Policy talk:Trademark policy

What's new?

For easy overview of the changes proposed in the new draft, we have prepared a table comparing the new draft to the current trademark policy (2009 policy). Please note that this table doesn't necessarily reflect our current practice, which is sometimes more liberal that the language of the 2009 policy to facilitate community uses of the trademarks. But we need to update the language of the 2009 policy to match our practice and better reflect community values. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison table

Trademark comparison chart

Discussion about section 1 (What does this policy apply to?)

1 What does this policy apply to?

Trademark policy/Section 1

Discussion:

• 1.4.2 refers to Affiliate organizations as 'movement organizations'. Could I suggest to stick with existing terminology: 'movement affiliates'? Effeietsanders (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • We greatly appreciate your suggestion and desire to keep terminology consistent. The term “movement organizations” is used because it describes all community member initiated entities within the Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia movement also recognizes user groups and thematic organizations, in addition to geographically-linked chapters to allow community members to contribute to the movement in different ways. The term "affiliates” within Wikimedia, however, is overbroad in that it also includes organizations that actively support the Wikimedia movement’s work, but are not wholly dedicated to the Wikimedia movement. MBrar (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    So you're basically saying that this doesn't apply to Movement Partners, the only group of affiliates that isn't literally mentioned in this sum. I'm unclear though which part of 1.4.2 would be incorrect for movement partners. They are also independent, they are also entering into an agreement, they also get certain trademark usage (but at a lower level I expect - but I assume they will be allowed to mention they are a movement partner with a logo next to it :) ), and they could (I assume) also request further permissions? I see nothing here that collides with the movement partners and would stop us from using the term affiliates already in use. The only reason not to include them I can think of, is that we still haven't recognized any. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• 1.4.2 specifies a movement affiliate doesn't have to use the WMF trademarks. I'm not 100% sure this is true for all chapters currently (they have to call themselves Wikimedia XYZ iirc). Just checking. Effeietsanders (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Movement organizations are actually not required to use the “Wikimedia” wordmark within their title. Chapters are free to use their own chapter-specific logos in lieu of Wikimedia marks if they wish. However, a majority of chapters do use “Wikimedia” in their title so I understand why you may have thought it was a requirement :) MBrar (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Hello. I'm happy to confirm that Effeietsanders is right, offering WMIT as example. Check your papers and contracts better. ;-) --Nemo 21:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

      Yup, it used to be in the Chapters Agreement - I'm just unsure if they offered new agreements to all affiliates or not, and what the current version says. Anyway, it's not a huge issue of course, it is just an inaccuracy in this policy :) Effeietsanders (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We don’t include this provision in our latest agreements with movement organizations and the new trademark policy will accurately reflect that practice. But we don’t plan to update current agreements that already include that provision, unless a chapter wants to update its agreement. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about section 2 (How to use the Wikimedia marks)

2 How to use the Wikimedia marks

Trademark policy/Section 2

Discussion:

• I think 2.4 "What do you mean by “outside the Wikimedia sites”?" should specifically mention Wikimedia Labs projects as being inside or outside "the sites". Mutante (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestion! Wikimedia Labs is in fact within the Wikimedia sites and individuals may use the trademarks on these sites according to the policy, as long as they also follow the Wikimedia Labs’s rules. We will add this to the FAQ to make sure it is clear. MBrar (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• It is unclear to me from this section whether someone *must* follow the guidelines. Right now, it reads as a strong advice, but not a rule. Effeietsanders (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Users must follow the guidelines, but not by virtue of the trademark policy. The Visual Identity Guidelines are a separate set of rules from the trademark policy that ensure the Wikimedia marks maintain their beautiful form when they are reused :) MBrar (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    I know lots of examples where the guidelines were ignored (i.e. with backgrounds), and which resulted in nice designs overall. My point is that guidelines suggests that they are no firm rules, and the please follow enforces that feeling. So if you want to make it obligatory in this context, you may want to choose a bit stronger wordings. Personally I'm all fine with no obligations but rather strong recommendations here (as is suggested with the current wording) - there are plenty of exceptions imaginable. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about section 3 (When you may use the Wikimedia marks without asking us)

3 When you may use the Wikimedia marks without asking us

Trademark policy/Section 3

Discussion:

• Hi all, as I anticipated, the requirements for using the Community Logo in this section are just a preliminary suggestion. They are based on the voting rights requirements and are adjusted to include members of chapters, user groups, and thematic organizations. But please feel free to suggest revisions or completely different requirements. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• For Section 3.4, is it really necessary to add most of the "or"s? People working for Wikimedia and developers probably have over 300 edit total, with at least 20 in the last year, so is it really necessary to add exceptions for them? Buffbills7701 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • From what I've observed, it's relatively common for inward-focused staffers to have quite low edit counts. Yet they certainly should have the right to consider themselves Wikimedians, especially since the ones with the lowest edit counts are often the ones who are the busiest working on our behalves. To pick the first example that comes to mind, Michelle Paulson has been involved in some of our highest-profile legal disputes lately, including in defending us against perhaps the greatest ever direct government incursion into an individual Wikipedian's rights. Yet she has less than 200 edits, and, as far as I know, does not have a personal account, or at least not one she lists on her userpage. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• In 3.4, shouldn't "been blocked" be changed to "are currently blocked"? I've been blocked on En.WP over a misunderstanding, and on Wikidata by myself to enforce a wikibreak... Can't say I'm particularly proud of either moment, but I'd think that shouldn't be grounds to prohibit me from using the community mark. I assume this wording is inadvertant? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi PinkAmpersand, you're right. It should say "be." I'll change that. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Ms. Welinder. Wonderful proposal from what I've read so far, by the way. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time to review and comment on the draft. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• I think these rules are ridiculously arbitrary. There are plenty of users who are blocked on one wiki who are constructive on another, and using editcount only helps if you care about quantity instead of quality. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @PiRSquared17:: It is important to have objective, predictable requirements, because they allow potential trademark licensees (and the people running the system as well) to know easily which category they fall into. If there are subjective criteria ("a lot of edits" or "really productive in some places despite being banned others") then the system quickly breaks down - they have to ask for a determination every time (was it enough edits? what is productive enough to overcome being banned elsewhere?). That just doesn't scale.

This requirement does make it pretty hard to avoid a certain amount of arbitrariness. That's unfortunate but definitely the best option for rules like these. If you have suggestions for better objective rules, that can be easily and consistently applied, we're all ears. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, worth noting that (as it says at the bottom of the section) these are based on the Foundation voting criteria. Maybe we should make that stronger/more clear? -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate - and speaking as an advisor to the election committee - I would say that the goals there are different.  :) Those criteria are objectively pretty good (not great, not terrible) for deciding who should vote in an election. The suffrage requirements don't necessarily make good trademark rules. Or maybe they do. I don't have a strong opinion. But I want to point out that they're made for a different purpose. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not identical, by any stretch, so we're open to discussion. But it might be useful to explain that there are some parallels between the two: we're trying to identify people who are committed to the movement and therefore can be trusted to make solid judgments about an important matter. The parallel is certainly not perfect (maybe voting should be broader? narrower?), so we're happy to discuss any adjustments. But that's the intuition we were starting from, I think. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess these rules make sense, but I'm wondering whether "editors" includes anonymous users. Some of them are very constructive community members (although it does seem unlikely that they would need to use the logos). Of course, there's no way to know whether edits by an IP were made by the same person, so it might make sense to exclude them. I'm not sure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Editors" probably can't include anonymous users - we're trying to establish (as I said above) a certain level of experience and familiarity with community values and norms. That said, if an anonymous user wants to use the mark, and has a good reason, they can always (under the draft policy) contact us and try to get a standard license. We just can't/shouldn't give them a license intended for trusted, known people. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to exclude anons, you cannot use 'editor' as the legalese-terminology. That is abuse of English, and besides, bad for wikipedia. Editor means one thing only: somebody who, at some point in their lives, clicked edit, changed something, and clicked save. Nothing more -- nothing less. If you want to restrict trademark-policy to "registered username-holders with more than 20 mainspace edits which were not yet reverted and who have never been blocked even by mistake on any wiki" then you have to make up your own terminology. I suggest "brahmin-caste" is close to what you're after. p.s. You in fact cannot *give* somebody a license, you are correct, for what is their self-evident inherent natural right. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Call_for_comments_on_draft_trademark_policy. Hope this helps. I want the mark; I have good reason; I am, and will remain, an anon. I should require no 'license' from WMF. Please check your premises. 74.192.84.101 14:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for being imprecise in the discussion by using only "editors". In the license itself, we say specifically "registered editors", for the reasons I discussed above. Hopefully that avoids confusion.

