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