[Foundation-l] Logo use

Sun Jan 15 18:55:47 UTC 2006

As a former "CVU Director" (a title which bears no real authority, outside
high access in the CVU IRC channel) and the creator of the original images
(they have since been reconditioned), I must object to this. There are many,
many derivatives of the Foundation logos that have been created for various
different groups (I myself am responsible for quite a few, I admit), and
very few of these have received any objection. When I created my first
derivative, the "Admin mop", I went to Angela to determine what should be
done to get it approved; she passed it on to the other board members,
received no objection, and noted the same on the image page. In the course
of gettting that image "approved", we discussed what terms applied to such
images (use onwiki only, copyright to the foundation, images in good taste,
etc). I believe that as long as the derivatives do not defame the founation,
Wikipedians should have free reign to create derivatives of the logos for
use on Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps an informal review process should be instituted, something along the
lines of a "derivative review committee" that could quickly review the
images, insure they do not pose a threat to the foundation, and "certify"
them as safe for use on projects. I myself would be willing to serve on such
a committee; images could be uploaded to commons with a {{proposed logo
derivative}} tag, listed on a Meta page, where the committee members (which
should probably include at least one of our "legal mavens") could review
them and issue a quick decision, replacing the proposed tag with an
{{approved logo derivative}} tag that would make it clear that while the
Foundation did not object to the use of the logo on WM projects, it also did
not sponsor or sanction the group using the logo (unless of course, they do,
in which case, the tag could be altered).

I would also support requiring groups (like the CVU, but also groups like
COTW and such) to have a small italicized disclaimer (something similar to
the disambig notices that show up on the top of certain pages) saying that
they are not sponsored or sanctioned by the Foundation. (In fact, I'll go
put such a notice on the CVU page as soon as I finish this email.) I don't
think "lacking Foundation sanction" has to mean "forbidden to use the
foundation logo", when plenty of other unsanctioned groups are using the
logo.

Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/

On 1/15/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On the subject of the recent introduction of Wikimedia's visual
> identity guidelines [1], I came across several images (one of which I
> apparently created myself, though I don't remember doing so) which
> contravene these guidelines.  Angela has made a list of these on Meta
> [2].  Most of these don't seem to be intrinsically harmful to the
> Foundation's copyright or give the impression that the Foundation
> endorses any concept or group that it in fact does not.
>
> However, there are some images that do concern me.  There are two
> images created by Cool Cat [3] for a group named the "Counter
> Vandalism Unit" [4], a group that aims to facilitate and improve
> vandal fighting.  The images are logos for the group.  One [5]
> incorporates the WMF logo, the other [6] the Wikipedia logo.
>
> Cool Cat was given provisional permission by Anthere to use these
> images before the above guidelines were created. [7]
>
> However, the Counter Vandalism Unit does have some opposition within
> the community.  I would note that I myself am in disagreement with
> much of its structure and attitudes, particularly some comments that
> imply that the Unit is the only way in which to fight vandalism.
> However, just to avoid any undue comments, I am sending this post not
> to request removal but just _reappraisal_ of the situation, which I
> see as potentially harmful.
>
> The logos give the impression that the Unit is Foundation-sanctioned.
> This idea is encouraged by the proliferation of the Foundation logo
> attached to Unit-related matters (most notably the infamous
> userboxes).
>
> With this in mind, may I suggest that the provisional permission
> granted to Cool Cat be at least reconsidered in light of the new
> guidelines.
>
> Happy Wikipedia Day!
>
> [1]
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_logo_derivatives
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cool_Cat
> [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit
> [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU2.PNG
> [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU2.5.PNG
> [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU2.5.PNG
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>