For things which people have by right, we don't ask for or require a license: that is why we have a lot of explanation of fair use, so that people can understand (and use!) their rights. However, there are other things which are not a right, and for those things, we must require a license in order to avoid losing our right to police the mark. This is explained in more detail in the "Purpose" section of the document. Please let us know if you have more questions after reading that.-LVilla (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't get this. And member of our community should be able to use File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg, whether they are registered or not. I understand why you wouldn't want them to advertise events with it, but this is taking it too far. The community logo used to be free... PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi PiRSquared17! We really appreciate your input on this. I just wanted to emphasize again that the standards in this provision are meant to be based on community input and don’t need to be limited to the voting requirements. We are completely open to alternative standards that the community considers more appropriate for this use. Let’s continue brainstorming about how we can make this work.  :) YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How about just letting anyone use it (non-commercially)? I don't see the problem. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Our intent with the new trademark policy is to be as inclusive and permissive as possible without jeopardizing our ability to enforce the Wikimedia trademarks against bad actors who want to damage the Wikimedia movement. If we allowed anyone to use the marks non-commercially, we wouldn’t be able to do anything against outsiders who misrepresent themselves as community members and tarnish the reputation of the projects. It could be as simple as someone using the marks in a way inconsistent with community values, or it could be someone using them for phishing or other kinds of fraud. 216.38.130.164 21:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep your faith, sir (@PiRSquared17); the logo is not registered as a trademark in the European Union, so all is not lost yet. odder (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Links to Wikimedia sites

3.6.4 Links to Wikimedia sites
You may use the marks on your own website as a hyperlink to the Wikimedia sites. The use of logos in hyperlinks should follow the Visual Identity Guidelines. For example, the marks may be resized, but not modified in any other way. YMMD. Syrcro (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hackathon vs Editathon: why are they being treated differently? Isn't MediaWiki considered a Wikimedia project as well? So if a MediaWiki hackathon is attended predominantly by MediaWiki developers, why couldn't it be treated equally compared to an editathon about the French Revolution? Effeietsanders (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right, MediaWiki is a Wikimedia project. We treat hackathons differently from an edit-a-thon because participants are not constrained to stay within Wikimedia projects and may decide to work on projects outside of Wikimedia sites. MBrar (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    And how exactly is that different? :) After all, every attendee is a volunteer in their own free time - so they can work on whatever they want. Quite often I catch people checking their email or updating Facebook ;-). In all seriousness, shouldn't it be more relevant what exactly the intended scope of the event is, rather than what shape the organizers choose to accomplish that? In that context a discussion meeting without any editing output, but with the intended scope of Wikipedia policies seems to me in scope, while an editathon where dbpedia is edited implementing data from wikipedia is more of a borderscenario. Focusing on the shape of the event risks that the policy more quickly gets outdated as new shapes are being developed. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Wikipedia community member - WMF staff not included

I do not like that this policy equates anyone who is employed by the Wikimedia Foundation as a member of the Wikimedia community. I assert that staff may be community advocates, but may not be community members, and that other institutions have a history of delineating a distinction between these groups. I foresee problems for the Wikimedia community if these two groups are equated and do not want these groups equated either here or in other policies. If the purpose of the policy is to grant the right to use marks to all these groups, then I support that, but I oppose that this granting of rights be done on the basis of all of these groups being members of the "Wikimedia community" and getting these privileges so that they can represent the community. I do not want anyone who is not a member of the Wikimedia community to represent themselves as a member of the community.

This policy makes a definition of who is a Wikimedia community member. It currently says,

Wikimedia community members may use the Wikimedia Community logo to show that they are a member of the Wikimedia movement if:

They are Wikimedia editors and:

• Made at least 20 edits on the Wikimedia sites during the year prior to using the logo;
• Made a total of 300 edits across the Wikimedia sites; and
• Not be blocked on more than one project.

or

• They are Wikimedia developers and:
  • Are Wikimedia server administrators with shell access; or
  • Have commit access and have made at least one merged commit in git during the year prior to using the logo.

or

• They are Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors that have been employed by the Foundation during the year prior to using the logo.

or

• They are current and former members of the Board of Trustees or the Advisory Board.

or

• They are members of a Wikimedia chapter, user group, or thematic organization that have been members during the year prior to using the logo.

These requirements are based on the Wikimedia voting rights.

The inclusion criteria for being a community member based on editorship has some precedent elsewhere and it seems reasonable. I support that definition.

All other inclusion criteria in this list are dubious. I would like to see some exclusion criteria here, perhaps which state that "Any person employed by the Wikimedia Foundation is a community advocate and not a community member, and gets privileges for that position but not community member privileges." WMF staff should be able to use some of the marks, but this right should be granted in some other channel and not tagged on to community privileges.

By the precedent of other organizations, staff of the organization are not members of the community. I advocate against employees of the Wikimedia Foundation being named as members of the Wikimedia community. Persons paid by the Wikimedia Foundation have a conflict of interest in acting on behalf of the Wikimedia Community. It is not to be presumed that the best interests of the WMF are the same as the best interest interests of the Wikimedia community. The Wikimedia community need only advance the Wikimedia movement, but all people at the WMF can only advance the Wikimedia movement so long as it preserves and strengthens the position of the WMF. The WMF would be disinclined to do anything to empower the community if it compromises the WMF's own position, and likewise, employees of the WMF will always have a conflict of interest in granting the Wikimedia community anything which does not empower their own employment. This has nothing to do with anyone's character or moral virtues; this is just the nature of conflict of interest. I am not targeting the WMF specifically on this; I am following the precedent of - for example - the pharmaceutical research industry which employs people called "patient advocates" or "research participant advocates". These advocates are employed to act on behalf of people who consume medical products but they are not the same as the community they serve. There are organizations which could offer consulting on the implications of this and many books on medical ethics in relationships between doctors and patients, and if anyone has any doubts about the distinction between the staff of an advocacy organization and the community it serves then those precedents could be checked. I think the medical analogy is suitable, but if not, public relations, law, lobbying, and other fields could be used as models for defining the role that WMF employees have as compared to the Wikimedia community.

Persons who are employed by the WMF are community advocates doing paid advocacy for the WMF and they are not community members. The Wikimedia movement should not be treated as something new and strange which allows uncommon community integration between people paid by the organization and those who are not. Advocates at the Wikimedia Foundation are in a similar position to advocates at any other organization and there is a line between them and the community. I am saying this because I want to keep the public space in Wikimedia projects truly public and for everyone and because mixing paid advocates with community affairs tends to encroach upon the community's space. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I hear the good intent you are bringing to this idea, Blueraspberry, and I recognize that the "staff vs community" distinction can be a bigger and more contentious discussion than we should probably go into here, but I can't help but toss in my 2 cents in on this thought (note: this is not official WMF perspective here, this is just me personally thinking out loud): I'm not sure that in Wikimedia's case the lines can be as clearly drawn between the 2 groups as you are suggesting, and I worry that making a blanket distinction to say that staff are definitely not community could ultimately cause more friction or confusion rather than less. What, for example, should we do in this model with long-time community members when WMF hires them? Are they considered ousted from the community at large, the moment they get hired to work in any given area? We have a number of staffers who continue to be involved in various volunteer efforts that are outside of their job description, after joining WMF. Should a WMF engineer no longer be able to use a community mark if they volunteer to organize a local GLAM event? Or, from the reverse use-case, I didn't come to WMF from the community originally, but I occasionally edit or volunteer my time on issues of interest to me; when I host a WikiWomen's party on my volunteer time (which is outside of my job, it's a personal interest to get more women editing Wikipedia), will I be automatically excluded from using the mark because I am also paid to make grants at WMF? Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in contrast to the above assertion that "Any person employed by the Wikimedia Foundation is ... not a community member", the overwhelming majority of active editors (who hold an opinion about this question) think that WMF staff are part of the community, at least per the responses given in the last editor survey.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC) (personally not affected by this discussion - currently satisfying the criteria both as WMF employee and as volunteer editor)

