[Foundation-l] Requests to use the foundations' trademarks/logos.

Fri Jul 14 17:53:55 UTC 2006

You're absolutely right; as the Internet gets bigger and more and more
content is written, archival services are going to become more
powerful as people want to look for stuff that someone else has
pointed them at - the idea has been around for sometime with search
engine caches and the Wayback Machine, but it will be something
interesting to watch.

I think you're right on just archiving on site in order to avoid
difficulties, but right now they need to have that permission as soon
as possible and understand that they can have it again, which it'd be
good if Brad dealt with for us.

Brad: Have your got a hold of the e-mail, or do you still need it to
be forwarded?

On 14/07/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/07/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/06, Jack <jackdt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of
> > > Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
> > >
> > > They wish to
> > > 1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
> > > 2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
> > >
> > > They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all
> > > identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright
> > > statement, ownership, publication date
> > > <http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html>; so the GFDL requirements are
> > > met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission
> > > or refuse?
> > >
> > > WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086
> > > LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
> >
> > I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the
> > actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the
> > US LOC for a collection about this.  Maybe someone is able to find the
> > ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their
> > request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested
> > to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is
> > on dead trees or on a DVD.
>
> It's the major problem with web archiving - if you get 10% response
> you're lucky. Most have grudgingly accepted they have to go with
> "archive on spec" and take down afterwards if there's a complaint. I
> strongly, strongly suggest we figure out a way to have a blanket
> permissions policy for this sort of thing; it's exactly what we want
> to encourage, though there's generally less need to archive us than
> with most people...
>
> Whilst I remember, the rather cunning trick developed to get around
> permissions (at least for the biggest web archivers, the
> national-level people), is to quietly redefine legal deposit, so that
> the deposit libraries have the right to make and store copies of any
> material published to the web in their jurisdiction. Defining
> "jurisdiction" is fun, of course, but they seem to have knocked
> something together; France is working on theirs, the UK has passed the
> enabling legislation but hasn't put it into force yet, and I think
> Denmark's got it up and running.
>
> (I was lucky enough to attend a one-day conference on internet
> archiving - it was a bit accidental, we hadn't quite realised it was
> directed at the big players - which was remarkably interesting. It's
> going to be a fun field to watch)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
	—Xyrael
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net