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
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 point, not an obvious one. None of us 
who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree 
about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if 
they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true 
availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category 
apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be 
happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project 
is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for 
each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There 
is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. 

In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other 
situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You 
mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality 
releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized 
with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have 
different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most 
important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear 
out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a 
perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when 
I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have 
been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue 
again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I 
do not understand at all.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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, sorry, but your knowledge of license, is shallow.

And I'm unhappy with the fact that we have values ​​and do not put it in
all our instances. Not with anything you said. I know various projects that
images of their logos are under a free license, this is not idealism, is to
be what we ask others to be.

I do not know to be aggressive in an argument that you are not obliged
to participate
and you was not even mentioned... *This I do not understand at all.*


*PS:I just inquired three times the answers, if I can not do more, I think
Stalin was right. I'm going to Siberia.*


-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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.*


 idealists?
 sorry?

 If you will start to attack me, at least learn to read. And reading your
 text, sorry, but your knowledge of license, is shallow.

 And I'm unhappy with the fact that we have values and do not put it in
 all our instances. Not with anything you said. I know various projects that
 images of their logos are under a free license, this is not idealism, is to
 be what we ask others to be.

 I do not know to be aggressive in an argument that you are not obliged
 to participate
 and you was not even mentioned... *This I do not understand at all.*


 *PS:I just inquired three times the answers, if I can not do more, I think
 Stalin was right. I'm going to Siberia.*


 --
 Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
 +55 11 7971-8884



You're not winning any hearts and minds communicating in this style.
Perhaps you should find someone who can more persuasively and politely
argue your points and hand it off to them; repeating yourself in
progressively more surly tones is not going to get you what you want.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 or we don't release it under a free license which is a 
copyright violation of the free image. This is a dilemma and the only 
reasonable/responsible consequence is to not create such an image and to 
delete all images which are subject to this issue.


Given this ugly situation i have to ask: Why?

We have hundreds, thousands if not millions of files which have 
restrictions (de minimis, personal rights, FOP, ...) aside from 
copyright law. The logos are just the same but are treated entirely 
differently, despite the fact that it is much more like that one of the 
other (not so) free images is reused in cases which are against the law. 
I just don't get your argument.


nya~

Am 08.07.2012 22:17, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:

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, not an obvious one. None of us 
who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree 
about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if 
they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true 
availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category 
apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be 
happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project 
is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for 
each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There 
is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally.

In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other 
situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You 
mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality 
releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized 
with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have 
different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most 
important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear 
out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a 
perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when 
I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have 
been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue 
again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I 
do not understand at all.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argentonrodrigo.argen...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


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
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 was imagined that some day they would be trademarks.
According to the trademark searches I did just now, the Wikipedia logo
was only registered as a trademark in 2008, and the other projects as
late as May 2012.

The WMF felt that trademark licensing would be a useful way to raise
money, as a complement to donations. For example, this website has a
trademark license:

http://wikipedia.wp.pl/

Obviously to support that sort of licensing arrangement, you need at
least one sort of protection (copyright or trademark). Also, there was
concern that a free license like the GFDL might be argued to be an
implicit trademark license. Lawyers tend to be conservative on that
type of issue.

Currently, WMF does not even publish the 3D source files for the
Wikipedia logo, or a high-resolution rendered image. I think that's a
bigger problem than the lack of a free license, since it prevents
people from improving the current poor-quality 3D rendering and
contributing the results back to the project.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 the debian definition of
'free'. Etc.
On Jul 9, 2012 7:25 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 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 was imagined that some day they would be trademarks.
 According to the trademark searches I did just now, the Wikipedia logo
 was only registered as a trademark in 2008, and the other projects as
 late as May 2012.

 The WMF felt that trademark licensing would be a useful way to raise
 money, as a complement to donations. For example, this website has a
 trademark license:

 http://wikipedia.wp.pl/

 Obviously to support that sort of licensing arrangement, you need at
 least one sort of protection (copyright or trademark). Also, there was
 concern that a free license like the GFDL might be argued to be an
 implicit trademark license. Lawyers tend to be conservative on that
 type of issue.

 Currently, WMF does not even publish the 3D source files for the
 Wikipedia logo, or a high-resolution rendered image. I think that's a
 bigger problem than the lack of a free license, since it prevents
 people from improving the current poor-quality 3D rendering and
 contributing the results back to the project.

