The core goal of Commons is maximal reuse. Commercial logos are frequently under _both_ trademark _and_ copyright. Felipe Micaroni Lalli wrote: I would recommend removing all of those. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

On 9/13/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Actually, that's incorrect. Lots of previous discussions have used arguments similar to the following: Suppose, for example, that Saudi Arabia bans photographs of nude people. "Maximal reuse" would require us to then delete the contents of [[Category:Nudity]]. The decision has been to simply *ignore* that kind of issue, because the alternative would mean our content is held hostage to every individual country's idea of morality. Personally, I believe we can keep trademark images that are under a free license, for example [[Image:Gnomelogo.png]], though I suspect there are not many examples of such images anyway. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

: Felipe Micaroni Lalli <micaroni(a)gmail.com> schrieb/wrote: create a That's trademark law, not copyright. Even if you draw a "confusingly similar" image, which is not considered a derivate by copyright law and of which you hold full copyright, you still can't use it to create your own system. You can't even use the character sequence "G"-"N"-"O"-"M"-"E", although it is inelegible for copyright. On the other hand, tradmark law allows you to do whatever you want with that logo unless you claim to be GNOME Foundation (or your products theirs or endorsed by them). The Wikimedia logos are actually both trademarked AND copyrighted by Wikimedia Foundation. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

On 9/13/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: On 9/13/05, David Benbennick <dbenbenn(a)gmail.com> wrote: As another example, the Commons has consistently decided to keep the various Wikimedia Foundation logos, which are "all rights reserved" and hence not reusable at all outside of Wikimedia. (I've always voted to delete them for that reason, but I'm in a small minority.)

On 9/13/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Actually, that's incorrect. Lots of previous discussions have used arguments similar to the following: Suppose, for example, that Saudi Arabia bans photographs of nude people. "Maximal reuse" would require us to then delete the contents of [[Category:Nudity]].

One cannot take photographs of many real-world objects or scenes without encountering trademarks. Cars bear trademarks (their manufacturer's emblems, names, sometimes even shapes or paint designs). Streets are covered with trademarks. And so on and so forth.

The core goal of Commons is maximal reuse.

Commercial logos are frequently under _both_ trademark _and_ copyright.

: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> schrieb/wrote: Maximal reuse might result in minial content. I think every restriction should be evaluated to determine whether the image is still "free enough". With copyright, that's quite easy: Copyright restricts nearly every act of redistribution, so it makes sense to require that images and other media need to have a "free license".[1] On the other hand, trademarks only restricts labelling products with the image or impersonating the owner, i.e. "trademarkish" use. IMO(!), that's still "free enough". Further, there's a conflict if you include "trademarkish" use within the maximal reuse goal of Wikimedia: If someone really starts to use an image on Commons as a trademark, it's likely to become protected as a trademark (and incompatible with the maximal reuse goal). Finally, there are some practical problems with a strict no-trademark policy. As everything can be trademarked, you would have to do regular trademark searches with every trademark registry. You can't ask the author/source of an image (especially if it's PD or depicts something found in nature) and there are very few things that can't be trademarked (and virtually none the upload of which to Commons makes sense). If it's also copyrighted (and not under a free license), the situation is clear: Wikimedia Commons can't host it. ------------------------------- [1] You can argue what constitudes a "free" license. Some people consider no modification licenses free enough, some consider copyleft/share-alike/GNU licenses too restrictive. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l