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<
[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
