Community Logo/Request for consultation/ko

Wikimedia community logo

Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) acts as a steward on behalf of the community of volunteers who work every day to build the reputation that the Wikimedia marks represent. To ensure that our actions reflect the sentiment of the community with respect to the Community logo, we have started this request for consultation. The question is whether the Wikimedia Foundation should continue with the trademark registration of the Community logo as a collective membership mark.

재단 법률 팀의 입장

배경

This Saturday, September 21, a few individuals (including the original creator of the logo) announced their intent to file an opposition on Monday, September 23, against Wikimedia Foundation’s trademark registration of the Community logo. The original discussion may be found at Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo. Contrary to suggestions in that discussion, the deadline to file an opposition to the registration of the Community logo is December 22, 2013 - not September 23. We would like to provide the community with a somewhat more nuanced summary of the situation to facilitate an informed discussion on how the Community logo should be protected. The below represents a summary of our postings (one, two, three) over the past days on this issue.

User:WarX created the Community logo in 2006 and released it into the public domain for copyright purposes. The logo was meant to represent the community’s work, and, in 2008, the community adopted it as the official logo for Meta-Wiki.

After the Community logo was adopted as the official Meta logo, it was added to the list of Wikimedia logos in September 2008. In April 2009, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution directing WMF staff “to register and protect the Wikimedia marks,” which by then included the Community logo. Pursuant to this resolution, WMF started filing trademark registrations for the Community logo last year as part of its ongoing work to protect our 20+ trademarks.

고려사항

If we do not register the community logo, someone else may try register it in a jurisdiction without common law trademark rights and later restrict the community’s use of the logo. This is particularly relevant when the logo designer, like here, released the logo into the public domain (i.e. when copyright protection is unavailable). In fact, we recently had a problem with a company that had registered a puzzle globe in China (after Wikipedia adopted the puzzle globe as its logo), preventing Wikimedia from protecting and potentially using the Wikipedia logo there. We had to spend significant resources to persuade the company to agree to our use of the logo. Fortunately, this company agreed to cooperate, but others may not be so accommodating. Dropping the trademark registration of the Community logo may therefore jeopardize the community’s ability to continue using it.

The trademark registration further does not change the Community logo’s public domain status under copyright law. Copyright and trademark protection serve very different purposes. Copyright prevents a particular design from being reused, while trademark protects the connection between a logo and the work that it represents. So while the Community logo was released into the public domain by WarX for copyright purposes, the logo was meant to represent the community’s work. For that reason, trademark registration makes sense to protect the use of the Community logo for its intended purpose.

Collective membership mark

Over the last couple of months, the legal team has been working on a solution to allow community members to maximize their use of the Wikimedia marks. We are looking to establish the Community logo as a collective membership mark. This would allow community members to use the mark freely to show their connection to the Wikimedia movement, while still protecting the mark against abuse from non-community parties.

A collective membership mark can be used to indicate membership in an association - in our case, it would be the Wikimedia movement. Unlike with a regular trademark, the trademark holder does not need to issue trademark licenses to individuals who want to use a logo. Instead, the trademark holder simply needs to identify them as members. So it could allow Wikimedia community members to use the Community logo to identify themselves as members of our movement. But we would still be able to enforce the mark against non-community members that abuse the logo. The collective membership mark is a very unusual category of marks that is used by organizations like Rotary International and Toastmasters. Our hope is that this model may lend itself to our unique situation and promote flexible use by community members.

We have added more information about the collective membership mark on the discussion page.

We are also in the midst of re-drafting our trademark policy to include more permissive provisions that allow freer use of other Wikimedia marks, including free use of the Community logo by the community in furtherance of the Wikimedia mission.

결론

We would like to take this opportunity to once again acknowledge that we would have liked to have communicated better about the initial registration of the Community logo. That said, we still believe that registering this logo as a community mark is the right decision for the community. We will follow the clear direction from the wider community and the Board, and we are willing to drop the registration as well as the protection of the logo. In our professional judgment, however, we do not recommend abandoning the trademark registration for the reasons set out above.

