Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Must be freely licensed or public domain/Licensing terms

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Click on the 'Project page' tab, above to see the current policy/guideline wording that is under discussion on this page.
  • To make a specific proposal, please start a new subsection and use the code below to put it in its own box. You can sign underneath the resultant box, but for technical reasons you can't use "~~~~" within it. Please number your proposal for ease of reference.
{{divbox|amber|Proposal number and title|Introduction
*more text}}
Commons-logo.svg Scope Review 2013 links:

Discuss stage 2 of this review



Links to current rules

Discussion: Introductory Scope wording

Discussion: Files

Discussion: Pages, galleries and categories

Discussion: Areas of particular concern

Discussion: Identifiable people

Other proposals

Proposal 1[edit]

  • It sometimes annoyes me when I see files like the Firefox or Debain logo being delted because they would not allow derivative works and are only allowed to be used in a specific context.
    • When do these restrictions not really matter? — If they can be enforced with trandemark law anyway.
    • Why do companies then choose to add these restrictions to the license? — I guess because copyright is easier to enforce across the borders of one country. As far as I know, even the WMF did not decide to put their logos explicitly under a free license.
  • Comments? Opinion? -- Rillke(q?) 07:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • We have File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 logo 256.png and File:Debian-OpenLogo.svg, so these are bad examples. Trademarks generally vary from country to country, and in general they apply only when you use the logo as a trademark - that is, when you use it to sell a product. AFAIK many companies have trademark guidelines that really go beyond what trademark law really permits. darkweasel94 08:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Nice to see you going through my contribs. I am not talking about stuff that “really go[es] beyond what trademark law really permits” but about cases where “[the restrictions] can be enforced with trademark law anyway”. These provided examples are not so bad in any way: File:Mozilla Firefox Logo.svg, Commons:Deletion requests/Debian logos. Trademark law differs from country to country and sometimes requires registration. That's why no one who holds the copyright of a logo is happy to publish them under a free license without restrictions. -- Rillke(q?) 08:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I am not going through your contributions, all project scope reform pages have been on my watchlist for a long time, so please don't assume bad faith. AFAIK trademark law cannot by itself prohibit making derivative works - it can only pose any problems if you use an image as a trademark. But I am not a lawyer. darkweasel94 09:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

aracters. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This topic appears to be of lesser interest/priority to the community than some of the others in this review, and I propose that we should close it down now. That will allow us in part 2 of the review to focus our full attention on the most important and/or contentious issues. Please comment at Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)