 -- Tim Starling


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 have to do to comply with the licenses. As the result i 
saw two general pattern. The small private pages were users expected 
that our images would be free beer and the bigger (typical copyright 
violation) pages that didn't respond at all. The first group was usually 
very surprised and immediately corrected the content of the pages after 
i informed them about their mistake.


From this experience i learned that not many are really aware of the 
copyright issues or license requirements. So i can't expect that the 
logos are seen or used any different, despite the missing free license.


If i would apply your logic on trademarks to the many other logos we 
host, then we could upload them without any licensing condition or not 
at all, since you deny that this images would be useful outside of 
Wikipedia.


But there are cases in which this missing license information is an 
actual problem. Every of our mirrors by now is a copyright violation and 
could be sued by the WMF (unlikely, but possible), since they can't 
comply with the licensing, given the fact that this images have no valid 
license.


Overall i see no real harm to release this images under a free license, 
because it would not change much. People either read the license text 
and understand or they ignore it because of the two basic reasons I 
explained above. The advantage would be that we now could use the logos 
in collections which are freely licensed itself. Up till now it is 
impossible to release a collection under CC-BY-SA which contains one of 
the logos and i also can't incorporate them into other images, just 
because i can't mix no license with free license.


This example is an actual copyright violation: 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beziehung_zwischen_Wikipedia_und_der_Presse.svg


The used press logo is under the LGPL. The Wikipedia ball has no 
license. Not mentioning the LGPL would be a copyright violation, but 
putting it on the image is also a copyright violation regarding the 
logo. So what to do? The logical consequence would be to delete the 
image, despite its many uses...



Am 04.07.2012 05:46, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:

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 
unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to 
argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these 
practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no 
exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it 
seems to make practical sense?

Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a 
copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to 
unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no 
practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining 
copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on 
non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as 
it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do 
not find that consistency is inherently desirable.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  
wrote:


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 images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include 
US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some 
language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another 
case are personal rights. For example the German Recht am eigenen Bild is 
very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person.

What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our 
collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the 
copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a 
template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting 
images with no free license is actual exception.

Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:

I can't disagree with your understanding  of the different IP laws, however this not a very 
commonly 

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 copyright law and
trademark law because for cases like Wikipedia the difference is a nuance.

The logo of Wikipedia is a symbol not in terms of mark, but it is a symbol
because if you use it, the persons associate it with a specific idea of
good will and extend this idea to the project or the product using it.

Any project or initiative would have the logo of Wikipedia because they
would have people associating a good feeling to the project, but are we
sure that all projects are useful and good projects ans socially innovative?

Wikipedia is an useful project, you use the logo of Wikipedia, so you are
useful. And I think that the persons assume that someone supervises that
this logo is used appropriately.

The current definition of the use of the Wikipedia logo, it is sufficiently
protective for a world based on the simple rule that what is in my screen
is mine and that anything is free can be used for any purposes.


On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Tobias Oelgarte 
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

 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
 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this
 logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a
 true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while
 trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.

 --
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 an image and release it with the license from the photo then 
it would be effectively the same as releasing the logo under this 
license. If the copyright holder disagrees then i created a copyright 
violation and could be sued.


If i would publish such an image under a free license then it would mean:

A) I'm creating a copyright violation since i have not the right to 
release the image, which includes the logo, under a free license.
B) The copyright holder agrees to include the logo and he also agrees 
with the viral license, which is effectively the same as releasing the 
logo itself.


What now?

Am 04.07.2012 11:10, schrieb 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 copyright law and
trademark law because for cases like Wikipedia the difference is a nuance.

The logo of Wikipedia is a symbol not in terms of mark, but it is a symbol
because if you use it, the persons associate it with a specific idea of
good will and extend this idea to the project or the product using it.

Any project or initiative would have the logo of Wikipedia because they
would have people associating a good feeling to the project, but are we
sure that all projects are useful and good projects ans socially innovative?

Wikipedia is an useful project, you use the logo of Wikipedia, so you are
useful. And I think that the persons assume that someone supervises that
this logo is used appropriately.

The current definition of the use of the Wikipedia logo, it is sufficiently
protective for a world based on the simple rule that what is in my screen
is mine and that anything is free can be used for any purposes.


On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:


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
originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this
logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a
true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while
trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.

--

Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

It had something to do with defending the trademark, if I recall
correctly, although I think Commons makes a difference between
copyrighted and trademarked images. 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk



On 3 July 2012 22:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 or 
probably more.


It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the 
original trademark because it has been released under free license.


You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but you 
have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than the 
original.


Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the 
trademark cannot assure that you have an original product.


On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

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?