읽어주셔서 감사합니다,

위키미디어 재단 법률 팀

Counterargument (not supported by the legal team)

See Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo for more.

업데이트 (2013년 10월 8일)

On September 25, Federico Leva and Tomasz Kozlowski, as announced at the Reclaim the Logo page, filed an opposition against the filing of the trademark registration in the EU, arguing that they have established individual trademark rights by “extensive use of the challenged trademark within their course of trade in Italy and also in Poland.” They state that this gives them trademark rights to “prohibit the registration of the trademark application.” They also filed observations on the grounds that this logo cannot be registered because it “designate[s] the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service” and could “deceive the public, for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service.” This is just an outline of the opposition and observation grounds. You can read the rest of their reasoning in the original documents that are available at the EU Trademark Office website.

참고

공동체로의 질문

1. Collective membership mark

Should we seek to establish the Community logo as a collective membership mark, which will allow flexible use by community members while protecting the mark against third-party abuse?

Support

[ edit this section ]

1. Why have a logo? If the logo is not protected for external use, what's the purpose of having one? A logo speaks to the others - "here I am, meaning here we are, and these are our principles, our practices, policies, ideas and we stand for them". If we do not claim ownership of the 'flag,' it becomes unnecessary and besides the point. Here I read (below) about "...positions antithetical..." So we DO have grounds and theses, and therefore, they are the invisible separation between us - who share intellectual prowess and the world that owns it... Guess what, if we have such delineation and want to defend our believes, we can share them, however, we must protect our symbols from use for other, mostly mercantile and advertising purposes... Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Logos are identification marks of belonging to specific communities, just like flags. If Wikimedians have adopted one (even from a public domain), they should stand by it. Otherwise, there's no point of having it as our symbol. I wouldn't want to use an image if it happens to infringe on someone's registered rights. -- Frhdkazan (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
3. The Wikimedia community has made a fantastic effort to provide free information to anybody with access to the Internet. However, providing free information is not the same as allowing third parties to make use of the Wikimedia trade marks (the "flag", if you like) or even restrict the Wikimedia community from using its own "flag". Pugilist (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
4. I don't think that the creator's goals are furthered by abandoning the trademark. Would s/he really want the possibility of a situation where the Wikimedia community cannot use the logo (or anything similar) any longer, which might be the case if somebody else registers it as a trademark. //Shell 06:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
5. Protecting the mark against third-party abuse is essential. Do not create opportunities to fraudsters /!\ Lotje (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
6. this is a clever and flexible solution, which seems to address both sides (WMF legal and the trademark registration opposition) needs. Pundit (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
7. The best way to protect the freedom of the community is to trademark its logo. We can't let it be "free" as it would mean "free to steal". Darkdadaah (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
8. Nice combination of legal protection against abuse and being recognized as a contributor to these great global projects we all build together in a cooperative way. Amazing the world yet more than 12 years and we continue to do so, myriads of volunteers and scores of paid people. Let's be proud of us :-)  Klaas|Z4␟V:  09:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
9. Trademark only prevents fraudulent use of the image by persons that may try and imitate Wikimedia. It does not restrict all uses, including commercial. Anyone can use it to sell hamburgers but they can't use it to market wiki software or information websites.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
10.  Support Snipre (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
11.  Support Elfix 14:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
12. Weak support. While in principle I think such a logo should be trademark protected I'm not entirely happy going against the wishes of it's creator even if doing so is entirely legal. Dpmuk (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
13. This seems reasonable. I appreciate that WarX created the logo, but he released it into PD. That's the end of it. --Dschwen (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

    Apparently this needs some clarification. By no means do I want to ignoew WarX's opinion on the matter. But I don't want to give him more weight than the the other users here. He made the decision to put the logo into PD. To me this means giving up control over the work, and with it the right to come back seven years later and change your mind. Well he can change his mind, but at this point it is a mere moral right to be heard and given special consideration. I heard him, I considered, and I disagree. Beyond that using his creatorship as an argument here is almost a bit like taking a stab at the irrevocability of free licenses. --Dschwen (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