I don't know that you (and I) would be unaffected. It sounds like Blueraspberry wants us to be considered non-community regardless of whether we satisfy the edit requirements. Anomie (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings on this point, but one thing to consider is there is an inherent conflict of interest between being a staff member (and thus, in effect, working for the community) and being solely a member of the community. This section of the policy effectively gives the WMF the power to determine who is a community member, and who is not; which raises the possibile accusation that a staff member's use of marks is approved when another person's is not based on their adjudicated community membership. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 17:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about section 4 (Special uses that require permission)

4 Special uses that require permission

Trademark policy/Section 4

Discussion:

Discussion about section 5 (Prohibited uses)

5 Prohibited uses

Trademark policy/Section 5

Discussion:

• Could someone please clarify "look and feel"? By default, MediaWiki comes with the vector and monobook themes, which most (if not all) WM sites use. Should the downloadable version not have these themes, and are these themes copyrighted non-free? --w^{L<speak·check>} 21:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It's fine to use the MediaWiki software as long as you don't combine it with one of our logos or something that is confusingly similar to them. You can read more about that in FAQ Section 5.3. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The default install includes the MediaWiki logo[1], which is covered by this trademark policy, but was a public domain logo, released into the public domain by User:Eloquence and User:Anthere in 2003. Also people have created derivatives of the MediaWiki logo to use for related software or products.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] You'll need to employ lots of lawyers to put this ten year old genie back in the bottle with lots of cease and desist letters. I wouldnt be surprised if the lawyers also feel that use of flowers and square brackets in conjunction with wikis creates confusion, so which adds another set of trademark violations to process, like [10] [11] [12] John Vandenberg (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for her, but my guess is that Yana was talking about a case like "MediaWiki setup + Wiktionary logo" more than "MediaWiki setup + MediaWiki logo". (For completeness, I should note that while the default install does include the MediaWiki logo, the version that's loaded by default has been clearly identified as a placeholder for some time.) She and I talked a fair bit of the specifics of the MediaWiki logo already, including its public domain status which will definitely be maintained. Thanks for collecting these examples, though; I had promised Yana to send her a bunch of example uses of the MediaWiki logo & mark, and this is a great start. I find none of these concerning in any way, FWIW.--Eloquence (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day Eloquence, WikiLeon isnt asking about a "MediaWiki setup + Wiktionary logo" setup. They are talking about the packaged default MediaWiki, which includes "look and feel", and trademarked logos. I will also add that some of the new UI redesigns (which are extensions or skin-mods IIRC) use the WMF colours - I havent looked to see if those colours are in the default code - something to check, because if the WMF colours are being redistributed in MediaWiki / MediaWiki extensions written by the WMF, then WMF is promoting the WMF colours=mediawiki site, which means it is harder to win a passing off battle.

It is great to know that you think the use I listed are fine, but where is the section of the trademark policy which states that, even broadly? Apologies if I have missed it.

I mention derivatives of the Community Logo in a section below, but the problem applies to all of the logos, as I'm pretty sure that derivatives of every logo have been created and used offwiki. But the MediaWiki and Community logos are the two most important ones to maximise freedoms for, as they are PD, and represent something which exists beyond the servers owned by the WMF.

Is it ok to use the placeholder (a derivative of a trademarked Wikimedia logo) on a mediawiki powered site? Unlike the 'powered by' logos, the placeholder doesnt link to MediaWiki, so it cant use that exception.

Which section of this policy allows for the derivatives that I have mentioned above. If they need to be registered with WMF before they are used outside the WMF servers, it needs to be clearly said, and we need a request form for people to fill in and send to WMF for approval. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If the derivatives are not confusing, they don't fall within the trademark protection of a mark. That is why you can, as I mentioned below, use them off wiki without any permission. We'll prepare an FAQ section to clarify this point so that people know that they don’t need to fill out the request form.

I would think that most people understand that a “placeholder” is only in place to show users where to add their own image. But perhaps we can work on making that clearer in the FAQs too.

The uses that you listed are broadly covered by Sections 3.5 and 3.6. As Erik mentioned, we are thinking about how our trademark practice can best serve open source development, so the examples that you listed are indeed very helpful. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about section 6 (Trademark Abuse)

6 Trademark Abuse

Trademark policy/Section 6

Discussion:

Discussion about section 7 (Revision and Translation of the trademark policy)

7 Revision and Translation of the trademark policy

Trademark policy/Section 7

Discussion:

Discussion about the Wikilicense

Discussion:

• Would it be possible to find a better name for this? Right now, I find it rather confusing for several reasons: 1) it is confusing with the CC BY-SA license which is externally also sometimes refered to as 'the wikilicense'. Specifying that it is about trademark usage might be wise. 2) wiki suggests it might be editable. I guess that is not the case. Wikimedia might be more appropriate here.

All in all, I don't think we need a very short name for this anyway, because it is mainly a term used in this context only, and not for publishing purposes. We can afford to be thorough here :) Effeietsanders (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions here if there is strong community support for another term. What would you or others suggest? We used "wiki" because, in one context, it means "quick" or "speedy," but I am open to other views as well. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're open to suggestions. I could suggest Pre-approved Trademark License or Trademark License for Community use. Naming things isn't my strong point though - I'm sure other people (native speakers) can come up with more descriptive names that are also easy to translate. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(p.s. please capitalize Wiki Loves Monuments ;-) )

Wiki Loves Monuments is now capitalized. :) Thanks, Effeietsanders. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about the FAQ

Discussion:

• I think the those blue "FAQ boxes" within in the policy are quite small and not very visible at the right side, especially for people like me who use a widescreen monitor. Maybe we should change their position or appearance? Maybe the boxes should not just say "FAQ"? --Gnom (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! We could try placing the box on the left to make it more visible on widescreen monitors. Do you have any suggestions on what the boxes could say instead of “FAQ”? MBrar (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe just "Frequently asked questions" or "Read FAQ" or anything that's longer and hence more visible ;-) --Gnom (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about the trademark "request a license" form

Discussion:

• Proposed uses currently list "Online (website, email) Book, periodical, Print TV, Movie, or Broadcast, Other". I see elsewhere that community events are allowed without request, but I think that this form should emphasize that the use of marks during community events is permitted since that is such an unorthodox allowance. To this list of proposed uses, add "advertising for Wikimedia event", "conference presentation", "starting a Wikimedia community group (unofficial)" and other common uses rather than these very uncommon uses, and perhaps if someone checks any of those boxes, send them to a page which tells them that they may freely use the mark. Otherwise, it might be a good idea to have them register their use anyway just as another communication channel to identify community organizers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of emphasizing community uses to save people the trouble of applying for a license when they don't need one. We have done this on the Wikilicense, which has a warning that ask people to double check whether they need a license at all and links to the provisions that describe license free uses. But perhaps it would be helpful to call out some of those uses specifically here. Enabling a communication channel for community organizers also sounds like an excellent idea. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• The form currently says to name, "Wikimedia chapter, thematic organization, or user group & title (if any)*" Are not chapters already empowered to use marks as they like without further notice to anyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Movement organizations can do a lot things under their respective agreements, but there are certain uses that may not be covered. (The trademark policy discusses the relationship between these agreements and the policy in Section 1.4.2.) For example, if someone with a chapter were to write an unrelated book and wanted to use the puzzle globe logo on the cover, they would need to get an ordinary trademark license. But the fact that this is a chapter person would be relevant to know because a trademark holder is sometimes allowed to relax the trademark quality control requirement when it has a relationship with the trademark licensee. We want the application form to cover edge cases like this to make it really effective and avoid unnecessary back and forth emails. I'd love to hear if there is anything that we have forgotten. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about the violation reporting form

Discussion:

