[WikiEN-l] RE: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia

Mon Dec 27 13:36:48 UTC 2004

Hi Ævar,

Thank you for the elaboration. 

I still don’t see the problem. The logo is not "unfree". It is very much
free, and even more so than permitted by a traditional GNU license - as I
recall it.

I do find it ironic that companies like Microsoft that has a long tradition
of fighting free licenses with their more commercial and restrictive
approach, are allowed to have their logo on Wikipedia, just because they
belong to some other commercial or "ill-replaced" category. 

As for the phrase "Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
ill-replaceable image like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg
it will get deleted [..]", you might as well be telling me that the
Microsoft logos is allowed because they are Microsoft logos and the IPU is
not. It comes very close to telling me that the IPU logo, with the identity
invested in it, pr. definition simply is not allowed.

The way I interpret all this, is that I now have 2 options:

1. Define the IPU logo as a product, so that it would be strictly commercial
and thus belong to a different set of rules.

2. Alter the logo license to allow it to be used for whatever purpose, and
thus totally obliterate the identity for which it was specifically designed.

Neither of the above is fair to the general idea of the IPU logo, and both
would be very unfair (if not legally impossible by now) because there are
people out there that has adopted the logo on the current license - and for
what it represents. So I *cannot* alter the license by now, and based on the
explanation that I've been given so far, this is luckily not something that
I have any reason to regret. 

Because...

We are talking about a free encyclopedia service that actively wants to
alter the identity of the very object it sets out to document. It even wants
to purge itself from facts of reality that does not conform to some dogma of
how the reality "should" be like. (It gives me associations to when Libya
removed certain countries from the World Map *LOL*) These matters can hardly
be to be a desirable attributes of a media type from whom, one should be
able to expect objectivity.

As far as I understand you, this is not your doing ;-) You're merely
relaying some facts to me and I'm glad that you brought this matter to my
attention. Thanks. 

I will cc this mail correspondence to the mailing list mail address you
provided to me, hoping that this matter can be settled in a prudent and
rational way. Should this process, in contrary to my expectations, result in
the logo being removed, I will also upload our mail correspondence on
www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, urging the visitors to complain about this
unfair and irrational ruling - and in the process I fear - undermining
Wikipedia's credibility.

Thank you for your time.

Kind Regards,
Tim Ahrentløv

-----Original Message-----
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com] 
Sent: 27. december 2004 13:32
To: ta at ateist.org
Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:34:19 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta at ateist.org> wrote:
> Hi Ævar,
> 
> A simple search on Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft)
shows
> the Microsoft logo. A click on the Encarta link
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Encarta) shows the Encarta logo,
and
> so on.
> 
> Are these logos under the GNU license? Can these logos be used for
whatever
> purpose *you* may choose? Can they even be used at all, without
Microsoft's
> written consent? I must admit I do not understand why the IPU license is a
> problem for Wikipedia.
> 
> Do you write to Microsoft or many of the other very restrictive license
> holders, informing them that their logos and identities *must* be allowed
to
> be used for any purpose imaginable? I find that hard to believe. I also
find
> it counterproductive to Wikipedia's role of simply relaying facts.
> 
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, please allow me to doubt that your request
actually
> conforms to the standards set by Wikipedia, and please be aware that I
will
> protest to this seemingly unfair and illogical ruling.
> 
> Mvh
> Tim Ahrentløv

Not all images on wikipedia are "free", some, like the ones you
mentioned are fair use logos, and others are under a none-commercial
licence and more others have other terms, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_by_copyright_status

There is an active movement to purge these images from wikipedia
and/or replace them with free ones which can be used without
restriction, a central staging area for this "operation" is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images , your
image got listed there (not by me) stating that it "imposes condition
that [the] symbol must represent atheism".

Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
ill-replaceable image like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg it will get deleted
on January 10, 2005 (30 days from the initial listing) unless we can
get a licence for it which is compatible with the GFDL.

The reason for doing this is because wikipedia is not simply a fact
relaying device, but a free encyclopedia, most other languages than
the english version of it do not even accept none-free images and en.
is actively phasing them out.

As for any "official" protest please make them if you desire to do so,
the english mailing list (wikien-l at wikipedia.org) would probably be
the best way to do so, however note that I'm in no way making any sort
of "ruling" on this, I simply saw the listing of the image on Possibly
unfree images and decided to E-Mail the author of it to request that
he grant permission to use it under a compatible licence.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
> Sent: 27. december 2004 02:48
> To: ta at ateist.org
> Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> 
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:04:37 +0100, Tim Ahrentløv <ta at ateist.org> wrote:
> > Hi Ævar,
> >
> > The IPU license is available here:
> > http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu_logo_license.htm
> >
> > I fail to see what this license lacks in regard to the more formal GNU
> > license. Basically, the license allows *anyone* to use the logo for
*any*
> > purpose (also commercial!) as long as it is used to represent atheism.
The
> > logo no longer belongs to me or www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, but to a
> > purpose. I don't see that it can get any better or more public domain
than
> > that.
> >
> > Please elaborate on what seems to be missing from this current license,
> > because I don't see any problems.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Tim Ahrentløv
> >
> 
> The problem specifically is the "used to represent atheism" part,
> which does not give permission to use the image for porpoises other
> than the representation of atheism which conflicts with PD and the
> GFDL which allow the use of material for any porpoise.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 26. december 2004 23:26
> > To: ta at invisiblepinkunicorn.com
> > Subject: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> >
> > Notice: Consider this a none-private email.
> >
> > The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on wikipedia will be deleted on the
> > next few days if it is not placed under a licence compatible with the
> > GNU Free Documentation Licence or similar within the next few days,
> > would you be willing to dual licence the image under the IPU Logo
> > License and the GFDL so that it can be used in the article?
> >
> > URLs:
> > IPU Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
> > IPU Photo:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png
> >
> >
> 
>