14. This seems to be the best way to serve the community objectives while still protecting against abusers. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
15.  Support Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra Talk) 19:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC).
16. Strikes me as the best of both worlds here; the community can use it as they see fit, while abuse can be controlled -- at least theoretically. Courcelles 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
17. Best option in my mind. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
18. Logical - Bzh-99 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
19. This seems reasonable, and might be the least problematic in the long-run. Quiddity (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
20. Registration is necessary if only to prevent others from registering. It would really help if you could get a first draft of a real, liberal, licensing policy posted. This should allow anyone to make tee shirts with the logo, sell them and keep the money! Remember: if the worst that could happen is that you lose the right to enforce your trademark then that isn't so bad as you have prevented anyone else from trademarking it. Filceolaire (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
21.  Support This is the most logical evolution, according to me. --Laurent Jerry (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
22.  Support We have a solution here. And a very clever one that manages to address all concerns. Galio (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
23. This is one of the rare cases where there is such an appropriate compromise which does exactly what we want. vvv^t 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
24.  Support This seems like an ideal solution regarding issues for community re-use of the logo while allowing the WMF to prevent third party abuse. --LauraHale (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
25.  Support - a creative solution that allows the community the ability to use the logo while protecting it. Please note: I am an employee of the WMF, reporting to the General Counsel. I have not been involved in the discussions about the community logo, however, and have delegated it to a staff member. In addition, I am a community elected administrator on at least two projects, and it is in that capacity that I am !voting/commenting. --Philippe (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
26.  Support Looks okay. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
27.  Support Seems like a good idea. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
28.  Support --Ooo86 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
29.  Support --VT98Fan (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
30.  Support --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
31.  Support FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
32.  Support Having read both sides of the issue, I do believe that the logo needs trademark protection to prevent someone else from usurping our legal protections. While WMF is not the community, WMF generally represents the community (at least from a quasi-business standpoint) and has the community's best interests (at least as they see it) and legal interests in mind. We certainly can't say that about most anyone else who might register that logo if it remains in the public domain. Personally, I trust the WMF to hold the logo in trust for the community. If that trust ever is betrayed, then the project can be forked and a new logo chosen at that time. After all, who would want to keep a logo so closely tied to an organization that betrayed our trust? Hopefully that will never happen, and all of this fretting will have been for nothing. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | com | b:en ) 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
33. Tentative support. I like the idea of a collective mark owned by the community. However, I'm not entirely sure what the "Collective membership mark" actually means in legal terms with this situation. The main source of information for me - the relevant English Wikipedia article - needs a lot of work (perhaps it could be expanded by those that know about this topic?). My main worry would be if (as the enwp article implies) users of the mark would have to be members of the owner organisation - which is a big problem as the WMF doesn't have members. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

    We have added more information about the collective membership mark on the discussion page. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

34.  Support — Ineuw talk 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
35.  Support - Satdeep gill (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
36.  Support Demmy (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
37.  Support White Master (es) 17:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
38.  Support Under the condition that WMF will establish a community based process for deciding who is allowed to use this logo. Ruslik (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

    @Ruslik0: Considering the draft trademark policy page, we can now say with full conviction that this will not be the case. odder (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    @Ruslik0: As I understand it, the community is continuing to debate and determine the standard of use for the Community logo. Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6 of the Trademark policy talk page all discuss this, if you would like to take a look at those conversations and comment there. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

39.  Support Xoacas (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
40.  Support Per [1] I am changing my vote to support. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 13:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
41.  Support JKadavoor Jee 07:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
42.  Support The logo needs trademark protection to prevent cyber ocupping --Cameta (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
43.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
44.  Support --valepert (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

[ edit this section ]

