Wikimedia logos on Commons

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

Wikimedia logos on Commons

Remember the dot
I don't think that any of the messages posted to this forum have really
addressed the reason behind the deletion request.

The Wikimedia Foundation has stated in
Foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy that "All projects are expected to
host only content which is under a Free Content License". This is why, for
example, we are not allowed to display the Firefox logo in the user space
(because it is not free enough for Wikimedia).

Furthermore, in the Foundation-endorsed freedomdefined:Definition, it states
"In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
by the laws commonly named *copyright laws*. They consider authors as
god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their
content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture,
and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it
protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies."

Now, why should copyright held by Wikimedia be any less evil than copyright
held by others? Given this anti-copyright stance of the foundation, it is
only fair that all non-free content be removed from the Commons, no matter
who owns the copyright.
_______________________________________________
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

Sydney Poore
Honestly, what you are suggesting makes no sense at all to me.

Of course Commons can keep its own Foundation's logo and it's other
copyrighted material. It goes without saying that this exception is
expected. To suggest otherwise seems really odd to me and most other people
I think.

Sydney aka FloNight




On 8/24/07, John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I don't think that any of the messages posted to this forum have really
> addressed the reason behind the deletion request.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has stated in
> Foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy that "All projects are expected to
> host only content which is under a Free Content License". This is why, for
> example, we are not allowed to display the Firefox logo in the user space
> (because it is not free enough for Wikimedia).
>
> Furthermore, in the Foundation-endorsed freedomdefined:Definition, it
> states
> "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
> by the laws commonly named *copyright laws*. They consider authors as
> god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their
> content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture,
> and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it
> protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies."
>
> Now, why should copyright held by Wikimedia be any less evil than
> copyright
> held by others? Given this anti-copyright stance of the foundation, it is
> only fair that all non-free content be removed from the Commons, no matter
> who owns the copyright.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Sydney aka FloNight
_______________________________________________
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 Remember the dot
IMO, this isn't about law, it's an appeal to Common sense. The Foundation
can host their trademarked/copyrighted images on commons if they choose to.
The proposed "solution" to this problem was to move the images to another
site whose bandwidth and servers are paid for from the same pool of cash.
You wouldn't notice a difference when you are viewing the site, and there
really wouldn't be much of a difference.

I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an issue,
it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of certain
digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.

But moving these images to another server hosted by the Foundation doesn't
change anything. The images need to be displayed, they are going to be
displayed, and who cares where they are hosted. I consider this discussion
harmful.

On 8/24/07, John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I don't think that any of the messages posted to this forum have really
> addressed the reason behind the deletion request.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has stated in
> Foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy that "All projects are expected to
> host only content which is under a Free Content License". This is why, for
> example, we are not allowed to display the Firefox logo in the user space
> (because it is not free enough for Wikimedia).
>
> Furthermore, in the Foundation-endorsed freedomdefined:Definition, it
> states
> "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
> by the laws commonly named *copyright laws*. They consider authors as
> god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their
> content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture,
> and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it
> protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies."
>
> Now, why should copyright held by Wikimedia be any less evil than
> copyright
> held by others? Given this anti-copyright stance of the foundation, it is
> only fair that all non-free content be removed from the Commons, no matter
> who owns the copyright.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Remember the dot
On 8/24/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
> IMO, this isn't about law, it's an appeal to Common sense.

You're right, this has nothing to do with law. It has to do with the
position that the foundation has taken. Quite simply, the foundation has
said that copyright is evil. This includes copyright that the Wikimedia
foundation itself owns. Since it doesn't look like the foundation is going
to change its position on free content, the only way to eliminate the double
standard would be to impose the same restrictions on Wikimedia-owned content
that we impose on content owned by others.
_______________________________________________
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
I think your understanding of copyright is severely flawed. Almost all of
the content on Commons is copyrighted, with the exception of public domain
works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

On 8/24/07, John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/24/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > IMO, this isn't about law, it's an appeal to Common sense.
>
> You're right, this has nothing to do with law. It has to do with the
> position that the foundation has taken. Quite simply, the foundation has
> said that copyright is evil. This includes copyright that the Wikimedia
> foundation itself owns. Since it doesn't look like the foundation is going
> to change its position on free content, the only way to eliminate the
> double
> standard would be to impose the same restrictions on Wikimedia-owned
> content
> that we impose on content owned by others.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Remember the dot
No, I understand copyright, and I also understand that the foundation's
policy is ridiculous to say that it is a form of government suppression. But
if we're going to enforce the foundation's policy, flawed as it may be, we
need to do it equally.

