ATR wrote:
> After thinking about it and reading the comments of
> the two individuals (who just happen both to be WMF
> board members) whose alleged PD content makes
> up the logo and reconsidering what I posted before
> I have several comments/clarifications:
>
> First, if something is so generic that it has no real content,
> i.e. a closeup of a sunflower and a set of brackets, it cannot
> be "released into the public domain" because it is already
> uncopyrightable; IMHO any such "license" is irrelevant as a
> matter of law. How is anyone going to know if one photo of a
> sunflower close up is the same as another? Can someone
> copyright a set of brackets? I don't think so, that seems silly
> to me, there is no real creativity there.
Explain that to any logo creator. He will be happy to learn that his job
encompass no creativity.
Sorry, but no. Making a logo is creation.
Try to ask a robot to make you the logo which exactly fits with your
company and its spirit, I guess you will not get something very valuable.
Not everthing we do
> is protected by copyright law, so you cannot PD something
> that can't be PD, or if you want to suggest that it is PD
> that does not mean that trademark law cannot superseded
> by copyright law and people can use it in violation of trademark
> law just because someone said, "hey I released this into the
> public domain because I was just a volunteer for the
> organization that is now using it."
>
> Putting together those two elements creates a logo, and
> a logo is covered by statutory & common trademark law.
> The basis principle of trademark law is that the trademark
> belongs to whomever uses it, here it has been in use by the
> Wikimedia Foundation, it was created on its servers and it
> belongs to it, anyone, even board members of the WMF
> cannot suggest that it belongs to them or can be transfered to
> some kind of "public ownership" because they are not
> using it "in commerce" and never did.
Excuse me here, but are you saying that every little bit an editor adds
to wikipedia, just because it was created on WMF servers, belongs to WMF ?
Correct me if I am
> wrong. Otherwise it is Wikimedia Foundation that "owns"
> the logo, and all the underlying intellectual property rights
> to said logo, whatever such rights may be notwithstanding
> whatever anyone says or whatever they might have did,
> i..e., declaring such logo as being "public domain."
>
> Creating a logo for "public domain use" is an absurdity,
> it is like mixing apples with oranges.There is no such thing as
> releasing a logo into the public domain, once logos fall into
> disuse they are no longer logos, just graphics; as Eric
> points out people can certainly create graphics that use
> parts of other graphics that are generic, that happens all
> the time and does not depend on the "public domain" just
> as no one "owns" words, no one owns basic symbols or
> reproductions of images that are so generic that no one
> can really tell who made those images. However if someone
> creates a "logo" that causes confusion with another logo,
> especially one that is protected by statutory trademark law
> the question is, does the owner care if the mark is diluted by
> such wrongful infringement? If the owner does nothing and/or
> its board members condone such action eventually that
> trademark will be worthless, but I would like to point out
> that board members owe a fiduciary duty to the organization(s)
> on which they sit.
Yes. And afaik, board members also are supposed to have a say in the
trademark strategy followed by the organisation on which they sit.
>
> I would like to note that I am discussing this issue publicly as
> volunteer not in any "official" or "unofficial" capacity. I am
> not disclosing anything here that is not a matter of public record.
I'll stop that troll here.
But it was interesting and help me to open my eyes.
Anthere
> Alex T Roshuk
> Attorney at law
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Moeller" <erik@wikimedia.org>
> To: "ATR" <alex756@nyc.rr.com>; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation logo : pain and suffering
>
>
> | The MW logo is PD content and Anthere and I explicitly designated it
> | as such. I'm not even going to get into any discussion about whether
> | we could retroactively "un-PD" it, as I find such attempts to put
> | content that has been explicitly released to the public under a
> | proprietary license unethical.
> |
> | Is it valuable for the MW logo to be copyrighted by the WMF? Maybe it
> | is, maybe it isn't. I'm skeptical. I've seen dozens of wikis which
> | have "remixed" the MW logo to make their own (put something else
> | between the double square brackets etc.). I think that's pretty cool
> | and has not created any confusion as far as I know, since MediaWiki is
> | primarily a product rather than a community website of its own.
> |
> | I suggest distinguishing strongly between the brand name MediaWiki and
> | the picture used to represent it. One can be protected while the other
> | is not.
