Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread Birgitte_sb
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread Nathan
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 trademarks.*

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread Tim Starling
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-08 Thread John Vandenberg
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-04 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-04 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-04 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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

[Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Pedro Sanchez
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Richard Symonds
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Nathan
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Marcus Buck
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Birgitte_sb
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?

2012-07-03 Thread Birgitte_sb
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