The definition of free content that the foundation chose states:

"In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
by the laws commonly named *copyright laws*. They consider authors as
god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their
content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture,
and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it
protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies." -
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

Surely the foundation would not choose to endorse a definition it doesn't
agree with.
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Remember the dot
Hoi,
When you say that the issue was not addressed, I disagree. There is no
license that addresses the issue of trademarked material. This is not a
matter of copyright; it is a matter of representing organisations by way of
visible manifestations. By asking the Creative Commons for a new license
that could be called CC-tm, we get a license that allows for exactly the
situation that is at hand.

As it is not a matter of copyright, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 8/24/07, John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I don't think that any of the messages posted to this forum have really
> addressed the reason behind the deletion request.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has stated in
> Foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy that "All projects are expected to
> host only content which is under a Free Content License". This is why, for
> example, we are not allowed to display the Firefox logo in the user space
> (because it is not free enough for Wikimedia).
>
> Furthermore, in the Foundation-endorsed freedomdefined:Definition, it
> states
> "In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
> by the laws commonly named *copyright laws*. They consider authors as
> god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their
> content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture,
> and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it
> protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies."
>
> Now, why should copyright held by Wikimedia be any less evil than
> copyright
> held by others? Given this anti-copyright stance of the foundation, it is
> only fair that all non-free content be removed from the Commons, no matter
> who owns the copyright.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

geni
In reply to this post by Sydney Poore
On 8/24/07, FloNight <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Honestly, what you are suggesting makes no sense at all to me.
>
> Of course Commons can keep its own Foundation's logo and it's other
> copyrighted material. It goes without saying that this exception is
> expected. To suggest otherwise seems really odd to me and most other people
> I think.
>
> Sydney aka FloNight
>
>

The biggest problem I've seen is the creation of derivatives without
permission. This results in:

1)stuff with a rather messy copyright situation

The copyright status of these two images is one example:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan-in-seasidewhiteball.PNG

2)more unfree media being created

The pure logos are something we have to accept. The derivatives is an
issue that we cannot continue to ignore forever
--
geni

_______________________________________________
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, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The biggest problem I've seen is the creation of derivatives without
> permission. This results in:
...
I'd propose:

3) The creation of derivatives which are potentially harmful to all of
us, ones which imply official support to things which should not or
can not be officially endorsed.


(of course, most derivatives are likely harmless, but the cases when
people really want to keep them are, in my view, cases where they are
being misused)

_______________________________________________
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

Kat Walsh-3
In reply to this post by Remember the dot
On 8/24/07, John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8/24/07, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > IMO, this isn't about law, it's an appeal to Common sense.
>
> You're right, this has nothing to do with law. It has to do with the
> position that the foundation has taken. Quite simply, the foundation has
> said that copyright is evil.
>
> This includes copyright that the Wikimedia
> foundation itself owns. Since it doesn't look like the foundation is going
> to change its position on free content, the only way to eliminate the double
> standard would be to impose the same restrictions on Wikimedia-owned content
> that we impose on content owned by others.

No, you've gotten it wrong; I disagree entirely.

In fact, free content licensing depends on the existence of copyright.
The position we've taken is basically one that copyright as it stands
does not always produce the best situation.

Because we believe that society would be better off if everyone had
easy access to educational information, and the ability to use that
information in the way that most suits their needs, we want to
encourage the development of material that is under less restrictive
terms. Which may be public domain, but is more frequently still
copyrighted, but not under the default conditions which leave *all*
rights reserved to the copyright holder.

