Mailing List Archive

On 03/09/06, Tuvic <tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com> wrote:

> We really need solid answers on this question, to stop this kind of editwars


It would depend I think on nl:wp policy on corporate logos in general.
Does nl: allow fair use images? On en:, corporate logos in articles
about a corporation are allowed as fair use - it's clearly academic
fair use to use the logo when talking about a company in an article
about the company.

Saying "it's on Commons so we can use it" is specious - Wikimedia
copyright logos are the one variety of image on Commons that is *not*
free content.


> once and for all.


That trick *never* works. ;-p


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You could find the solution here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-af.png

it seems to be under guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.
org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines

and you should ask a permission, but it is also strange look for a
permission for a Wikipedia logo in Wikipedia contents: it is a
paradox.

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com
Data: 03.09.06 18.36
A: <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Use of Wikimedia-Logo's in articles

Because of an ongoing editwar in the Dutch wiki, I have a question
about the
use of the Wikimedia logo's.

Like most Wikipedia's, we have an article about Wikipedia itself (
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ). Recently, this article
was the
center of an editwar.
The discussion is about the logo's: some editors say the content
of
Wikipedia is GFDL, and the logo is not, so the logo should not be
in the
article.
Others think the use is allowed, because the logo's are the
Wikipedia-logo's, and if we themselve can't use them, they are
just
obsolete.
Eve other just say: it's on Commons, so it's alright.

I've been looking for a policy on meta and on the foundation's
site, but I
really can't find any clear and definite policy: only that they are
looking
into it 'now', and that the board is talking about it.

Does anyone have a solid and conclusive answer on the question if
the logo's
may be used in the articles or not. Also, is there some official
policy of
the board about this, and if not, can a policy be written about
this matter.

We really need solid answers on this question, to stop this kind of
editwars
once and for all.

Greetings, Tuvic (nl-wiki)

(P.S. Apologies for any typo's, or for incorrect spelling or bad
grammar)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> You could find the solution here:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-af.png

I only see the normal Wikimedia-copyright-template, like on all other
Wikimedia logo's. (Am I overlooking something?)

> it seems to be under guidelines:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
> and you should ask a permission, but it is also strange look for a
> permission for a Wikipedia logo in Wikipedia contents: it is a
> paradox.

The webpage only talks about how to use the Wikimedia Logo, and how not, is
doesn't tell anything about when it can't be used or not.
I agree: it looks a paradox or something like that.

> It would depend I think on nl:wp policy on corporate logos in general.
> Does nl: allow fair use images? On en:, corporate logos in articles
> about a corporation are allowed as fair use - it's clearly academic
> fair use to use the logo when talking about a company in an article
> about the company.

NL policy does not allow fair use. But, it the logo's are removed from the
articles, shouldn't they also be removed from the template like {{Commons}}
and so? Wouldn't that mean that the logo's (our 'own' logo's) are totally
useless to us?

I was actually hoping for some reaction of the Board or so, because this
isn't only about NL-wiki, but apparently about every wiki not allowing
Fair-use, if I understand this correctly.

Greetings, Tuvic (NL-wiki)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/4/06, Tuvic <tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com> wrote:
> NL policy does not allow fair use. But, it the logo's are removed from the
> articles, shouldn't they also be removed from the template like {{Commons}}
> and so? Wouldn't that mean that the logo's (our 'own' logo's) are totally
> useless to us?
>

In certian respects yes time to reactivate:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_mascot
--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 04/09/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> In certian respects yes time to reactivate:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_mascot


I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had
a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/4/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had
> a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png

unfortunetly there is a dark side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

That's what happens when you're no longer allowed to use the logos for
unauthorized Wikiprojects -- you have to break out the anime.

On 9/4/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/4/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had
> > a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png
>
> unfortunetly there is a dark side:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 04/09/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> unfortunetly there is a dark side:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png


Oh, that's MUCH better than using a Wikimedia logo. Just the thing!


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 05/09/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's what happens when you're no longer allowed to use the logos for
> unauthorized Wikiprojects -- you have to break out the anime.


It's when the vandals start queueing up to be hit over the head I'll
start worrying.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/3/06, Tuvic <tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com> wrote:
> The discussion is about the logo's: some editors say the content of
> Wikipedia is GFDL, and the logo is not, so the logo should not be in the
> article.
> Others think the use is allowed, because the logo's are the
> Wikipedia-logo's, and if we themselve can't use them, they are just
> obsolete.
> Eve other just say: it's on Commons, so it's alright.
>
It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat
putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL
(which it doesn't).

There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so
that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned, Dutch
Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks. However, the concern would
be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a fair
use issue. I'm aware that most Wikimedia projects don't allow fair use.

On 9/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/3/06, Tuvic <tuvic.tuvic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The discussion is about the logo's: some editors say the content of
> > Wikipedia is GFDL, and the logo is not, so the logo should not be in the
> > article.
> > Others think the use is allowed, because the logo's are the
> > Wikipedia-logo's, and if we themselve can't use them, they are just
> > obsolete.
> > Eve other just say: it's on Commons, so it's alright.
> >
> It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat
> putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL
> (which it doesn't).
>
> There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so
> that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/5/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned, Dutch
> Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks.