• Who is going to respond to violations? I have been interested in inappropriate use of all kinds of Wikipedia content. Can this form also go into a queue for sending spankings to people who violate other policy, like inappropriate reuse of community uploaded text and images? Who is administering the spankings? I would favor this process from the beginning being something both for the community for their protection as well as for the WMF for their mark protection. I do not favor this being a queue only for protecting the WMF and not the community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe we can also do this the other way around: publish a list of allowed usages (not necessarily exhaustive) so that community members can check against that list that indeed (for example) Orange has a deal with the WMF to use the trademark in certain situations. No need to be very detailed, but right now it's a lot in the dark. That would limit the reports in the longer run. Effeietsanders (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello @Effeietsanders: In practice, we verify that someone is not a licensee before we contact them about misuse of the trademark. (We also must evaluate whether it is parody, nominative use, or another type of acceptable use, so checking against our licenses is another easy step in our process.) We could post an incomplete list of licensees if that is helpful for the community, but it would be too difficult to maintain a comprehensive list, and I am hesitant to do anything that would make the trademark process slower. I think the process works best if the community reports all uses that they feel are inappropriate. Thanks for the feedback, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Other discussion

Discussion:

• Unclear right at the top: do you mean this? "YES please! / You have a fair use right to use the Wikimedia marks when: / Truthfully describing a Wikimedia site. / Doing accurate news reporting and or artistic, literary, and or political work. / Using a wordmark when its meaning is unrelated to Wikimedia. / Linking to Wikimedia sites.

  "Doing" is pretty ungainly (do drugs?), but I can't think of anything better at the moment. Non-anglophones will bump on the "and" after "reporting" and after "literary", since English is unusual in treating "and", not "or", as the default mortar between listed items; but here, "or" would be better even for natives.

  Approaching that opening text in ignorance, I'm befuddled by the third bullet. Is is clear enough to the many people who won't bother to read the fine print? Tony (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Tony! This is great input. We brainstormed the question, and we have replaced the present summary language with the following:

"You have a fair use right to use the Wikimedia marks to:

· Truthfully describe a Wikimedia site;

· Accurately report news;

· Create artistic, literary, or political works; or

· Link to Wikimedia sites."

Do you feel that this edit resolves your concerns with the wording? DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

possible amendments to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

There's been talk of amending the ACPA, apparently in response to ICANN's generic top-level domain (gTLD) plans (which could potentially allow the registration of, for example, wikipedia.sucks). I presume the WMF would support such legislation given the strong statements I have heard about the importance of protecting trademark but, if so, what would be the response to those who claim that this would be 'SOPA For Trademarks'? Obviously it would seem hypocritical to support "SOPA for Trademarks" given this project's history. Is "SOPA for Trademarks" misleading? Would the WMF not support a strengthening of ACPA?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I don't believe that ACPA needs to be expanded and I doubt that we would support it. Generally, we only support the level of trademark protection necessary to safeguard the Wikimedia projects. A domain like wikipedia.sucks should not be a problem because most users would probably realize that it's not a WMF domain given that it would criticize Wikipedia. And we would not support any trademark law that infringes upon freedom of speech. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"help shape new policy"

Like so often - if your motherlanguage is not english, you have nearly no possibility to "help". It's an important thing for me, because I'm doing a lot of outreach work. But with this long and often technical texts, there's no possibility to coorperate. Maybe Coorperation is not really wanted from other regions of the world. It makes the things not easier... Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Marcus, du kannst gerne auch auf Deutsch kommentieren! Der Entwurf ist in 6 verschiedene Sprachen inklusive Deutsch übersetzt worden und das Team wird Kommentare in allen Sprachen lesen - wie schon in der ersten Phase der Diskussion, als zB auf Französisch, Spanisch und Deutsch verfasste Diskussionsbeiträge gelesen und beantwortet wurden.

(English translation of the above: Hi Marcus, you are welcome to comment in German, too! The draft has been translated into 6 different languages including German, and the team will read comments in all languages - as it did in the in the first stage of the trademark discussion, where comments in e.g. French, Spanish and German were read and responded to.)

Grüße, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikia

Hello. My username on Wikia is CalzoneManiac, but my account here is DudeWithAFeud. On several wikis on Wikpedia, I often copy and paste Wikipedia content to create high-quality pages, such as Clark County, Nevada on the U.S. Counties Wiki. I always put a Wikpedia sticker to show that the content is not mine and that it originates from the page I copied from. Can you give me any advice on how to work out the new rule for Wikia sites? DudeWithAFeud (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi DudeWithAFeud. Thanks for your comment. Looking at the page you pointed to, it looks like you're appropriately attributing to Wikipedia already. The English Wikipedia community has a similar template here to attribute Wikia content on Wikipedia. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@DudeWithAFeud: Yes, to confirm what Anna says, if you use the Wikipedia name/logo to link to Wikipedia, then it is allowed under § 3.6.4 in the trademark policy. Thanks for the question! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Derivatives of the Community Logo

We have a long history of creating derivatives of the Community Logo. What is the status of existing derivatives? Are new derivatives allowed? John Vandenberg (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have helped develop a lot of derivatives for a lot of purposes. I also would like clarification of how derivatives should be used. I would like them used freely, and I like the idea of registering use based on people's intent to document their activities and to use the marks properly even if derivatives are not WMF trademarks. I hope that this process does not just have to be about protecting the WMF, but can also be a system for encouraging people to use marks appropriately and connect to the rest of the Wikimedia community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this! You should be free to create derivatives. To the extent that those derivatives are very similar to an existing trademark (so similar that someone may think it's the same mark), we ask that you only use those derivatives on the Wikimedia sites to avoid confusion.YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

People are already using these derivatives offline. How should these people proceed? Stop using them? Request permission from WMF, even for situations where they would be permitted to use the unmodified Community Logo without requesting permission? John Vandenberg (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

My sense - without having seen any of these offline uses - is that people are probably using derivatives that are unlikely to cause confusion and so do not need to do anything. But I cannot tell for sure without seeing specific examples of uses. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

photography question

Is it allowed to take photos containing the trademarks and sell the photos as art (e.g. fine art prints in an art gallery or printing the photo on a 3D sculture made with a 3D printer) or sell licenses for the photos to newspapers for editorial use? Apart from photos, can the trademarks be recreated with a 3D printer and used in installation art? How is the sell of commercial merchandise differentiated from the sale of artistic objects? Art objects in an art gallery, in which items can sell for thousands of dollars, regularly display trademarks (e.g. in a recent exhibition and sale, the artist was selling photos made within a supermarket, with the trademarks of hundreds of items visible in the large print). The policy proposes to allow artistic use of the trademarks which it classifies as non-commercial, but how the trademark owner (Wikimedia) would feel if the trademark was used artistically and the artist made lots of money? 3D printing is very popular in art galleries right now and I've seen works in which trademarks are recreated with 3D printers in some artistic way, these are often put in installation art pieces, for which the gallery visitors pay for entrance tickets, photos of the installation are sold, or used in advertisements for the show. Photography is also regularly sold as art, for example an art gallery may sell fine art prints for $5,000 - $40,000 if made by a good photographer, and sometimes such photographs do contain trademarks. Sometimes art galleries or the artist may also print the photo on other items such as t-shirts or even 3D scultures made with 3D printers (printed photos on scultures made with 3D printers is also becoming popular in avant-garde art galleries) and numbered copies of the sculture may be sold to collectors, so what if the photo on the sculture contains the trademark? How is the sale of art differentiated from the sale of commercial merchandise? Photos containing trademarks can also be sold as editorial photos to journalists and newspapers, e.g. a photographer may take a photo and then sell it to a newspaper or use it in a book which is sold. So, if a pohotographer takes a pic which contains the trademark and uses the pic as the cover of a book, would this be classified as commercial use or as non-commercial use? and would it be allowed without a license?

• Could the trademarks also be used in paintings that are sold? Many paintings regularly feature trademarks and their value is often quite high in art galleries and museums. A good painting can fetch millions of dollars. For example, see Andy Warhol's interpretation of various commercial iterms containing trademarks. Would photographers taking photos of the painting, and the sale of such photos, also be okay without a license?