> | --
> | Peace & Love,
> | Erik
> |
> | Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> |
> | DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> | in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> | position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> After thinking about it and reading the comments of
> the two individuals (who just happen both to be WMF
> board members) whose alleged PD content makes
> up the logo and reconsidering what I posted before
> I have several comments/clarifications:
>
> First, if something is so generic that it has no real content,
> i.e. a closeup of a sunflower and a set of brackets, it cannot
> be "released into the public domain" because it is already
> uncopyrightable; IMHO any such "license" is irrelevant as a
> matter of law. How is anyone going to know if one photo of a
> sunflower close up is the same as another? Can someone
> copyright a set of brackets? I don't think so, that seems silly
> to me, there is no real creativity there.
Explain that to any logo creator. He will be happy to learn that his job
encompass no creativity.
Sorry, but no. Making a logo is creation.
Try to ask a robot to make you the logo which exactly fits with your
company and its spirit, I guess you will not get something very valuable.
Not everthing we do
> is protected by copyright law, so you cannot PD something
> that can't be PD, or if you want to suggest that it is PD
> that does not mean that trademark law cannot superseded
> by copyright law and people can use it in violation of trademark
> law just because someone said, "hey I released this into the
> public domain because I was just a volunteer for the
> organization that is now using it."
>
> Putting together those two elements creates a logo, and
> a logo is covered by statutory & common trademark law.
> The basis principle of trademark law is that the trademark
> belongs to whomever uses it, here it has been in use by the
> Wikimedia Foundation, it was created on its servers and it
> belongs to it, anyone, even board members of the WMF
> cannot suggest that it belongs to them or can be transfered to
> some kind of "public ownership" because they are not
> using it "in commerce" and never did.
Excuse me here, but are you saying that every little bit an editor adds
to wikipedia, just because it was created on WMF servers, belongs to WMF ?
Correct me if I am
> wrong. Otherwise it is Wikimedia Foundation that "owns"
> the logo, and all the underlying intellectual property rights
> to said logo, whatever such rights may be notwithstanding
> whatever anyone says or whatever they might have did,
> i..e., declaring such logo as being "public domain."
>
> Creating a logo for "public domain use" is an absurdity,
> it is like mixing apples with oranges.There is no such thing as
> releasing a logo into the public domain, once logos fall into
> disuse they are no longer logos, just graphics; as Eric
> points out people can certainly create graphics that use
> parts of other graphics that are generic, that happens all
> the time and does not depend on the "public domain" just
> as no one "owns" words, no one owns basic symbols or
> reproductions of images that are so generic that no one
> can really tell who made those images. However if someone
> creates a "logo" that causes confusion with another logo,
> especially one that is protected by statutory trademark law
> the question is, does the owner care if the mark is diluted by
> such wrongful infringement? If the owner does nothing and/or
> its board members condone such action eventually that
> trademark will be worthless, but I would like to point out
> that board members owe a fiduciary duty to the organization(s)
> on which they sit.
Yes. And afaik, board members also are supposed to have a say in the
trademark strategy followed by the organisation on which they sit.
>
> I would like to note that I am discussing this issue publicly as
> volunteer not in any "official" or "unofficial" capacity. I am
> not disclosing anything here that is not a matter of public record.
I'll stop that troll here.
But it was interesting and help me to open my eyes.
Anthere
> Alex T Roshuk
> Attorney at law
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Moeller" <erik@wikimedia.org>
> To: "ATR" <alex756@nyc.rr.com>; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation logo : pain and suffering
>
>
> | The MW logo is PD content and Anthere and I explicitly designated it
> | as such. I'm not even going to get into any discussion about whether
> | we could retroactively "un-PD" it, as I find such attempts to put
> | content that has been explicitly released to the public under a
> | proprietary license unethical.
> |
> | Is it valuable for the MW logo to be copyrighted by the WMF? Maybe it
> | is, maybe it isn't. I'm skeptical. I've seen dozens of wikis which
> | have "remixed" the MW logo to make their own (put something else
> | between the double square brackets etc.). I think that's pretty cool
> | and has not created any confusion as far as I know, since MediaWiki is
> | primarily a product rather than a community website of its own.
> |
> | I suggest distinguishing strongly between the brand name MediaWiki and
> | the picture used to represent it. One can be protected while the other
> | is not.
> | --
> | Peace & Love,
> | Erik
> |
> | Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> |
> | DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> | in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> | position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l