We don't say that copyright is evil. We don't demand that all
copyrighted works be freed. We don't ask everything to be public
domain. We don't fight the existence of copyright. Instead, we work
within the existing system to create a body of work under more
permissive terms.

Copyright was established to serve a purpose: to promote creation and
progress, to encourage people to create more works. But are the
current specific details of how that is implemented ideal? No, and I
don't think anyone would say that they were.

If you start with the idea that it is a social good if everyone can
have easy access to whatever educational material they need, for
whatever purpose, then you start to look at ways to accomplish that.
(If you don't believe that would be a good thing, why are you here?)
You can't do it if all material is under stringent protections. And
those protections don't even always serve the best interests of
everyone "protected" by them. If you want that sort of society, too,
you don't want all of those protections on all of your work."

You also can't do it if no one is willing to create works to be used.
What's more, you might consider it a good thing if your releasing your
work for such uses encouraged other people to do the same thing,
because it would go even further toward achieving your goals. So you
try and find an alternative to the default protections of copyright
that better achieves what it was intended to do: further the interests
of society as a whole.

So the basic ethic of content on the Wikimedia projects is "you can do
whatever you want with this work, so long as you give everyone else
the same rights with whatever copies of the work that you give them."
(This is a simplification, but it's not too far off.) It encourages
people to free their work in order to use the body of work that
already exists, or to be part of a larger project. (Sort of like the
idea of matching donations, or group pledges: I'll do my small part if
doing so contributes to a larger good.)  No one is compelled to free
their work if they don't want to, but there are advantages to doing
so. It seems pretty fair to me.

But none of this implies "copyright is evil". It's "the typical
effects of copyright are not always what we think would be best, or
even what it was intended to do".

A longer copyright protection makes more sense on works of art than
works that are intended to be useful in themselves, although in the
majority of cases, where the full protections of copyright aren't
doing the artist very much good, perhaps it's not the best option
either.  (I say this as a thoroughly unremarkable and unremarked-upon
writer and composer; I have a music degree and have in the past made
some depressingly small amount of money selling work.)

A logo isn't intended to be useful or educational in itself. But since
many humans are visual creatures, they like to have nice-looking
symbols to represent their organizations. (Me, I'm an
auditory-oriented person, and I have the visual sense of boiled
cabbage. But this is what I hear.) It's not terribly important that it
be free; it doesn't contribute too much to the common culture. If it's
trademarked, you can't do anything particularly "free" with it either.

(While trademark creates a right for the holder, its effect is largely
the protection of the "consumer" -- to keep people from being misled
by someone who uses the same or confusingly similar marks. Not that
this stops aggressive rights holders from sending completely bogus
trademark infringement letters in order to suppress criticism, but
they shouldn't get away with it.)

So I don't see it as a hypocrisy or a contradiction that the Wikimedia
logos are not free. They're not really part of what we're here to do,
they're just there for visual identification. We don't demand anyone
else's logos be free; projects can choose to accept using those images
for appropriate purposes or choose not to accept them at all. For
obvious reasons, the Wikimedia logos should be used on all projects.
:-)

We're looking into the legal implications of protection on the logos,
but in terms of how pressing a priority it is, it's somewhere behind a
lot of other things that are really important to do sooner rather than
later; our new full-time counsel has no shortage of work at the
moment.

Do our logos need to be all rights reserved? Would trademark
protection alone be sufficient? (Getting trademark protection for all
our marks in all countries where we should have it is not as simple as
it may sound.) I can't give a definitive answer, but we can get advice
from counsel, in the course of things. One main concern is that people
don't go around and use the logo for things that would be damaging to
us, passing themselves off as us, or giving people the idea that we
approve of or sponsor things we don't have any involvement with.  If
the logos can be made more free, that would be great. But I don't
think it is a priority, and it needs to be considered in light of all
of the effects. Wikimedia first needs to make sure it is a responsible
steward of our resources, even if that means acting slowly or taking a
course of action that is not ideal in some aspects.