1. The argument presented are compelling, but I wonder how our key words "free for all" should be interpreted in this case. Perhaps also allow it being "stolen" (we could then in practice, if stolen, redesign a new logo, in the same way as we pick a new phone number if the old one is "hijaced")Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   Only to respond, still on my established position. When we say ALL that is equivalent to NONE. Logos cannot be shared with ALL because Wikipedia has principles of non-commercialism. Logos, if they are meant to express ideas, should belong, because we cannot label ALL ideas as equal! it is philosophically impossible :) Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

2. I feel that there is a confusion between WMF and "the community". I do not think that it is legitimate for the WMF to act in the name of "the community", whatever it might mean. Arnaudus (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   Per talk page, this proposal is currently half-baked and not actionable as it's not even clear who would be registering the collective mark, at what conditions etc. It's still to be seen if and how "flexible" this tool would make the logo, but its author and adopters wanted it to be completely free (note that I voted against that Meta poll in 2008 ;) , but I want it to be respected). --Nemo 16:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   Let me quote two passages in the law, to show a couple problems which need to be addressed in order for this sort of promised solution to be actually delivered:

   • «Firstly, the applicant must be an association or a public body and secondly it must exist as an entity in itself» (The Manual Concerning Examination of Formalities, Part B.2, 7.2.2):

     Associations of manufacturers, producers, suppliers of services, or traders which under the terms of the law governing them have the capacity in their own name to have rights and obligations of all kinds, to make contracts or accomplish other legal acts and to sue or be sued, as well as legal persons governed by public law, may apply for a collective mark. (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 207/2009, Title VIII - Community collective trademarks; Article 66-74, 64)

   • Moreover, who's allowed to use it is integral part of the registration:

     1. An applicant for a Community collective mark must submit regulations governing its use within the period prescribed.
     2. The regulations governing use shall specify the persons authorised to use the mark, the conditions of membership of the association and, where they exist, the conditions of use of the mark, including sanctions.

   Nemo 08:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

   I'm planning to move to "Oppose" in few days. The WMF apparently refuses to explain how this solution can even be legal and mentions only USA registration. I must therefore assume that they can't, i.e. this won't even work as intended outside USA: this makes everything even more complicated and may even pave the way to first and second class citizens of the community depending on jurisdiction... --Nemo 09:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

   Moved below. --Nemo 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

   • I agree with Nemo. It isn't clear to me what I am signing up to. You should first decide and document on the kind of restrictions you are thinking of. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
     • Per [2] I am changing my vote to support. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 13:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure what I'm signing up to. Something else: Could people who are paid by a Wikimedia * organization please make themselves known? Might be a conflict of interest here (don't bite the hand that feeds you) or not. Multichill (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   WMF members all have "(WMF)" in their user name and signature, e.g "YWelinder (WMF)". Darkdadaah (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

   If only it was so simple. Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_staff shows many staff without a '(WMF)' postfix. Also there are cases like user:coren who comments here as 'Coren' but he is a one-year WMF contractor iirc, and has an account as User:MPelletier_(WMF). By commenting as 'Coren' instead of MPelletier_(WMF), he is saying his comment was not part of his job duties - it is therefore his personal opinion. Whereas presumably WMF paid user:Jalexander to make his comment below (actually, James regularly accidentally uses the 'wrong' account, but he usually leaves a note somewhere to indicate he made a mistake). And that is the simplest cases. Many people in the Wikimedia movement now receive WMF grants, scholarships, and fringe benefits for their volunteer roles. e.g. user:Pundit and User:Anders Wennersten are a FDC members. User:Nemo bis is a former Wikimedia chapter board member, and I am a current Wikimedia chapter board member. Ideally, we could all focus on the arguments made and ignore the usernames. But it is good governance for people to declare their relevant COIs before voting. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