Interesting question, and the answer is: “it really depends.” If the use is fair use, an artist may use the marks in an art project. See FAQ 3.18. However, if the use of the trademark is not fair use and intentionally creates confusion by suggesting a false affiliation of the artist to the Wikimedia Foundation, it would not be permissible. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Using trademarks as a verb

Is it allowed to use the trademarks as a verb? We regularly say "wikipeding" or "wikipedize it". Could such a use of the trademark be used in a book, newspaper, blog post, in spoken speech etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogiati (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 November 2013

FAQ number 2.3 covers this one explicitly:

'The wordmarks should not be used as a noun (e.g. “a Wikipedia for street names”), a verb (“Let’s Wiktionary this”), or in the plural or possessive form (e.g. “Wikiversities” or “Wikiversity’s”).'

Hope that helps! Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can clearly see the WMF sending cease-and-desist letters to people who use the word Wikipedia as a verb. I think I recall a The Big Bang Theory actor use it quite recently, perhaps someone should inform them they won't be able to do that once the new policy comes into life. odder (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think such use might perhaps fall under section 3.6.3 (artistic and other non-commercial use). Or Yana even licensed the use to the Big Bang Theory people. Don't laugh: WMF legal actually does a lot of licensing for TV shows. --Gnom (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The situation I am referring to happened during an interview (I can't find it right now), so I doubt this section would apply here. Good luck enforcing such a clause, though. odder (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be fair use, as nominative use? I was under the impression that restrictions like this one only apply to uses that are licensed by the entity making them—hence why you don't see a ™ after "Wikipedia" in a newspaper article. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oftentimes, this would be fair use and we would not try to do anything about. But sometimes it wouldn't be fair use even if the entity weren't using the marks under a license. For example, if someone was marketing their website as “a Wikipedia for street names,” they would be using a Wikimedia trademark to market their own independent product, which may not reflect our values and mission. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm A little confused as to why we want to disallow the use of "Wikipedia" as a verb (as in "I wikipedia the author of my favorite book"). Wikipedia is where a lot of people go to get information on the web thus it seems like a similar situation to google ("I google the author of my favorite book"). "I searched for/read up on the author on wikipedia" is more formal, but when you are using coloquial speech, it seems that Wikipedia or just Wiki'ed, in, for example a novel's dialogue, might sound more realistic. Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind this part of the policy. Edit: I forgot to sign --4.49.113.10 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I second this anonymous post. If you're only planning to disallow the use of the name Wikipedia as a noun (as @YWelinder didn't respond to the verb part I brought up), then why mentioning the other parts of speech at all? odder (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We discourage the use of the Wikimedia trademarks as verbs because such a use could evolve in a way that weakens the connection in the public imagination between the mark and the Wikimedia projects. The danger is that the mark will become generic -- i.e. no longer a trademark. “Hoover(ing)” is an example of a former trademark that’s become generic in the United Kingdom because it is used synonymously with “vaccum(ing).” To reduce the risk that the the Wikimedia marks will be used interchangeably with “researched” or similar verbs, we discourage their use as verbs. Google’s trademark guidelines prohibit the use of “google” as a verb (as in “I google the author of my favorite book”) based on similar concerns. Of course, “wiki” is not a trademark. So you can use “wiki’ed” freely to mean “look up on Wikipedia” -- or anything else :) AVoinigescu (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet, people are using the word Wikipedia as a verb now, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future. What will be your reaction to that? odder (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@YWelinder (WMF): This is nonsense. "Wikipedia" is already a noun, as all proper nouns are nouns. "Wikiversities" is already a word to refer to multiple editions of Wikiversity. Unrelated, but just seeing this rule is making me consider whether I should even contribute to Wikimedia projects when the WMF tries to impose restrictions on usage like this... Anyway, another example: Many of "Wikiversity's" users are students in courses. "Let's Wiktionary this" is completely harmless. "A Wikipedia for x" is already misused unfortunately, but the vast majority use "a wiki for x". This is way too extreme, and you might lose an editor over this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that genericization is a problem for us, especially on the verb front. Generally speaking, the risk with genericization is that it ceases to refer to a specific provider's product or service and comes to mean the whole class of product or service: e.g. kleenex for facial tissue, band-aid for adhesive bandage, xerox(ing) for photocopying, googling for using a search engine, and (in Britain) hoover for vacuum cleaner. The thing with all of this is that there are competitors to these products: there are bajillions (technical term) of manufacturers of facial tissue and adhesive bandages around the world, and more than just a few for photocopiers and vacuum cleaners; even with search engines, despite Google's domination of the market, there's still a few search engines around. On the other hand, the Wikimedia projects are generally one-of-a-kind, for good reason: they're free and open, so making a competitor on the same model would generally be pointless, and there's no profit to be had in making an alternative anyway even if it did sell ad space. This is especially true of Wikipedia, whose scale would make it a particularly daunting task. It's the classic case: why try to beat them and lose, when you can just join them and they're perfectly happy to have you?

Consider what it would mean for "Wikipedia" to turn into a verb. It would currently mean "look up on Wikipedia." What could it turn into? Well, at first stage of genericization, it could mean "look up on an online encyclopedia." Except that there aren't any others worth mentioning--all the "competition" is tiny, appealing mostly to either fanatics (e.g. Conservapedia) or the five people left who trust "regular" encyclopedias but don't have one at home and so use the online version. At the second stage, one supposes it could mean "look up online" or "look up in an encyclopedia," but for the former we have "google" and for the latter--well, who even looks stuff up in a print encyclopedia anymore? And if they did, what on Earth would they be doing saying they "wikipediaed", say, birds, in print Brittanica? And as for simply "researched" or "looked up"--why would anyone say that? "Researched" and "looked up" are perfectly good words, and much less unwieldy than "wikipediaed." Try it. It's a mouthful and kinda clunky. The other cases of genericization happened when the generic word for the thing/action was not well-established, and/or sounded overly technical or clunky. I mean, what's easier/more fun to say: "xerox" or "photocopy"? "Kleenex" or "facial tissue"? "Band-aid" or "adhesive bandage"? (So much Latin in that one!) "Google" or "search the Internet"? It ought to be obvious. Now consider: "Wikipediaed" or "researched"? I don't think we're at any risk of that word ever referring to anything other than using our largest Wikimedia project. Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did hope that the shibboleth of genericization would not rear its ugly head. Diderot may have been hoist on that particular petard, but we, it seems likely, would not. Wikiepdia could once have been described as the Britannia of online encyclopaedias, or perhaps as the Rolls-Royce of reference sites. Neither usage makes the trade makes generic. There is a perfectly good alternative for a wiki, or for an encyclopedia. It is certainly true that other sites, deliberately or not, trade off the components of the brand name - Wikileaks, Wikia and Parkopedia come to mind. Parkopedia even describes itself as "Wikipedia for parking" - we could take issue with this statement, because it implies association with Wikipedia in some readings, but not, I think, for risk of genericity ("Like Wikipeida, for parking" would seem unexceptional).

Moreover there seems some confusion about plurals and possessives. One of Wikipedia's most compelling propositions is the presence of Wikipedias in many languages.

I would suggest that the actual target of the provision be addressed directly (bearing in mind that the provision is only addressed to licensees) "The trade marks shall not be used in a generic manner". Thus it is perfectly acceptable to say that one will "Wikipedia Raedwald" providing one is actually using (a) Wikipedia to do it.

Rich Farmbrough 01:52 20 November 2013 (GMT).

