Talk:Affiliations Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia user group logos

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

So who was consulted before the RFC?[edit]

Could AffCom explain whether or not it consulted with Legal and Community Affairs before posting the RFC? If not, on what basis does it think that all of the trademark expectations have been met with their suggestions? Are they all within the design standards for use? We don't need another repeat of the Wikivoyage logo situation. Risker (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, we spoke with WMF staff, including Legal and Community Affairs (who has a seat on our mailing list to help facilitate these conversations). As a board committee, we also shared this RFC with the WMF board of trustees prior to going public (although we did not receive specific comments on this topic - so I cannot say they weighed in per se). These all fit design and trademark standards. The Wikivoyage logo situation was because of an outside logo problem, which I suppose could apply to the custom logo situation, but none using already well-established WM logos. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Wikimedia community logo is not subject to the Wikimedia Foundation trademark policy. Accordingly, I removed misleading information that community logo modifications are allowed under the trademark policy — they are allowed because the logo is free of trademark restrictions and is in the public domain. odder (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please leave that in. There is confusion about that topic, which is why I mentioned it, and at one time you could not edit the community logo without permission, so it is not misleading. Under the new policy you can, at one time you could not. Either way, it's an attempt to address a conception that the community logo cannot be altered, it is not a commentary on the trademark policy. I think you are overthinking the wording. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I modified it a little to address your concern about context within the trademark policy. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What nonsense, @Varnent. There have never been any restrictions on modifying the community logo; you have always been allowed to edit it as you pleased, as it's never been under copyright or trademarked (outside of the US). The logo isn't covered by the new trademark policy, so it cannot allow its modifications. odder (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not interested in debating this with you as it has nothing to do with this RFC. I have updated the wording per your request. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, [1] is better. --Nemo 19:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logos are violating Wikimedia Foundation copyright[edit]

From the few logos that I had a look at, all have been uploaded to Meta under the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence with an apparent appeal not to move them to Commons. Firstly, there is no reason to keep them locally on Meta, as they might be more useful on Commons. Secondly, the Wikimedia logo is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such, simple modifications cannot result in the logo being released under CC BY-SA 3.0. Please move the logos to Commons and mark them with {{copyright by Wikimedia}}. Thank you! odder (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are temporary logos and will be deleted at the closure of the RFC. You are welcome to retag them, but please do not move them to Commons as they will be deleted soon. They are not violations of the trademark policy as we already checked with WMF. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said there were trademark policy violations, I said they were violating Wikimedia Foundation copyright. If you want to make the history of this RfC unreadable for future viewers, by all means please delete the logos after it ends, but it would be much better if you just moved the logos to Commons and let them be hosted there for all eternity. odder (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of these logos will never be used again, so we do not want them preserved individually for all eternity. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia community logo is copyright-free[edit]

As the Wikimedia community logo was released into the public domain, I believe that a simple addition of a few lines of text isn't creative and original enough for the resultant derivative work to be copyrighted. As such, I suggest to change the copyright tag of File:New England Wikimedians logo - variation 1.png, File:Wikisource Community User Group logo - variation 1.png and File:Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan - variation 1.png to a public domain tag (after they are moved to Commons, of course). Thank you! odder (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I am more concerned about the comments on the logo standards for WUGs than the tags for the temporary files for this RFC. They will be deleted in two weeks time, feel free to tag them however you want in the meantime. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, they will be preserved for the purpose of archiving this RFC, but in one PDF file. This is being done to prevent accidental usage of these mockup logos in the future. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? odder (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why what? Please be more specific in your (trolling?) questions. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
odder, seriously, stop it. You are being unnecessarily difficult and distracting. These logos were not intended by the author (me) to be used beyond this RFC and I explicitly asked they not be moved to Commons. You are being difficult for the sake of being difficult, and I am not amused or inclined to play along. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odder, I suggest you discuss the copyright status somewhere else. The question in this RFC is related to what would work for the future in general. If you have constructive input on that question, that would be very welcome. Right now, you're frustrating the RFC and proving people right who say the community should not be asked its opinion. Effeietsanders (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Effeietsanders: That's why I brought this subject on this talk page instead of discussing it on the main RfC page. I tried to clarify the copyright status for these files by moving them to Commons and marking them with a public domain tag there; the result is that @Varnent nominated them all for deletion. As for your non-argument, I'll leave it unanswered. odder (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]