culture movement for
> those logos is open to debate.
>
>
> --
> Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
On 24/08/07, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyway, although I think it is a serious and good proposal, I think as well
> that it brings more disadvantages then advantages compared with the current
> situation. But it is also the least worse scenario when we really would have
> to change the current way of acting.

I don't quite understand why we do need to change the "current way of acting".

There is another factor which is not mentioned much. Many of these
images are only marked {{CopyrightbyWikimedia}} because they contain
some Wikimedia logo. For example some wikiprojects create their own
little images and headers. There are "fun" images like the Wikipedia
logo with a Santa hat.

Allowing these images is not a required thing by any licensing or even
convenience argument, but IMO they are useful for community building,
and I would see it if a pointless loss if it was decided that such
images should not be allowed to exist on Commons.

regards
Brianna


--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Bryan Tong Minh
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 8/24/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2) de.wp does permit non-free logos, under the assumption that they
> are "public domain" due to insufficient creativity

We also do partially, but only if the logo is deemed public domain in
the country of origin.

Bryan

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

Re: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
I am a little bit resignated about the whole of this issue and I have
to say few words about it.

- Personally, I am at the line of de.wiki decision: I would always
vote for leaving all non free content, including logos. Yes, we are
enough powerful to dictate what is possible to treat as free and what
is not. (The best solution in that course is to move all WMF
trademarked logos to meta.wiki or to WMF site. This is one of the
examples where we and WMF should be fair enough and say if something
is not applied for others, it should be applied to us, too.)

- However, I completely support creation of nonfree.wikimedia.org
repository. Because it is the only solution which is according to the
Board resolution. If Board said the same as de.wiki, then such
proposition would be meaningless.

From 1999 up to the last year I spent a lot of time while trying to
bring free licenses in Serbia. At April (or May) of 2006 I finally
find a lawyer who were willing to work on introducing CC licenses into
the Serbian law system (actually, she found me). With her colleague
from the Institute for Law (I think that this is the name), we had two
best creative copyright lawyers from Serbia.

And the story related to one of the subjects of this thread begins here.

Unlike a lot of other projects with similar size (of number of
contributors and articles), projects in Serbian language had the best
possible lawyer support (for one country of something more then 7
millions of inhabitants).

But it wasn't enough.

To deal with any kind of copyright problems which are not so obvious,
I had to spend hours of talks with them without *any* conclusion
because it was simply not possible to do anything.

Then I realized that the best thing is not to do anything except if WM
Serbia is explicitly in danger. (Thanks to good circumstances, nothing
was happened.) And, of course, to leave her to finish CC localization.

So, let's summarize:
- Serbian language projects are relatively small.
- Unlikely the most other projects of similar size, it has supporting
local chapter.
- Unlikely the most other projects of similar size, it has good lawyers.
- Unlikely the most other projects of similar size, it had at least
three persons (one of others is a doctor of mathematics from
Princeton; the second one is an important member of the community who
is working in a municipal court) from the community who hardly worked
on copyright issues with relevant lawyers.
- We worked on this issue for at least 6 months.
- And we did nothing. (Yes, we did categorization of images and
similar project related things, but we did nothing in relation to
possible usage or prohibited usage by Serbian laws.) For example,
Serbian (and Montenegrin) fair use is much more permissive then US (in
general it stays: "Use it while your usage is reasonable").

And when the Board resolution came, we had a serious problem: I didn't
want to take care about copyrighted works and the most interested
person in free use issue is living in USA.

So, even we had much more possibilities to deal with fair use on
Serbian language projects then the most of other language projects
(actually, all except English, French, German, Italian and Polish), we
simply were not able to deal with fair use problem.

De.wiki decided not to keep non free images; en.wiki decided to keep.
The most predictable decision of sr.wiki would be to keep fair use
image (I would vote against, but it was not a dominant opinion). How
much other projects voted about this issue? And how much of them
simply realized that they are not able to deal with law issues and
didn't want to vote?

At the end, the only conclusion is that it is possible to have
something only if your project is big enough to keep this. And I think
that this is very problematic situation for Wikimedian aims.

BTW, I completely understand Board's decision. While I would insist
not to make half-decision, it is completely reasonable to say: OK, we
don't support this, but if you are willing to do such things, you have
to take care about it. However, such decision is unfair toward small
projects.

And about nonfree.wikimedia: Of course, it shouldn't be a place for
every free use image. It should something like Debian's non-free
repository (there is no even Adobe Acrobat there). And policy on
en.wiki seems to me very reasonable as a basis of nonfree.wikimedia
project.

On 8/24/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8/24/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I agree that we should permit the use of logos in Wikipedia articles.
> > Thats why I support the policies which allow limited fair use images..
> > Logos and the like clearly fit inside of that.  As a result I don't
> > think we need to do anything else.
> >
> > Erik, I understand that you're unhappy with Dewp's decisions about
> > these matters ... but their position is a long standing one.
>
> 1) My post has nothing to do with de.wp - please do not attribute false motives.
>
> 2) de.wp does permit non-free logos, under the assumption that they
> are "public domain" due to insufficient creativity, an assumption
> which they base on a German court ruling. They apply this logic even
> to US logos, e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox ; this
> is problematic and WMF is aware of it.
>
> 3) We are talking about a specific class of works: identifying works.
> I think it is perfectly reasonable to try to come up with a standard
> of freedom for such works, and to then open up our archives to allow
> uploading of those works which meet this standard to a central
> archive.  Whether that archive should or shouldn't be Commons and
> whether one should use the vocabulary of the free culture movement for
> those logos is open to debate.
>
>
> --
> Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12