If these potential logos are not on a free license, as you suggest (and i have no reason to assume you are wrong), then they should certainly not be moved to commons. Meta seems like a correct place. If the rules of meta can be changed so that these copyrighted images can stay hosted there? Perhaps a template with the contest info might be useful. One way or the other, it would be a good thing if the copyright status could be determined: does the foundation have all rights? Do the creators still have all rights reserved?
teun spaans On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 February 2010 19:14, Tomasz Ganicz <polime...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2010/2/20 geni <geni...@gmail.com>: > >> On 20 February 2010 05:54, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all > other > >>> submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL. > >> > >> Evidence? > >> -- > > > > Evidence of what? At the beginning on all Wikipedias as well as meta > > there were no license templates at all. It was just assumed that all > > original content is under GNU FDL - both text and pictures. The idea > > of license templates for media files was created to provide > > possibility to use pictures on other free licenses and those which are > > public domain. Following the copyright paranoia in such the manner you > > could ask if there is any evidence that articles in Wikipedia are > > legally under GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA. Do we have any evidence that users > > agreed for the license conditions? How many of them read the > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use ? And how many of > > those who read Terms of Use followed the links to the licenses legal > > code or at least general explanation of their practical consequences ? > > In case of text content it is simply assumed with no evidence at all > > that editors agreed. Moreover even if the uploader to Commons chooses > > the license in upload form do we check if he/she knows and understand > > its conditions? So, it is all assumed with no evidence at all. > > Strange? > > The logo contest was specificaly non standard with copyrights not > being released so that the logo copyright could be held exclusively by > the foundation. The various wikimedia logos (except the mediawiki one) > are not under a free license. > > > > -- > geni > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l