I freely admit that having the logos on Commons is just a dirty hack,
so that they are easily accessible from all projects. They should
probably be included within the skins or something, but I don't know
how that should work if they need to be resizable and so on; I'm not
the person to ask that question of. It's not ideal, but it works
better than other things for now.

(I note that I'm speaking only for myself now, but this is the
perspective I bring to discussions about licensing, and I think it is
shared by the other board members.)

-Kat



--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
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

Remember the dot
While I thank you for your sensible response, it does not match up with what
the foundation has actually come out and said or with what is actually
taking place on Wikimedia projects.

By linking to it from a foundation policy page, the foundation has endorsed
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition, which states:

"In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
by the laws commonly named *copyright laws*. They consider authors as
god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their
content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture,
and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it
protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies."

I read this as an attack on copyright protection, that it should be severely
limited or abolished entirely. If the foundation did not agree with this
position, then why did it endorse this particular definition of free
content? It could easily have created a modified form of the definition that
matched its views more closely.

Also, the foundation continues to impose restrictions on non-free content
above and beyond that needed to further the goal of free education. Here are
some examples:

The Mozilla logos, such as the Firefox logo. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_Mozilla_logo - these logos
pose zero legal threat and releasing them under a free license would do very
little to further the goal of free education. Yet we are required to treat
them as if they were All Rights Reserved, forced for no legal or educational
reason to strip them from the user space.

The International Symbol of Access. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Symbol_of_Access - it may be used
by anyone for its intended purpose (again, zero legal threat), but may not
be used deceptively. Derivative works of it would be worthless because they
would not be widely recognized.

The International Symbol for Deafness. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deafness - Similar terms to the International
Symbol of Access.

It seems to me that the foundation has gone far beyond promoting free
educational content and has imposed needless restrictions on images that are
already free enough for any practical use.
_______________________________________________
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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-3
Kat Walsh wrote:
> In fact, free content licensing depends on the existence of copyright.
>  
Hmmm! This sounds like a religious person saying that we need Satan in
order that God's glory might shine brighter. :-)
> The position we've taken is basically one that copyright as it stands
> does not always produce the best situation.
>  
It doesn't indeed.
> Because we believe that society would be better off if everyone had
> easy access to educational information, and the ability to use that
> information in the way that most suits their needs, we want to
> encourage the development of material that is under less restrictive
> terms. Which may be public domain, but is more frequently still
> copyrighted, but not under the default conditions which leave *all*
> rights reserved to the copyright holder.
>  
Fair enough.  This speaks for a more graduated series of possibilities
between the two black-and-white extremes.  Fair use provides this to
some extent, but it has become a blunt tool that deals inadequately with
the the rights of the author and the public.  To me, having a free
project goes farther than using only material that is already free; it
also involves freeing apparently unfree material.  Orphan works are
perhaps the most prominent among these, but even they can be divided
into sub-classes.  Works where we can establish that no copyright owner
exists are distinct from those whose copyright owners merely cannot be
found.  For example, where do corporate copyrights go when a corporation
goes into bankruptcy?  Tangible assets are liquidated and distributed
according to established rules, to some extent on a pro-rata basis among
members of a class of creditors.  Nobody thinks of distributing
copyrights, but the courts determine that what assets are available are
properly distributed and discharge the bankrupt.  Who owns the
copyrights.  The annual reports of that company may have historical
value, but no-one can use them if we believe in a strict interpretation
of copyright.  As another example, the sale flyer that your local
supermarket distributed door-to-door 20 years ago is still protected by
copyrights.