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 single
source?

-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
source?




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted 
(especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the 
policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So 
i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.


Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb 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 are consuming? But we do not talk 
to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
single

source?







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 to do that.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com 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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
 volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
 source?

 --
 Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
 +55 11 7971-8884
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.




On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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 policies the logos aren't free and should be 
deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of 
the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission 
itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.


Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb 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 are consuming? But we do not talk 
to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
single

source?









--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 Coca Cola logo for example is pre-1923 and therefore public domain. 
But the copyright status does not affect the status as a trademark. Coca 
Cola is still a strong trademark and there is no cheaply produced 
low-quality fake counterfeit Cola that tries to ship as Coca Cola. 
Trademark laws work fine without copyright.


The reason why the WMF claims copyright on our logos is, that it's 
easier to get rid of people who do stuff the WMF doesn't like. Even if 
that stuff is perfectly legal under trademark law.


Let me try to construct an example: A company hosts an evil ad-ridden, 
malware-infested copy of Wikipedia with a Wikipedia logo on the front 
page saying all content from Wikipedia [LOGO]. The WMF wants to get 
rid of it. They sue for trademark infringement. The court decides 
against the WMF, because it thinks that the Wikipedia logo on the front 
page will not be understood by readers as affiliation but as a source 
statement. The WMF can now say Hah, we lost our case, but now we sue 
them a second time, this time for copyright infringement!


So the WMF's copyright claim is a method to have an ace up your sleeve 
if you're actually in the wrong legally.


I don't like the concept. I'd rather see the logos freely licensed.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

An'n 03.07.2012 23:29, hett Ilario Valdelli schreven:
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 or probably more.


It's look like a high quality product and the trademark looks like the 
original trademark because it has been released under free license.


You are sure that you have in your hand a high quality product, but 
you have a copy and nothing else, and this copy costs much more than 
the original.


Next time you will not buy a product with this trademark because the 
trademark cannot assure that you have an original product.


On 03.07.2012 23:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

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?








___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. 
Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i 
don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed 
freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at 
the same time.


Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb 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 newspaper would use the Commons content, 
it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.




On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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 policies the logos aren't free and should be 
deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of 
the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission 
itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.


Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb 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 are consuming? But we do not talk 
to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a 
single

source?












___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 understand that 
trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the 
symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the 
required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was 
listed as free of copyright.  However strictly accurate the plan to treat the 
two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those 
people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws 
achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. 
They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed 
messages. 

It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
maintain a consistent message of Do not use. 

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

 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 
 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos 
 and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true 
 reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark 
 laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb 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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
 should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
 
 
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 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 policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially 
 with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This 
 is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the 
 point that Rodrigo put up as well.
 
 Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb 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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
 volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
 source?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 hosts images which are public domain in 
some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to 
different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content 
that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are 
personal rights. For example the German Recht am eigenen Bild is very 
restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person.


What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in 
our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws 
aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and 
including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common 
practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception.


Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:

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 understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to 
use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly 
letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright. 
 However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot 
be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas 
of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even 
become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.

It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a 
consistent message of Do not use.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  
wrote:


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 originality or 
even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is 
restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the 
Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply 
and we promote free content at the same time.

Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb 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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it should 
release under free license his website, his logo, his content.



On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

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 policies the logos 
aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it 
is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the 
mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well.

Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb 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 are consuming? But we do not talk to our
volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single
source?







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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 an 
unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to 
argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these 
practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no 
exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it 
seems to make practical sense?

Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a 
copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to 
unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no 
practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining 
copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on 
non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as 
it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do 
not find that consistency is inherently desirable.

Birgitte SB

On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 
wrote:

 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 images which are public domain in some countries 
 (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright 
 laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local 
 law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the 
 German Recht am eigenen Bild is very restrictive and does not allow any 
 usage of a free image from any person.
 
 What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our 
 collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside 
 the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a 
 template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting 
 images with no free license is actual exception.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com:
 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 
 understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually 
 being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the 
 symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel 
 betrayed by the fact it was listed as free of copyright.  However strictly 
 accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it 
 cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor 
 understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar 
 results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become 
 convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages.
 
 It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To 
 maintain a consistent message of Do not use.
 
 Birgitte SB
 
 On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  
 wrote:
 
 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 
 originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this 
 logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a 
 true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while 
 trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time.
 
 Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb 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 newspaper would use the Commons content, it 
 should release under free license his website, his logo, his content.
 
 
 
 On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 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