This is a perennial suggestion, and a good one.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:43 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> If wmf has trademarks secured, now is the time to release the copyrights
> and high res. versions.
>
I agree.
SJ
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wik
If wmf has trademarks secured, now is the time to release the copyrights
and high res. versions.
Idealistic maybe. But when we talk to the public, we talk about ideals. Its
odd that community members cant put logos of community-run projects into
slides. Its unfortunate that wikipedia doesnt meet t
On 09/07/12 06:17, birgitte...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am
> somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a
> free license because they are trademarks.
To be precise, the logos were not released under a free license
because it
Your answer would imply that we never ever should try to combine a free
image with any of our logos in a single work (not a collection). I wrote
the reason in a previous mail already. We would have a copyright
violation if the new work is released under a free license since the
logo isn't free
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you read my email?
> *
> me:we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights
> guaranteed.*
> *
> you:that the logos are not released under a free license because they are
> trademar
Do you read my email?
*
me:we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights
guaranteed.*
*
you:that the logos are not released under a free license because they are
trademarks.*
idealists?
sorry?
If you will start to attack me, at least learn to read. And reading your
text, sor
The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled
here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are
trademarks.
It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask
again in the way you did. It a debatable point
As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and
no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, with
the trademark rights guaranteed.
Again why is not free?
--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
The current definition is very protective and incompatible with free
licenses. I can't take a free licensed photo and put the Wikipedia logo
in the background. It's not because the Logo can't be used, it's because
i can't release the the end result under a free license. If i would
create such a
I have no time to find the page, but the logo of Wikipedia may be used for
no commercial use. So it's not public domain, but has a sufficient freedom
of use.
The question is to understand what is the feeling of the normal people in
internet.
So, in this specific case I would really associate copy
From my experience the re-users barely read any of the licenses and
already expect every of our images to be "free beer". Sometimes i looked
where my images and articles are used and i noticed quite a lot of
copyright violations. I took my time to mail the re-users and informed
them what they h
That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make
an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic
reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully
communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an
We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the
user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any
context due to additional trademark restrictions.
This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for
public domain cases. Commons hosts
I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however
this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo
listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as
any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily unde
You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both
concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that
are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos,
depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed
threshold of
Ilario, please keep apart copyright and trademarks. Rodrigo did not
question the decision to have the logos trademarked. He just questioned
the decision to keep them copyrighted.
As Tobias Oelgarte pointed out, a logo can be in the public domain and
still be protected as a trademark.
The Coc
Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.
I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content
in another website also commercial.
So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the
repository may be not free.
Following your concept if a newsp
Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing
free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to
make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not
release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't
agree
I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German
law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but
protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is
something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go
strictly after the pol
A mark is not a simple image.
A mark it's a symbol.
On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a
picture?
And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of
checking the validity of what you ar
So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a
picture?
And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of
checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a s
The trademark doesn't protect only the owner, it can protect also the user.
Imagine that a fashion house would release his trademark under free license.
Imagine that you buy a Gucci or Armani shirt and you are sure that it's
a Gucci or Armani shirt. And you pay as you may pay the original one o
What purpose would it serve to release the WMF's logos? Surely it would
damage the project rather than help it... copyright isn't always a bad
thing!
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia
hummm... No!
I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about
values, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos?
--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing l
Maybe this could be clarified in the FAQ
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#FAQ
Also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_of_Wikipedia
--
Fajro
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://li
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
wrote:
> Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I
> see it as something contradictory.
>
> --
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
> +55 11 7971-8884
> __
Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I
see it as something contradictory.
--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubsc
27 matches
Mail list logo