I am personally involved in a situation with a puzzling copyright
situation.  I am co-executor of an artist who died in 2005 being 87
years old.  She has no known relatives, or at least the post-war refugee
organizations were unable to find any of them.  Yet she left a large
body of art, some of which is quite interesting.  Nevertheless, she
never did much to market her work.  It does not have an established
market value.  That being said, the entire body of work remains
copyrighted until 2055, and knowing what to do about those copyrights is
a dilemma.
> We don't say that copyright is evil. We don't demand that all
> copyrighted works be freed. We don't ask everything to be public
> domain. We don't fight the existence of copyright. Instead, we work
> within the existing system to create a body of work under more
> permissive terms.
>  
Not demanding that _all_ copyright materials be freed should not imply
that we are demanding that all copyright materials should remain unfree
until the apparently subsisting copyrights have completely expired.  
There is a huge gap there.  It is precisely within that gap that I
believe that there should be a greater effort to push the envelope.  I'm
not even saying that this should be happening in Wikipedia as we know
it, or even in any of the existing sister projects. Perhaps it would
take some kind of intermediate project where the cards are laid out on
the table, and we let everyone know that there are uncertainties
surrounding the copyrights for the material.  We also let it be known
that if someone with a genuine interest comes out of the woodwork we
will bend over backwards to be co-operative.
> Copyright was established to serve a purpose: to promote creation and
> progress, to encourage people to create more works. But are the
> current specific details of how that is implemented ideal? No, and I
> don't think anyone would say that they were.
>  
That purpose is consistent with Jefferson's concept of copyrights, and
is also consistent with the limited monopolies that were granted back
into the 17th century in England, and is even consistent with a broader
common law tradition.  Be that as it may, people rarely express this
creativity for 70 years beyond their death.  What kind of encouragement
is being provided in the case of relatively unknown works, when the
theoretical owner doesn't even know that they exist?

I would also question whether this purpose was ever a part of the
reasoning that went into the copyright law of countries that derive
their law from the Napoleonic Code.  If anything the moral right of
integrity actively discourages creativity.
> If you start with the idea that it is a social good if everyone can
> have easy access to whatever educational material they need, for
> whatever purpose, then you start to look at ways to accomplish that.
> (If you don't believe that would be a good thing, why are you here?)
> You can't do it if all material is under stringent protections. And
> those protections don't even always serve the best interests of
> everyone "protected" by them. If you want that sort of society, too,
> you don't want all of those protections on all of your work."
>  
We really do agree on this. 8-)   How is it that I end up believing in a
more pro-active approach?  Is it just me that has this cynical belief
that those who have the rights will do whatever it takes to preserve
them.  If their activities incidentally protect work that no-one wants
to protect, and that keeps their opposition off-balance that all works
to their benefit.
> You also can't do it if no one is willing to create works to be used.
> What's more, you might consider it a good thing if your releasing your
> work for such uses encouraged other people to do the same thing,
> because it would go even further toward achieving your goals. So you
> try and find an alternative to the default protections of copyright
> that better achieves what it was intended to do: further the interests
> of society as a whole.
>  
Sure.  Ideas and the play of ideas are more important than the form of
their expression.  Free licensing achieve some of this ... maybe!  They
still require a lot of judicial testing.  What happens when some
European court rejects them with the notion that moral rights are
inalienable so you cannot grant the collective the right to modify your
work.?

> So the basic ethic of content on the Wikimedia projects is "you can do
> whatever you want with this work, so long as you give everyone else
> the same rights with whatever copies of the work that you give them."
> (This is a simplification, but it's not too far off.) It encourages
> people to free their work in order to use the body of work that
> already exists, or to be part of a larger project. (Sort of like the
> idea of matching donations, or group pledges: I'll do my small part if
> doing so contributes to a larger good.)  No one is compelled to free
> their work if they don't want to, but there are advantages to doing
> so. It seems pretty fair to me.
>  
Sure.
> But none of this implies "copyright is evil". It's "the typical
> effects of copyright are not always what we think would be best, or
> even what it was intended to do".
>  
"Copyright is evil" is more a slogan than an argument.
> A longer copyright protection makes more sense on works of art than
> works that are intended to be useful in themselves, although in the
> majority of cases, where the full protections of copyright aren't
> doing the artist very much good, perhaps it's not the best option
> either.  (I say this as a thoroughly unremarkable and unremarked-upon
> writer and composer; I have a music degree and have in the past made
> some depressingly small amount of money selling work.)
>  
I see no benefit from giving longer benefit to works of art.  We have
far more arguments over the copyright of illustrations than of texts,
and in many cases where the pictures have become part of a large
commercial library it would be more difficult to trace the real
copyright owner.  It would be interesting to require that these
libraries show a complete provenance of their copyrights in this stuff,
and make copies of all supporting documents publicly available.