   I do indeed use the wrong account at times (sometimes too often, just did it editing the privacy policy for example) but make comments to point out the mistake. While my account doesn't have (WMF) because of historical anomaly on enWP I add a bit of a tag to my signature so that people know I'm WMF, If people are confused I'm happy to do so here as well. That said, while I'm certainly not going to 'vote' here as a community member given my specific staff role I would generally reject the idea that staff members (or chapter board, or grantees, or chapter staff etc etc.) can't participate in a community discussion like this or are not community in someway. Especially since many of us have been community members long before we were staff members. I also know that it is really very common for staff members to disagree (and publicly say so) with things proposed by others within the foundation (sometimes even within their team). I would expect them to be able to express their opinions either way in a discussion like this. If the majority going one direction or another was all staff then I would certainly want to take that into account but I'd think the same thing for any minority group that looks like their dominating the discussion (be they paid staff, chapter board members or editors from one project who were canvassed up) because in consensus something like that is always important to weigh. Jalexander--WMF 06:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC) (re my edit down below, that was in my staff capacity and so why it was from my staff account)

4. The idea of a collective trademark is interesting, and the WMF should continue to explore it, but it seems premature to propose it to the community. The very basic information currently at w:Collective trade mark suggests that only people who become members of an organisation will be allowed to use the collective mark, and they need to be identified by their names and addresses - that excludes all the members of our community who which to remain pseudonymous, but which to use the collective mark. If the WMF has more details from their research, perhaps a separate page could be created with their current findings to enable the community to make a better informed decision. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   Also, if it is a collective mark, will chapters be able to use it? --99of9 (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

   I think that chapters are almost certainly going to be able to use it, they would not only fall under the community umbrella for it's use but they also generally have the ability to use all of the WM trademarks in their work. Jalexander--WMF 06:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

5. maybe after the... --►Cekli829 05:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Insufficient evidence that it would be a useful solution. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
7. I don't know what is a collective membership mark. In other words, who registers it, who controls it, and who can use it? Apparently it's a good idea, but I need more information. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
8. Due to e.g. Austrian and German law, it would be impossible to register this logo exclusively for one organisation. I don´t know how the legal situation in poland is. To register this work for any exclusive use without consulting the creator is unacceptable for me. On the other hand, get this logo for the exclusive use by a single organization is not acceptable. I miss the will of the Wikimedia Foundation - unfortunately this is not the only case in recent years - here to prove that she is willing to recognize the community as an equal partner. This is a situation that makes me very sad, because the entire project is built on mutual trust and also can arise only under this premise, and may in the future develop only in this way. The intention of Artur January Fijałkowski, the author of the artwork is undoubtedly for me, he has also fixed this intention seven years ago: It shall be free to use for everyone. It was not his will that other individuals or organizations have to decide solely who can use this logo. I suggest we start a competition to design a new logo that is created under the assumption, that this should be the official community logo. And it should be free for Wikipedians to use either one or the other. The registered one could have then a restricted use for Wikimedia usage only. Please respect the will of the creator! --Hubertl (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
9. While I have no strong feelings about trademark protection of the logo, I'm completely unfamiliar with this collective membership mark. The Wikimedia community is not an organization with an explicit process by which people can become members, unless mere user registration is supposed to suffice. I need a much clearer explanation of what actions would be legally permissible under this system and which would not. I also would like a clear explanation of why WMF cannot resolve this problem with an open trademark license extending broad rights for desirable permitted uses to all community members, which was the first solution that came to mind for me. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
10. Leaning support, but I think the community needs further information before committing to this. Craig Franklin (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC).
11. Support for a copyright protected logo. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

    NB: Trademark, not copyright, is the question here. –SJ talk  15:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

    Maybe FocalPoint's point is that WMF should get a different logo that WMF has the copyright for. Why else would this be in the neutral section? I can't be sure, but please don't always jump to the conclusion that a poster doesn't know the difference whenever copyright is mentioned. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

12. I also support for a WMF copyright protected logo. --DracoRoboter (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

[ edit this section ]

