This is a thread that accidentally became off-list due to a wrong reply-to header.
Mike Godwin hett schreven: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Marcus Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcus Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Marcus Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Marcus Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mike Godwin hett schreven: > > > > > > > > > > > My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the > > > > > > > > > > > Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary > > > > > > > > > > > dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with > > > > > > > > > > > regard to the rationale for their decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Might be true, I don't know. You are an expert, so share your knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > What's the difference between e.g. Coca Cola with it's PD-old logo and > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia? Why do we need copyright restrictions to protect our projects > > > > > > > > > > when Coca Cola (or any other company/organization with non-copyrighted > > > > > > > > > > logo) does not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is explained in the policy document I posted a link for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps there's some magic sentence in that policy document > > > > > > > > (<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy>) that explains the > > > > > > > > difference and is obvious to an expert. I am no expert, so it's not obvious > > > > > > > > to me. The word "copyright" is not even mentioned in the document. My > > > > > > > > question was: why is trademark protection insufficient for Wikimedia when > > > > > > > > it is sufficient to protect the rights of the Coca Cola Company? Why do we > > > > > > > > need additional copyright protection when the Coca Cola Company is fine > > > > > > > > with an uncopyrighted logo? > > > > > > > Why do you think the word "copyright" has to be used in the trademark document > > > > > > > when when copyright terms like "content" are used? It's true that the policy > > > > > > > document assumes that a reader will know that content is subject to copyright > > > > > > > law, and that "free license" refers to "free copyright license." > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason I think that is that my question specifically was about copyright. > > > > > > You said the answer to my question is in the policy. It is not. Let me once > > > > > > again repeat my question: Why would logos licensed under a license like > > > > > > CC-by-sa weaken our legal position when e.g. Coca Cola has no problem at all > > > > > > to legally protect itself although the logo is PD? > > > > > > > > > > The benefit comes from being able to prevent deceptive and confusing re-use of > > > > > the logo through copyright remedies as well as trademark remedies. As soon as > > > > > the puzzle >globe becomes as widely recognized as the Coca-Cola logo, we can > > > > > revisit the issue. > > > > > > > > Thanks. That's what I thought. Basically you are saying you want the logos to > > > > be copyrighted to be able to fight trademark infringement (like "deceptive and > > > > confusing re-use") with non-trademark-law tools. > > > > > > That's not quite right. What I'm saying is that we reserve the right to use any > > > lawful tools to prevent others from misrepresenting themselves as us, and to > > > ensure the freedom of Wikimedia content, including both trademark-law tools and > > > non-trademark-law tools that are available to us. > > > > That's the same as I said, isn't it? Just rendered in words that try to sound > > nicer. > > It's not the same, no. > > > > > > Weakening our legal ability to enforce free licenses in the name of a > > > misconception about ideological purity is very much an ill-considered idea. > > > > Trademark law is designed to protect trademarks. Copyright law is designed to > > protect the author's rights. Copyright law can be (ab)used to put legal pressure > > on a trademark infringer but if your case is valid trademark law is sufficient > > to stop the infringer. > > No lawyer I know assumes that trademark law is a magical cure-all for cases of > infringement. Nor is infringement the only issue that needs to be addressed. > > > > And you may call it a "misconception about ideological purity" but free licenses > > are part of the Foundation's mission statement. It's not "ideological purity", > > it's "integrity" to follow your own ideals. > > You are perhaps unfamiliar with my career if you imagine that I lack integrity or > ideals. Yes, I am indeed unfamiliar with your fine career (except for the famous "law") but I never suggested anything like that. Anybody re-reading my sentence will recognize that that was not what I said. > What I am trying to explain to you is that you have a very > unsophisticated, un-nuanced understanding of what free licenses are, what > trademark law can and cannot do, and what tools can serve the mission of > Wikipedia, which is to ensure that free knowledge is available to everyone. > If you do not see how the Wikimedia Foundation's use of both trademark law and > copyright law is designed to promote the mission, then let me suggest you have > not given adequate thought to the mission, or adequate study to the legal issues > involved. You may have a great career and expertise but until now you haven't used this expertise much in this discussion. Instead you have used argumentum ab auctoritate and have tried to depict people disagreeing with you as incompetent. Marcus Buck User:Slomox _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