When it comes to "a thoroughly unremarkable and unremarked-upon writer
and composer", (as with the estate of which I'm executor) fame and
fortune may depend on having a grandchild who really thinks that
grandma's memory needs to be preserved.  That's still unlikely to bring
you the money when you need it.  
> A logo isn't intended to be useful or educational in itself. But since
> many humans are visual creatures, they like to have nice-looking
> symbols to represent their organizations. (Me, I'm an
> auditory-oriented person, and I have the visual sense of boiled
> cabbage. But this is what I hear.) It's not terribly important that it
> be free; it doesn't contribute too much to the common culture. If it's
> trademarked, you can't do anything particularly "free" with it either.
>  
I think that many of our colleagues tend to muddle copyright and
trademarks.  I do like the use-it-or-lose-it approach  to trademarks,
and it would make a nice addition to copyrights.  I do consider my self
to be more visual than auditory, but being visual does not promise that
the hands will agree. I'm sorry to hear that you have the eyes of a potato.
> (While trademark creates a right for the holder, its effect is largely
> the protection of the "consumer" -- to keep people from being misled
> by someone who uses the same or confusingly similar marks. Not that
> this stops aggressive rights holders from sending completely bogus
> trademark infringement letters in order to suppress criticism, but
> they shouldn't get away with it.)
>  
They really protect both sides.

> So I don't see it as a hypocrisy or a contradiction that the Wikimedia
> logos are not free. They're not really part of what we're here to do,
> they're just there for visual identification. We don't demand anyone
> else's logos be free; projects can choose to accept using those images
> for appropriate purposes or choose not to accept them at all. For
> obvious reasons, the Wikimedia logos should be used on all projects.
> :-)
>
> We're looking into the legal implications of protection on the logos,
> but in terms of how pressing a priority it is, it's somewhere behind a
> lot of other things that are really important to do sooner rather than
> later; our new full-time counsel has no shortage of work at the
> moment.
>
> Do our logos need to be all rights reserved? Would trademark
> protection alone be sufficient? (Getting trademark protection for all
> our marks in all countries where we should have it is not as simple as
> it may sound.) I can't give a definitive answer, but we can get advice
> from counsel, in the course of things. One main concern is that people
> don't go around and use the logo for things that would be damaging to
> us, passing themselves off as us, or giving people the idea that we
> approve of or sponsor things we don't have any involvement with.  If
> the logos can be made more free, that would be great. But I don't
> think it is a priority, and it needs to be considered in light of all
> of the effects. Wikimedia first needs to make sure it is a responsible
> steward of our resources, even if that means acting slowly or taking a
> course of action that is not ideal in some aspects.
>  
I agree.  The last point is particularly important, and many who
complain endlessly about the minutiae of logos are completely out of
their element when they have to deal in any way with matters of fiscal
responsibility.

> I freely admit that having the logos on Commons is just a dirty hack,
> so that they are easily accessible from all projects. They should
> probably be included within the skins or something, but I don't know
> how that should work if they need to be resizable and so on; I'm not
> the person to ask that question of. It's not ideal, but it works
> better than other things for now.
>
> (I note that I'm speaking only for myself now, but this is the
> perspective I bring to discussions about licensing, and I think it is
> shared by the other board members.)
>
> -Kat
>  
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.

Ec

_______________________________________________
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

Mark
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Brian wrote:
> I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an issue,
> it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of certain
> digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
>  

Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.

(They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)

See: http://www.debian.org/logos/

IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
discussions about consistency.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
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

Casey Brown-3
Has anyone asked Mike's opinion on the discussion?  Last I checked he was
working on trademarks (and probably logos too).  I'm sure he'd find this
somewhat interesting.