These are similar to my concerns above. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the EFF have something to say on this topic related to the Ubuntu trademark troubles lately ? We might be wise to take that into account. TheDJ (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As a former fellow at EFF and a proud card-carrying EFF member, I follow everything they write and certainly take it into account when writing this trademark policy. But I’m not sure how the Ubuntu debacle relates to the discussion in this thread. This policy and our trademark practice interpret fair use broadly to protect speech related activities that were at issue in that case. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor format issue

Oh! Here they go again, with the children's version of legal documents, big shiny colourful images... I thought. But well, this is the age of big shiny buttons, and it actually looks fine and readable. Just a note, the right hand side text of the second box ("Request a licence" etc.) overruns the box and the last line ("other uses") is outside of it while the previous ("on things that [...]") is exactly on top the orange border. Using Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.16. By the way: "Place marks on [...] cakes [...] without selling them." Really? The WMF has been losing bazillions dollars with people selling WMF cakes? That is, do we really need to talk about cakes? :-) - Nabla (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The same goes for (a old) Firefox (3.6.13), except that Firefox shows a gradient (which Opera did not) - Nabla (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you like the design! Thanks for letting us know about the issues with using different browsers. We'll make sure to account for that when we prepare the final draft. That draft will be presented on foundation wiki (along with all the other legal policies) and so will need to be adjusted to different browsers at that point. As for cakes, we just wanted to emphasize the wonderful things that community members do with the marks. If you think it's silly, we could just move it to the FAQ.  :) YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipetan

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

Is Wikipetan a trademark of the Foundation? (I mean the character) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogiati (talk • contribs)

She is not. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

… yet. odder (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't trademark Wikipetan. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Right! No need to, the puzzle tile is already trademarked and there isn't real need to trademark this mark which includes it as substantial element, right? --Nemo 22:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCon

I'm unfamiliar with the term Wiki Con, and it's a red link in the document. I doubt our trademark policy should have a red link, so we either need to create that page, fix the link to the correct page, or remove the link. I'm also curious if "wiki con" itself is a wordmark misuse because it implies that our general use of 'wiki' is directly related to Wikipedia. I thought we were trying to avoid using 'wiki' to mean 'wikipedia' or 'wikimedia'. (Great work on this draft, it's a huge improvement). Ocaasi (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We greatly appreciate your support, Ocaasi! Thank you for your active and insightful participation! DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wikicon" is a term we crazy Germans came up with (we love meetups!), see de:Wikipedia:WikiCon. And you're definitely right about the "wiki" part. --Gnom (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi and Gnom. Red link is now blue; thanks. :) Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, it seems like WM.DE's use of WikiCon is not a misuse of the wordmark because it's a term that's used on-wiki as the "proper name" (Section 2.1) of a "community-focused event" (Section 3.2), similar to the term WikiWomen. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Anna Koval (WMF), trademark-wise it's not a problem simply because "wiki" is not trademarked. --Gnom (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Gnom, as with many legal matters, there could be several reasons why the use of this term is not a problem. :) Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Online production

In the moview and tv shows section, I'm concerned that "online production" is an overbroad term that could include any internet video, youtube sketch, web news, web parody... If we mean online movie or online tv show, I'd prefer we clearly define 'production' as such. Anything you produce is a production, so I'd prefer we used narrower phrasing or indicated our intent as I think the policy implies. (Thank you for your hard work on this). Ocaasi (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, where do you draw the line? There are Youtube channels that come very close to real TV, don't you think? I suppose the cases that you are thinking about are already covered by section 3.6.3 (artistic and other non-commercial use) and therefore require no license anyway. --Gnom (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And Youtube profits from ads, as well as some Youtube accounts are 'partners' who receive a cut of ad revenue. I'd like more clariication on this one. Ocaasi (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi and Gnom. To be honest, narrowing the term “online production” is a tricky thing to do. The variety of works created and distributed on the internet is vast and attempting to enumerate every present and future (at least the “future” meant to be covered by this trademark policy draft) scenario is pretty much impossible. And as Gnom noted, it’s also difficult to draw lines within categories of online productions. An internet video could simply refer to Wikipedia in passing as it discusses tools of online collaboration or it could use the Wikipedia logos imply endorsement on unrelated commercial promotions. The former may be perfectly permissible while the latter would be misleading to the general public.

That said, many uses (such as web parodies or web news) within online productions will not require a license because the use is permitted under fair use or nominative use principles, as discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the policy draft. This means that the nature of the use, rather than the medium, is more determinative in an permissible use analysis. Mpaulson (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fair use" is a U.S. concept, not worldwide

I follow the "call for comments on draft trademark policy" on the Wikipedia Kurier. The new draft policy begins with "YES please! You have a fair use right to..." My question: Does this policy apply worldwide including in countries that do not know any "fair use" rights? "Fair use" is a concept in U.S. law; the German language Wikipedia, for example, does not permit any media under a fair use claim. This policy may allow me to use marks under "fair use", but our own policies (e.g. those of de.wikipedia.org) forbid "fair use". --Neitram (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neitram, you might confuse copyright and trademark here: The different rules on fair use images on the English and German Wikipedias deal with copyright (Urheberrecht). This license covers trademark (Markenrecht). But you are right, German trademark law is different from U.S. copyright as it does not have a concept such as fair use. (Instead, it uses different ideas that achieve very similar results.) But that should not affect your right to use the marks under the license because this license is governed by U.S. law. Yana will correct me if I'm wrong. Gruß, --Gnom (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I read "fair use", alarm bells ring in my head because the rules "Ein Fair Use von Bildern gibt es nur nach US-amerikanischem Recht; die Verwendung urheberrechtlich geschützter Bilder unter Fair Use ist in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia deshalb nicht erlaubt."; "Bilder, die in anderen Wikipedias als Fair Use gekennzeichnet sind, entsprechen nicht den Richtlinien der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia und können daher nicht verwendet werden." taught me: hands off of anything labeled "fair use"! --Neitram (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about these differences in German and U.S. copyright law. However, this is not much of a problem in trademark law. --92.226.246.181 16:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now that "copyright fair use" is different from "trademark fair use". But I still don't understand why you propose the wording "You have a fair use right", linking to the trademark fair use defense in U.S. law. It seems to me that the trademark fair use defense is a different thing from what you actually mean to say: a granted right (license) to use the mark for the listed purposes and in the listed ways. --Neitram (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

While I do not know the reasons for the WMF legal team's choices, my guess is they do not wish to grant that (or any) license in writing. Saying people have the right to use their mark - even in curtailed circumstances - may weaken their attempts to control the use of the mark at a later point in time. I believe it is for the same reason they are attempting to get people to stop verbing and adjectivising their marks (no more wikipedize!) - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 17:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, Neitram. We agree with Gnom on the fact that this may sound as a confusion of the fair use doctrine within copyright law, and what “fair use” could mean under a trademark law perspective. Regarding the wording, we stated that this was “fair use” because the policy cannot grant these existing rights under U.S. law -- it can only explain them. And we linked to the trademark fair use defense in US law article to show examples of the descriptive and nominate uses. But this policy is meant to apply internationally. These uses are permitted for users worldwide under the new policy regardless of how they are labelled. Thank you all for your interest and feedback! --JVargas (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Community vs. Public (editathon vs. hackathon and GLAM)

I'm a bit unclear on the distinction between editathons and hackathons and public events. You focus on whether the event is geared towards members of our 'community' to justify license-free editathons, but you also require licensing for public events. This leaves me befuddled. An editathon is often geared towards attracting new editors, who are not (yet) members of our community. At the same time, an editathon is also a public event. I get the sense that the license requirements for public events in section 4 need to better distinguish why they don't include editathons; or editathons need to be more specifically rationalized in section 3. I'm also confused about why GLAM events need licensing for a GLAM editathon. Yes, it involves another institution, but that's just a question of venue. If I hold an editathon at a museum, how is that materially different than holding an editathon at a public library--why does one not require licensing but the other does not, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning of 'GLAM event'. Lastly, your definition of hackathon doesn't clearly distinguish it from an editathon, so I'm left wondering why hackathons require a license. You say, "This provision applies to hackathons where people meet to work on Wikimedia projects together." Clearly, an editathon involves working on Wikimedia projects together. To be honest, so would Susie and Bobby getting together at starbucks to improve a stub article. I'd prefer you much more clearly explain why hackathons are distinct from editathons, or perhaps reconsider entirely if they actually are. (I like the visual design of this document, it's very approachable and easy to read) Ocaasi (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about this also - GLAM is given special attention over other kinds of events, and I think that things like the education program, political meetups, tech meetups, and science meetups are increasingly deserving of attention comparable to GLAM. Also I am confused about the event definitions and payment discussions. To attend a meeting at a coffeehouse store policy is almost always to require visitors to buy a cup of coffee, and if admission to a coffeehouse meetup has a price then I wonder why special rules are needed for a thrifty university conference which charges a small attendees fee. Elsewhere there are also separate policies for conferences for Wikipedia community members as compared to non-members. Ideally I wish that most meetups were mostly non-community members. I am seeing the same things as Ocaasi - a lot could be clarified with standardized language and definitions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bluerasberry that there are many different types of projects and meetings that are not explicitly covered here. But many (if not all!) of the ones that I can think of fall under the "Community-focused events" and "Outreach and recruiting new editors" sections and therefore require no license. Ocaasi is definitely right that this needs some clarification. Most of all, we should put someting in section 4.3 to explain that this only means "public events and conferences that are not community or outreach-related". So section 4.3 would only cover very few cases. --Gnom (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gnom and Ocaasi! Thanks for clarifying section 4.3. We'll tweak that language to make it clearer. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual Guidelines talk page is protected (prohibits comments)

The talk page shouldn't be protected :) https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Talk:Visual_identity_guidelines.

