社区标志/回收此标志

此标志的历史

The community logo

维基媒体社区标志最早是作为维基媒体社区非官方活动使用的维基媒体标志（如维基百科球状拼图及通用维基媒体标志）的扩充，由Artur "WarX" Fijałkowski在2006年12月上传到维基共享资源的。

由于修改官方标志会受到维基媒体视觉识别准则的限制，且“维基媒体”是维基媒体基金会的注册商标，带着"in the hope to be totally free."的希望，Artur “WarX”将此社区标志发布到了公有领域。

在上传5年后，标志被很多维基媒体社群在各种用途混合使用，它甚至拥有一个用于Toolserver的衍生版本，波兰维基媒体社群的一些线下活动，以及其他。在2008年，标志也被用于制作元维基社群的衍生版本。

In a surprising move in July 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation applied for the registration of the logo as their trademark, which was officially registered on August 7, 2012. This fact, however, was never made public. Only in January 2013 did a volunteer editor notice that the logo has been marked with the {{Wikimedia trademark}} template by a WMF employee the previous month. The issue was brought up a few weeks later during Wikimedia Foundation legal team's office hours, in March 2013 on the Wikimedia-l mailing list and again on Meta — unfortunately, without any substantive discussion.

In response to the situation, a small group of Wikimedians have initiated the necessary formal opposition procedure against the registration of the logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation in the European Union. It was submitted to the OHIM on 2013-09-25 and is publicly accessible. We are Artur Fijałkowski (WarX), the author of the logo, Tomasz Kozłowski (odder), Federico Leva (Nemo); with help from John Vandenberg. The cost so far is about €1,100 of our own money, which is our donation to the Wikimedia community.

收回此标志

我们认为注册此标志为商标与其诞生之原因相矛盾，并且与过去一直使用和修改的方式相反。在目睹了商标授权过程的漫长与复杂之后，我们更加坚信此标志成为商标以后会给社区的能力和自由地使用此标志带来负面的影响。

我们深知持有此标志商标权在保护标志被用在项目中和防止有损社区声誉的活动发生等方面的重要性。然而出于对社区标志的尊重，我们认为无论是维基媒体基金会还是任何维基媒体旗下的子基金会都不应持有此标志的商标权。社区的每个成员都有权不受限地在任何目的下使用它，况且多年来一直如此。

同时我们也认为为此标志的特殊历史和其可以在任何目的下被自由地作为识别维基媒体社区的其他标志的一部分使用和改变的事实。基金会给出的建议是——由于此标志被注册为商标——我们应该创建一个新的标志以便不用经过他们的授权和认证就可以使用。在我们看来，这是不尊重此标志的历史和定位的做法。

We understand that the registration of the logo as a trademark isn't therefore a service to the community, despite good faith. Had the community needed a trademarked logo, it would have asked for one to be created; conversely, had the Foundation wanted to offer one, they would have created it on their own instead of registering the existing logo.

结论

Our initiative provides the Wikimedia Foundation with an opportunity to keep the field clear from this harmful appropriation. We hope therefore that the issue can be resolved amicably, in the wiki way: by discussing the matter on a public forum, in the atmosphere of mutual consideration and friendship. We invite all interested parties, especially individual community members, but also all interested organisations or groups, to express their opinions on the talk page. We also invite the Wikimedia Foundation and its employees (be it in their official or non-official capacities) to take an active role in discussing the issue.

支持

1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Tuvalkin (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Chico (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Wladek (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
5. Béria Lima ^msg 13:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Clockery Fairfeld (talk • enWS) 13:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
7. --Jduranboger (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
8. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
9. Bawolff (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
10. Paelius (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
11. Nickanc (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
12. It became necessary to trademark the logo to keep it free. 80.114.178.7 00:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
13. NaBUru38 (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
14. I find Foundation's behaviour (registering the logo even without informing [not mentioning asking] its creator) outrageous. WMF: please, abandon trademarking the logo at this time, and let's start the whole discussion anew. BartłomiejB (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
15. As initiator. odder (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
16. Pleclown (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

反对

1. For those who are interested, the views of the WMF legal department may be found here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
2. I don't see other viable means for protecting it against abuse. -- Codicorumus  « msg 18:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose. This entire proposition completely misunderstands the nature of trademark registration. Under United States law, any entity that actually uses a mark with respect to its goods or services enjoys a common law right to enforce that trademark, in both state courts and federal courts (under the Lanham Act). The only effects of a trademark registration are to assist the trademark owner in proving their ownership of the mark, to alert other potential registrants that the mark is in use (for example, if a shoe company decided to use a logo that looked just like this because they were unaware that this mark was already in use), and to increase certain penalties against infringers. Preventing the registration of this mark will do nothing towards putting it in the public domain, or allowing anyone to use it for anything, because the existing common law regime already prohibits such use. BD2412 T 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

   The Wikimedia community is worldwide, not just in the USA. It seems to me that this logo is being mis-appropriated from the worldwide community through the trademark application, not just from Americans. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 04:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   This is even less of an issue with respect to "worldwide" use. A U.S. trademark can only be enforced against infringements that occur in the United States or are directed into the United States. Such a registration would have no effect, for example, on use by people in Europe using the mark on a website directed to other Europeans. BD2412 T 21:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

   So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems to me that you are saying is that, as a New Zealander and a member of the Wikimedia user community, I can use the current Community Logo for community activities here in New Zealand, without having to apply to the Wikimedia Foundation for permission under this trademark registration. Is that correct? I can ignore this whole trademark argument entirely? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 23:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose, as this poll proposes no documentation as to what a trademark implies. From what I'm reading on the talk page, it has no bearing on the copyright. Elfix 21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
5. As said above, this proposal confuses trademark (and protection from third party abuse) and copyright. Galio (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
6.  Oppose The example of the RAF roundel (Royal Air Force loses battle to control trademark roundel) is an abject lesson in what may happen if one does not trademark in a timely fashion. Failure to protect our trademark not only allows others to exploit it as they wish but could lead them to claim it as their own. Our community is based on freely sharing knowledge and media, but until the rest of the world subscribes to our values we have to play by their rules.--KTo288 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

   From the same source "The Trade Mark Registry ruled the government could hang on to the trademark for the roundel for all other commercial [that is: non-clothing] uses". Your "abject lesson in what may happen if one does not trademark in a timely fashion" is a guile. It's no surprise you cowardly hide behind a pseudonym. --80.114.178.7 21:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)