On 8/25/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Brian wrote:
> > I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an
> issue,
> > it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of
> certain
> > digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> > permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> > projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
> >
>
> Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
> licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
> trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
>
> (They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
> but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
>
> See: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
> discussions about consistency.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Mark
Hoi,
It is funny but I agree with Debian here.. I said it before, it is not about
copyright and exactly for this reason there should be a separate license
that acknowledges the exception that exist because of trademarks.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 8/25/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Brian wrote:
> > I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an
> issue,
> > it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of
> certain
> > digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> > permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> > projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
> >
>
> Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
> licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
> trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
>
> (They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
> but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
>
> See: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
> discussions about consistency.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|

Fwd: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Casey Brown-3
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-3
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Casey Brown <[hidden email]>



I'd prefer, I think, for Wikimedia Foundation logos and visual trademarks to
be removed from Commons.  The potential for misunderstanding otherwise is
pretty limitless.


None of us wants to be dealing with a case where someone used the Wikipedia
icon on a product, when we challenged it, they said "Hey, it's FREE."


Of course, all trademarks are subject to fair use and other limitations on
exclusive use, so we're not flatly forbidden reproduction of the
iconography.  We're just saying it's not "free" in the sense that content in
Commons is supposed to be free.




--Mike








 On Aug 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Casey Brown wrote:

Some guy nommed all the WMF logos on Commons for deletion because they were
"not free" (Commons only accepts freely-licensed images).  You can see the
full convo in the Foundation-l archvies.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Brown <[hidden email]>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>

Has anyone asked Mike's opinion on the discussion?  Last I checked he was
working on trademarks (and probably logos too).  I'm sure he'd find this
somewhat interesting.

On 8/25/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Brian wrote:
> > I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an
> issue,
> > it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of
> certain
> > digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> > permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> > projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
> >
>
> Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
> licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
> trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
>
> (They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
> but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
>
> See: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
> discussions about consistency.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.




--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Wikimedia logos on Commons

Casey Brown-3
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-3
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Casey Brown <[hidden email]>
Cc: Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>



I should add that I'm all for making the logos available from some central
location for WMF and chapters to use.  I just don't think they should be
lumped together with Commons -- that's a recipe for misunderstanding.



--m





 On Aug 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Casey Brown wrote:

 Some guy nommed all the WMF logos on Commons for deletion because they were
"not free" (Commons only accepts freely-licensed images).  You can see the
full convo in the Foundation-l archvies.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Brown <[hidden email]>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>

Has anyone asked Mike's opinion on the discussion?  Last I checked he was
working on trademarks (and probably logos too).  I'm sure he'd find this
somewhat interesting.

On 8/25/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Brian wrote:
> > I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an
> issue,
> > it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of
> certain
> > digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> > permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> > projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
> >
>
> Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
> licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
> trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
>
> (They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
> but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
>
> See: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
> discussions about consistency.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.





--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Wikimedia logos on Commons

brian.mcneil-2
I think Mike has the right idea, but there is one issue I want to bring
up...

A lot of projects will do an ad-hoc derivative logo (Eg on Wikinews we did
an "ongoing story" one). How easy is it going to be to put these logos into
the right place?


Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Casey Brown
Sent: 25 August 2007 22:33
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia logos on Commons

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Casey Brown <[hidden email]>
Cc: Kat Walsh <[hidden email]>



I should add that I'm all for making the logos available from some central
location for WMF and chapters to use.  I just don't think they should be
lumped together with Commons -- that's a recipe for misunderstanding.



--m





 On Aug 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Casey Brown wrote:

 Some guy nommed all the WMF logos on Commons for deletion because they were
"not free" (Commons only accepts freely-licensed images).  You can see the
full convo in the Foundation-l archvies.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Brown <[hidden email]>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>

Has anyone asked Mike's opinion on the discussion?  Last I checked he was
working on trademarks (and probably logos too).  I'm sure he'd find this
somewhat interesting.

On 8/25/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Brian wrote:
> > I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an
> issue,
> > it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of
> certain
> > digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> > permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> > projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
> >
>
> Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
> licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
> trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
>
> (They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
> but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
>
> See: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
> discussions about consistency.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.





--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
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