I also think the explanatory text on the visual guidelines page is too small.

(That page is very nicely laid out and has the spirit of simple design throughout). Ocaasi (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, given that the Visual Identity Guidelines are closely related to the trademark policy, maybe we can just discuss it here (as you have) and we'll take that feedback to improve the guidelines. Thanks! YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Very practically, just add a link to the proper discussion page on top of that talkpage? Effeietsanders (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: Good idea, I added a link. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

FAQ button/icon looks odd left-aligned at the top of the Trademark Policy introduction

It's a nice navigation table you have, but on my browser FAQ is by itself on a second line and all the way on the left. It frankly draws all the attention to FAQ rather than the top-line sections. Perhaps it'd be better if FAQ was center-aligned on the second row. (You've clearly taken the community's concerns into account in this document, and responded thoughtfully. Thanks for that). Ocaasi (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. The policy was designed on wider screen where are the icons were on one line. We'll see how we can tweak to avoid the focus on the FAQ. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this

I am really happy with the drafts of all these pages, this policy, and this discussion. This seems like what I wanted and in any case is an awesome attempt to respond to community concerns. Thanks to all who organized this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Blue Rasberry! It is really encouraging to hear after working on this draft for months.  :) YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Logo remixing

If I'm hosting a glam editathon at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, can I be cute and do this?

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1MPYF35g10HqLTzAdaoqhdv6U4W4Uf5g7A0ZkgfCgtpU/edit?usp=sharing

(By the way, where's Rory?? He only likes privacy and not trademarks, I guess.) Ocaasi (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In the past I was told no, because modifications to any marks other than the community mark was off-limits. I also want clarification. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Remixes used to be prohibited in the old trademark policy, but will be allowed on the Wikimedia sites under the new draft. So it really depends on where you plan to display the logo. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks YWelinder (WMF) How about a) on a physical flyer at the Art Museum, b) on a physical flyer at a nearby Universtiy b) on an online Wikipedia project page, c) on the online Art Museum webpage? Ocaasi (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That sort of begs the question: what is a "wikimedia site" ? Is it exclusively the WMF project sites? Does it include Wikimedia Chapter sites, or sites they host? Does it include a site created by wikimedians to support their efforts on wikimedia projects? What about Affiliate Groups? - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 17:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

List

Is there a list of all the trademarks this would apply to? --MF-W 15:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Section 1.1 of the draft links to this page, where you should find all the trademarks. Gruß, --Gnom (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant; I did not manage to spot this in the vastness of the page. --MF-W 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

and/or

Just a minor thing but very meaningful: please make sure in lists of requirements whether they are *and* or *or* lists. Specifically, this is unclear in the non-legal description "2. Outside the Wikimedia sites when you:". Effeietsanders (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders! I’ll review the policy again to make sure that we are clear about using “and” and “or” for different requirements.

We don’t use “and” and “or” in the summary because it’s intended as an overview and doesn’t set out any requirements. We’ve tried to avoid any extra words in the summary so that people can quickly find a relevant provision and click a link to read more in the policy. But I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.  :) YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not using and or or in that summary actually makes it more confusing to me :) It is unclear to me whether all conditions have to be fulfilled or either of them. There are of course more ways to accomplish that, but currently at least to me clearity is missing. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Let's think about how we can make it clearer. :) YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Trademark symbol

I know this is a returning topic, but it would be unfair not to bring this up. "2.2 Notice or trademark symbol" specifies, like the visual guidelines, that the (R) or TM should be added to the logo's. Imho, this is quite unrealistic. Over here (Netherlands, Europe) it usually just makes you look silly. It is stating the obvious and gives a commercial feeling to the logo. In practice, it gets left out all the time because it is unpractical, ugly and silly - and I don't see this changing.

I know the current text specifies 'When reasonable' so probably most people acting in good fair will just assume it is unreasonable in their geography. Maybe it is good to point out when you *really* want to enforce this, and stick to that? Effeietsanders (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders. Thanks for your comment. We know that, under Section 2.2, our community members will interpret reasonableness in good faith according to local customs and norms. This trademark policy applies also to non-community members, where we are likely to be stricter in its construction. Trying to anticipate the various fact scenarios where “enforcement” would be appropriate in the following years would be difficult and render this section too detailed, in my opinion. But, frankly, I cannot imagine now a scenario where we would actively "enforce" against any community member under this provision. We may help guide people in a helpful way, but we expect everyone to work in good faith on this. Geoffbrigham (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful pointer. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal document

Where does the 'not a legal document' end? Current layout suggests to me the whole document is not the legal document. Effeietsanders (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. We need to make that clearer. The legal texts starts in the black box, where it says “trademark policy.” How about if we state “End of the summary” right before the black box? YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a curious disclaimer, a user will want to know "can I rely on this" - perhaps what we want to say here is that "this is a non-binding summary only, the policy proper trumps the summary in case of conflict." But this begs a number of questions:

• Can I rely on the summary, or is it just an aide memoire?
• If I can rely on the summary, why have a more detailed document?
• If the documents conflict, where do they conflict and can we repair this?

Rich Farmbrough 18:35 19 November 2013 (GMT).

Hi Rich! Thanks for asking for clarification on this. The summary and the policy should not conflict, but there are more details in the policy that mean that you can’t rely on the summary only. That’s why I flag that the "summary is not a legal document.” But I can say that it's “non-binding” instead if that’s better. I'm aiming for a statement that non-native speakers would easily understand. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That does improve the clarity. If the summary refers to the comprehensive document in the appropriate places, we may not even need this disclaimer. Rich Farmbrough 19:49 19 November 2013 (GMT).

You could perhaps treat it as a translation, and state that in case of conflicting language, the legal document always applies? This clearly states that the intention is to summarize it as good as possible. Also, if you link to the first section of the legal document with the word 'legal document' that would probably clarify that that is the point where it starts. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. How about if I change the statement like this:

“This summary is not part of the trademark policy. It’s meant to help you find the relevant provision that governs your use.”

That will also address your first question about where the summary ends. What do you think? Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Allow use in critic sites

Please allow use in Wikipedia critic sites.InSANITYreTURN (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that implied with trademark law around the world ? Are we aware of any country where it would not be allowed this way ? TheDJ (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominative use is allowed explicitly (Section 3.6). Rich Farmbrough 19:43 19 November 2013 (GMT).

So, I can use it, nice. Never mind Wikipediocracy, my critic site will be much more, grand!InSANITYreTURN (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Grand! Rich Farmbrough 20:45 19 November 2013 (GMT).

There are limits of course, a satiric spoof site at an almost identical URL and look and feel, might cause confusion for the 'general public'. That's where that line would be. My point was that a use in itself is not a violation. It's the way you use a trademark that determines if it is legal or not. And critical commentary in itself is not enough reason to violate a trademark. A critical commentary on a website that might trick users into thinking it is the original Wiki(pedia) might be a a usage that could violate the trademark (not a layer here, so i'm careful with my interpretation). TheDJ (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi InSANITYreTURN, TheDJ, and Rich Farmbrough. As Rich noted, use in critic sites is permitted under Section 3.6 of the policy draft. Mpaulson (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Satire

... it may be helpful to mark your work as "satire" or "parody." If only! Rich Farmbrough 19:43 19 November 2013 (GMT).

