Policy talk:Trademark policy/Archive 1

2005 discussion

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

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)

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)

Browser screenshots

How does this interact with the truly large quantity of browser screenshots (all of which use the Main Page to demonstrate layout) on en? --Random832 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Because, you know, {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} is just about the most restrictive licensing template that's still allowed for new images.

Could you give me examples of where these screenshots are used? Thanx notafish }<';> 08:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

en:Firefox, en:SeaMonkey, en:Konqueror, en:Nautilus, en:Shiira, en:Amaya (web browser) etc etc - that's just the free ones, there's also ones on IE, safari, etc, but those are fair use images anyway (but unlike the IE/safari/etc copyright, there's no fair use rationale for the wikimedia copyrighted elements). --Random832 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll be refactoring this whole thing shortly, I'll make sure we take the screenshots into consideration. notafish }<';> 08:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually have a question about how the claim that the logos are "not GFDL" works? I mean, sure, copyright's transfered to WMF, but weren't these uploaded (and thus released into the GFDL) for the logo contest? Transferring a copyright doesn't "un-release" something that's already GFDLed, does it? --Random832 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Domain names

This is a prohibition against the use of our trademarked names in domain names. But I thought there was an automatic exemption in U.S. law that allows for such use for parody and analysis purposes. So, given that, would not the wikipediawatch.com domain be legal? (not that I favor them in any way). Just wondering. --Daniel Mayer 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Errors in current logo

Hi, there are 2 major errors in the current Wikipedia globe logo, and other minor problems.

w:User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo is the most centralized discussion/link compilation that I know of. (There's even a petition at that link's projectpage)

Nohat has explained the problems with correcting the errors. But noone seems to have a solution. Hence I'm mentioning here. Quiddity 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

EDP

Given the mass confusion this issue has caused on the English Wikipedia (See en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots and [3]) is it possible to get an explicit exemption either in this policy or the EDP for the use of these images on Wikimedia projects? People there seem unwilling to apply common sense to the matter. -N 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Saw the discussion up the page, I still think an explicit exemption from the EDP is needed or people are going to dispute it. -N 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)