You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are
removed on sight these days.

> However, the concern would
> be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a fair
> use issue.

Or any reuse in fact.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/4/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned, Dutch
> Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks. However, the concern would
> be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a fair
> use issue. I'm aware that most Wikimedia projects don't allow fair use.
>
What is your concern, that Wikimedia is going to sue a fork for
violating its copyright? I really don't see that as likely.

The only problem I see is that the image is proprietary in the first place.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I didn't really mean to describe "with permission images" more than I meant
to describe "the trademark and the website both belong to the same NGO".
It's why Wikimedia logos (including projects) can be used out of context on
the English Wikipedia (to an extent, at least).

On 9/4/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/5/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's not like there's a copyright violation; as far as I'm concerned,
> Dutch
> > Wikipedia is allowed to use Wikimedia trademarks.
>
> You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are
> removed on sight these days.
>
> > However, the concern would
> > be if there's any forking involved, in which case it could turn into a
> fair
> > use issue.
>
> Or any reuse in fact.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/4/06, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would have to shoot you for that except that I never realised we had
> > a Wikipedia OS-tan. What a great idea!
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_sockpuppet_show.png
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipe-tan_head.png
>
> unfortunetly there is a dark side:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png

I really like this. :-)

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat
> putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL
> (which it doesn't).
>
> There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so
> that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...

Ok, that would be nice. Only a little vote and we can move on.

> You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are
> removed on sight these days.

Damn, not nice any more :-( Bye-Bye, vote!

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png
>
> I really like this. :-)

That's not quite what I had in mind when I was talking about the logo's :-)

So, it seems like nobody actually knows exactly what is allowed or what not.
Use will probably be permitted by the Foundation (can they sue themselves
for using it in an article?), but reuse of forking could be problematic,
which is against Wikipedia idealogy.

Also, is it deliberate that the Board is silent, or do they just didn't
notice this thread. (stupid question to ask: either way, I won't receive
answer :-)).

Greeting, Tuvic
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Tuvic wrote:
>>It's probably not a violation of the GFDL, any more than Red Hat
>>putting proprietary works onto a Red Hat Linux CD violates the GPL
>>(which it doesn't).
>>
>>There also doesn't seem to be any guidance from the foundation, so
>>that leaves it up to each project to decide for itself, I suppose...
>
>
> Ok, that would be nice. Only a little vote and we can move on.
>
>
>>You've just described what we call "with permission images" that are
>>removed on sight these days.
>
>
> Damn, not nice any more :-( Bye-Bye, vote!
>
>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cvutan.png
>>
>>I really like this. :-)
>
>
> That's not quite what I had in mind when I was talking about the logo's :-)
>
> So, it seems like nobody actually knows exactly what is allowed or what not.
> Use will probably be permitted by the Foundation (can they sue themselves
> for using it in an article?), but reuse of forking could be problematic,
> which is against Wikipedia idealogy.
>
> Also, is it deliberate that the Board is silent, or do they just didn't
> notice this thread. (stupid question to ask: either way, I won't receive
> answer :-)).
>
> Greeting, Tuvic


Uh, no. I noticed it.
I just have no idea what to say. The logo is copyright. Period.
It is correct that using it is "with permission", so by some standards,
not allowed (not free content).

I have no comment to make on this, because I think it would be stupid to
remove it as obviously the Foundation is not gonna argue, nor sue.
On the other hand, if we follow the will of our most convinced editors,
indeed the logo should not be there.

I will propose a rule of thumb. If the logo is in an article, who may be
published or republished by any website without us feeling unconfortable
with, then do publish it.
If the logo use is of such type we would prevent reuse by legal means or
ask money for the re-use, then do not put in the encyclopédia.

but well...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere wrote:
> Uh, no. I noticed it.
> I just have no idea what to say. The logo is copyright. Period.
> It is correct that using it is "with permission", so by some standards,
> not allowed (not free content).
>
> I have no comment to make on this, because I think it would be stupid to
> remove it as obviously the Foundation is not gonna argue, nor sue.
> On the other hand, if we follow the will of our most convinced editors,
> indeed the logo should not be there.
>
> I will propose a rule of thumb. If the logo is in an article, who may be
> published or republished by any website without us feeling unconfortable
> with, then do publish it.
> If the logo use is of such type we would prevent reuse by legal means or
> ask money for the re-use, then do not put in the encyclopédia.
>
> but well...

Ok. I already suspected the Foundation wasn't going to sue themselves
for use of the logo in an article about Wikipedia (for example).

The rule of thumb you're proposing actually says it can be used, but
not to damage the Foundation, and not to make money from its use
alone.
I'll mention your mail in the village pump at nl-wiki, but the most
convinced editors probably won't agree with the image being in the
article.
Maybe it's an idea to discuss this and make an offical policy about
it, but in the mean time we'll try to cope with it as good as it gets.

Greetings, Tuvic
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l