Copyright

All of the restrictions on use contained in this policy can be grounded in trademark law. However, the file description pages for the Wikipedia logo, as well as several other logos, indicate that the logos are © the Foundation, and not freely licensed copyright-wise. It would be helpful, therefore, to know:

• if the proposed policy, if/when implemented, will change that, and
• if not, what is the purpose of the Foundation's claim to restrictive copyright protection, as well as trademark protection?

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that retaining copyright, where it subsists, provides additional protection against misuse of the marks. Copyright protection, at least in theory, is geographically almost universal. It would be sensible for the document to provide copyright release on the same terms as trademark license. Rich Farmbrough 20:34 19 November 2013 (GMT).

The trademark policy will not change the copyright status of our logos. But I’m working on changing their copyright status to CC BY-SA or a similar free license. I’ve started this with the new Wikivoyage logo. The other logos are a little bit more complicated for historic reasons, but we’re working on it.  :) YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The community logo is, of course, PD. Rich Farmbrough 01:26 20 November 2013 (GMT).

Verb

"I'll just Wikipedia that... hmm looks like it was Egfrith." Ok abuse of the English language, arguably, like the infamous "Mouse that icon!" or nearer to home "Googling" ... But I'm not sure we should be discouraging it as policy, and certainly I hope not from a misplaced sense that the traded mark will become generic. Rich Farmbrough 20:39 19 November 2013 (GMT).

wikt:Wikipedia#Verb PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This topic is also being discussed here on this page. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Trade dress and the MediaWiki interface

"trade dress is the design of a website or article that identifies the source of the website or online material. Think of it as the 'look and feel' of a site"

How is the trade dress particular to Wikimedia Foundation projects to be distinguished from the default skinning of MediaWiki, which is used by many other wikis? Will they have to change their appearance to avoid infringement (in countries where that's taken more seriously than U.S. law takes it, at least?) Daniel Case (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, we don't consider the mere use of the MediaWiki software to be a trade dress violation. Generally, it is fine to use the MediaWiki software as long as you don't combine it with one of our logos or something that is confusingly similar to them. You can read more about that in FAQ Section 5.3. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, presumably the "Powered by Mediawiki" button needs a little thinking about. (I have a feeling the sunflower was the default logo on the first Wiki I installed, but that may have been becasue it was the only graphic on the system.)

~~

"Powered by MediaWiki" would generally be a nominative use of the logo to describe that the wiki is powered by MediaWiki, so that should also be fine. It's an excellent question. I'll add it to the FAQ section to clarify that. Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me

I'm only a very occasional editor here on Wiki, but I have a lot of interest in supporting the site. I think these are positive changes, and the communication of them is pretty clear and effective too.--Spud of Doom (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Spud of Doom. I'm sure the legal team appreciates it. :) -Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Domain names

This discussion was copied from Talk:Trademark practices discussion.

The current policy states that "If you want to include all or part of a Wikimedia trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from the Wikimedia Foundation." But the Foundation appears to have been unwilling to enforce this legally in at least the case of the domain name wikipediaart.org. A policy that is (or can be) only selectively enforced seems undesirable.

A blog posting by a representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with regard to wikipediaarts.org, said "There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here. First, the site is entirely noncommercial, which puts it beyond the reach of U.S. trademark law. ... Moreover, even if U.S. trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists’ use of the mark is an obvious fair use. ... The disputed site ... does not use any more of the Wikipedia mark than need be; for example, it doesn’t even use the Wikipedia logo. Simply put, the site does not purport to be, nor does it look anything like, Wikipedia and the artists have done nothing to suggest Wikipedia endorses their work."

The relevant case law seems to be Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)

If the EFF statement above is true, then the current policy seems very problematical. Perhaps something like this would be better, though even that may still be an overreach, in light of Bosley:

"If you want to include all or part of a Wikimedia trademark in a domain name, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation to find out whether it objects. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Any use of a Wikimedia trademark in a domain name, by other than the Wikimedia Foundation, must not confuse consumers into thinking that the domain is owned by or endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation."

John Broughton (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question. The EFF blog post touched upon two issues that we would like to clarify by updating the trademark policy: (1) how project names can be used in domain names (see the next thread below); and (2) what uses of our marks constitute fair use. In certain cases, trademark rights cannot be enforced because of fair use. This may look like inconsistent enforcement. But we may be able to avoid this appearance by clarifying what uses would constitute fair use. As I’ve mentioned above, we hope to include more specific examples of fair use in our trademark policy and FAQs. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I own several domains that include full Wikimedia trademarks in their names, as I bought them to prevent cybersquatting (and have paid for them from my own pocket). I have never asked the WMF for permission to do so, nor am I willing to take part in any authorisation process. The domains redirect to their respective projects, and I'm not planning to use them for any type of activity; I'm also willing to cover their costs until I'm not. Seeing that the trademark policy specifically requires people like me to receive written permission from the WMF to be able to buy such domains, what is the Foundation's position on the matter? (Note: I personally know several other volunteers who own domains with Wikimedia trademarks in their names, so I think it's a bigger issue than just an individual user.) odder (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

@YWelinder: given that the new draft trademark policy imposes a requirement to ask for permission from the WMF every time I recover a cyber-squatted domain, I would really like to hear an answer to this. Thanks, odder (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi odder. We appreciate your recovering cyber-squatted domain names for the Wikimedia community. Assuming your domain names are not fair use, we would prefer that you transfer the domain names to us as a custodian for the community (and we would reimburse expenses). If those domain names are in the Wikimedia portfolio held at WMF, we can better defend the Wikimedia trademarks against third-party attacks or misuses, including cybersquatters with similar domain names. We often launch successfully WIPO challenges against improper use by individuals or firms outside our community, and it helps to have a complete portfolio of domain names as a point of reference in arguing our right to cybersquatted domain names. Also we have a top firm comprehensively monitoring misuse of domain names in our portfolio on the web. That same firm ensures that the domain names in our portfolio are properly renewed to ensure against any lapses that could allow cybersquatters to steal the domain name. That said, with any provision in the trademark policy, we will exercise good judgment and assume good faith in its application and enforcement. So, as an active community member, if your domains faithfully redirect to the Wikimedia sites without advertisement or any other misuse, I’m not going to worry about it too much at this time. There are more important priorities for us. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, Geoff, it's very reassuring. I doubt that any of those domains would qualify as fair use; I avoid mentioning their existence, and they do not contain any content, and are mere redirects to appropriate Wikimedia projects. Also, thank you for such a detailed answer, it's appreciated. I will consider donating the domains to the Foundation, and I might get back to you via e-mail soon. odder (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Registration of the community logo as a collective membership mark

@User:YWelinder (WMF) announced in this blog post that the Foundation plan to register the community logo as a collective membership mark, and have included a provision with respect to the use of this logo in the draft policy. How does it relate to the fact that this very discussion was just re-started, and the fact that you have been conveniently avoiding answering questions asked by various community members at Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo, Community Logo/Request for consultation and Talk:Trademark practices discussion (to name just a few places)? Given that you decided to take some steps even before this discussion got moving, it's really hard (for me) to assume that you care about what the community think about this. odder (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Collective membership mark

Hi everyone,

Given that odder and Nemo have started a legal action against WMF, I cannot respond to them directly regarding matters in that action. As a lawyer for the WMF in that action, I have to communicate with them only through their lawyers and will do so. That is very unfortunate because we have an ongoing consultation regarding trademarks to get feedback from the community, but we also have to observe ethical rules.

But I would like to provide some background on the consultation for the collective membership mark. We started that discussion almost two months ago. Since then, we have engaged in an active discussion with the community and received strong community support for registering the community logo as a collective membership mark. There were some comments requesting additional information, so we provided an update on how a collective membership mark would provide protection in both the US and the EU. Now in the draft trademark policy, this is explained in more detail. Ultimately, there were 42 supporting comments (!votes) and 9 opposing comments (with 12 abstentions) in the consultation on the collective membership mark. As we were already rolling out the new trademark policy for community consultation, we initiated a specific discussion with respect to the standard that should be applied with respect to the use of the community logo as a collective membership mark.

Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)