Policy talk:Trademark policy/Archive 1

I think a logo policy mixing w:Copyright and rights on w:Trademarks isn't needed and also not helpful (and with respect to our aim spreading free content not inspiring to the outside world). Of course I'm aware why a Wikimedia logo can't be simply licensed under a free license and why it must always be done carefully because of free-riders. So I'll make an alternative proposal:

In de.wikipedia was a large dispute about free licensing of official w:coats of arms. In the end we realised that official German coats of arms are within the public domain by law (exception in German copyright law, see de:Amtliches Werk) but other laws beyond copyright can restrict certain usages of these coats of arms. So there is no problem that you can upload these images to Wikimedia Commons according to our free license policy if you add an additional warning that gives you the hint that grants you can give within copyright can be restricted unavoidable by other laws. So have a look at commons:Template:PD-Coa-Germany and for examples at commons:Category:PD Coa Germany.
Another field where there are restrictions beyond copyright are the rights of persons displayed in images. Although if the displayed person gave you the right to publish this image under let's say CC-BY-SA, you are not allowed to publish certain modifications that can seriously harm that person (e.g. placing the head of a woman on a naked body of another woman). But these restrictions have also nothing to do with copyright itself but with the fact that copyright does not exist in free space but in the framework of other laws.

So I suggest the following solution for Wikimedia logos:

If a Wikimedia logo is a registered trademark release it under a free license (I'd suggest CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) and make an additional warning template as in the case of german coats of arms that directly points to a page explaning the restrictions that are due trademarks rights (CC licenses explicitly make reference to restrictions of copyright law and thus there is no clash with the licenses) and gives you hints what you can do if you want to go further than trademark right allows you to do.

This way we avoid the exeption debates on copyrighted material in general and we could promote this to others as well and finally get the permission from third party logo owners using their logos under a free license which would be big step.

Of course certain points in an logo policy purely based on the rights on trademarks are not possible (AFAIK).

Commercial use of the logos that clearly indicates that this logo is the logo of Wikimedia Foundation can't be prohibited.
You also can't enforce that way that people have to make clear how much of the earnings go to Wikimedia.

However you can still make these two points a very strong wish in the logo policy based on good faith and fair play.

But all other things as using the logos non-confusing and non-disparaging can still be effectively enforced because it is a trademark. You would still need the permission of Wikimedia Foundation using the logo as part of your own corporate identity (e.g. a at an official fusion of formerly separated projects).

I think with this approach we would give as much rights as possible away and would avoid negative effects on the other side as well and would also be a precursor in logo and trademark policies. Arnomane 12:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: And of course we would also avoid bureaucracy which is a common complain with respect to the usage of the logos for third party projects around Wikimedia that are on the "good side". Arnomane 12:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FULLACK Historiograf (not logged in) --172.179.164.225 19:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A problematic logo

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Something that I think needs to be considered in discussion of logo use is the problem that's arisen with these two images: [1] and [2]. They've become the logos of the Counter Vandalism Unit, which is becoming a big problem, because both logos prominantly display the words "Wikimedia Foundation" in a way that suggests that the Foundation directly backs the group. The problem is that I sincerely doubt that the Foundation means to be endorsing en:Template:Supertroll, en:WP:DEFCON, or the infobox on en:User:Mr. Treason. The CVU is basically declaring Foundation support for Wikipedia terror alert levels, advisories that the database be locked, sockpuppet accusations, "intel" on vandalism, and a host of other things.

It's obviously hugely problematic to suggest Foundation support for community issues on individual wikis. And this is something that I think needs to be dealt with - the use of the logos and especially the Foundation name for groups that are going to engage in local policy enforcement should be a no-brainer "absolutely not." Snowspinner 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember I suggested replacing the Foundation name by Wikipedia. See here/ Admittedly, I did not follow what happened next. I read that an arbcom request have been opened, I go see. Anthere 07:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Using Wikimedia content (comments)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The content of most Wikimedia projects is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. This means you can use it and produce derivative works from it as long as you stick to the condition of this license (see ... for more information).

I've changed this to a broader view. Content is not *all* under GFDL, many other licenses exist, and as far as I know, apart for Commons, CC-BY-ND is allowed on some projects, which means derivative works are not always allowed. notafish }<';> 09:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

use of derivative policy

Comments

from Angela

What can we let people *do* and *not do* with the Wikipedia logo? What's its status?

(c) Wikimedia Foundation. Not released under the GFDL.

Informal uses

Can we allow derivative works of it? If yes, must we tag them as <xxx> on the projects?

We can, theoretically, allow that. Perhaps the question is more about whether the board wants to approve every derivative version.

Some precedents that I can remember (I'm sure there are many more such examples):

Black logo: Jtkiefer wanted to make a black and red version of the logo to use on his user page. Anthere said it "any use on a user page or user talk page on one of our project is fine".

Adminmop: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Admin_mop.PNG Essjay (not the same as Sj) asked for permission to add a mop to the logo to represent adminship on the English Wikipedia. I asked the rest of the board and got no response. Essjay asked on IRC and got no response. So, I said I approved it, taking their silence to be approval, especially since the precedent had been set with the black logo.

Research logo: Erik added some free cliparts to the Wikimedia logo to represent the research team on meta. This followed a precedent of WikiProjects, especially collaborations of the week, doing this on the English Wikipedia. Jimmy said on the Commons that all these logos created by Erik should be deleted "because they were awful". This implies the Board, or perhaps just Jimmy, have the right to remove any logo they dislike. The logos weren't deleted, nor ever listed on VfD.

Energy logo: A problematic user on the English Wikipedia added some sort of fire image to the logo to represent an energy project, adding it to a WikiProject page and to an article. He had funny views on "alternative energy" and I suggested this gave a false impression that Wikimedia was supporting these views. It was eventually listed on a VfD page and deleted after both Anthere and Jimmy agreed with me that it should be deleted.

Firefox logo: en:Image:Firefox-Wikipedia.png (now deleted) Brian0918 merged the Wikipedia and Firefox logos. He argued it was a parody and therefore allowed regardless of copyright. The Board disagreed that it should be allowed. Michael Snow listed it for deletion.

Japanese logos: Someone on ja made some derivative versions of the Wikipedia logo for use on the Japanese Wikipedia. They wanted GFDL permission for them since they would be deleted from that project for being non-free. I explained they were not GFDL, but that the Commons allowed such copyrighted images. I don't know the final outcome or whether ja deleted them.

Counter vandalism unit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU.PNG Cool Cat wanted permission for a version of the Wikipedia logo to advertise his counter-vandalism unit. The logo is now widely in use, with no conclusion from the Board. I told him I didn't think it was an issue based on past precedents but to check with the rest of the board:

Many similar logos are used across the projects with no permission being sought:

Formal uses

There are also many outstanding issues with formal uses. Placeopedia, and other projects, are waiting to use the logo, or using it with no official contract.