1. To put it in plain English: I am member of the community, you do not act on my behalf in any way and certainly not as a "stewart", which you claim you are. Therefore I also do not need any PR logo from you. --Fossa (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
2. As per John Vandenberg (except I'm not voting neutral) Russavia (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
3. per John Vandenberg. This is premature; we need more info about what restrictions a "collective trademark" would place on community members using it. (e.g. do they have to out themselves first?) I'm sure everyone's intentions here are good, but I am concerned about unintended consequences. --Avenue (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Collective membership marks are used punitively; that is, the governing body of the CA polices their use, and a demand to remove the mark is included in notification of loss of membership. The Foundation should not have the authority to determine who is, or is not, a wikimedian. This can, and is, determined by the community. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 06:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Per John Vandenberg. Pleclown (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
6. There is any real need to register our logos? I think not. Also I think that the foundation should spend more carefully the donated money, focusing on the required stuff like bandwidth, hardware and software. Ciao --Trek00 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
7. Per John Vandenberg. Moreover, as said Seraphimblade : "Its creator stated (and recently reiterated) a desire for the logo to be "totally free", in direct and specific opposition to the trademark restrictions on other restricted WMF logos. It should, accordingly, remain entirely free, and as Wikimedia volunteers, we should have confidence in free content and free culture. Seeking to lock up works is antithetical to what Wikimedia stands for. Seeking to lock them up in defiance of their creator's wishes for them to be free is so far beyond the pale I don't know what to say."Tibauty (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
8. per Fossa. --Alupus (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
9. I would support an initiative to register the marks so that they might always remain public domain, instead we have "stewards" protecting a "brand" that unpaid Wikimedia volunteers never wanted, nor did we create the WMF to become a legalistic adversarial brand protection corporate machine. The consultation is phrased in a way that appears to give room for the WMF to make money using copyright in the future, it would be easy to re-word to make this impossible. I note that WMF legal is not bound by this or any other community consultation process. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

   This is a good point - it would be good to re-word to prevent monetization. However, it is my understanding that a collective trademark is actually the best and the most flexible solution to keep the marks always in a "public domain" (as long as they're used fairly and as intended). Pundit (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

   I would be happy to consider a new proposal clearly geared to always protect the works as public domain, and with no other intention such as artificial and punitive restriction (limited to members where "membership" has an shifting definition or may radically change during re-organization) or future monetization, for example in a scenario in 2043 when Wikimedia sells off usage rights to Google's "not-evil" child company, which happens to turn WMF directors into multi-millionaires overnight after redefining "class-1 members" as trustees on the board and appointing a Google employee as the new Chairwoman. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

10. Per John Vandenberg and other people who !voted above. odder (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
11. Per John Vandenberg, Tibauty and other... --Franciaio^{I'm listening you} 10:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
12. Per John Vandenberg and others --Atropine (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
13. there are already plenty of Wikimedia trademarks. I don't object to them, but I don't see that trademarking everything is the solution. --.mau. ✉ 22:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
14. Per .mau. + the proposed "solution" is not legal in EU (see #outlaw). --Nemo 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
15. As Nemo above. --Ermanon (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
16.  Oppose as per Avenue above "his is premature; we need more info about what restrictions a "collective trademark" would place on community members using it." Béria Lima ^msg 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Knowledge should be free, and so is the logo... Siska.Doviana (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Per Seraphimblade --22Kartika (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose The proposal is framed in a strange way. That the WMF trademarked the logo was never an issue. The problem was trademarking it and applying usage policies which purported to radically change the way the logo had been used in the past and blocking the community's access to the benefits which it was created to provide. I am voting oppose not because I oppose the logo being trademarked, but because the way in which it was trademarked burdened the Wikimedia community with heavy costs and provided no obvious benefits to the community in return. I am aware that further discussions are happening and I appreciate the WMf's effort in hosting them, but as an individual community stakeholder I am not able to weigh the hundreds of pages of discussion text which have been covering this issue and talk to stakeholders. I feel that I would support the trademarking so long as all community demands for use were also preserved, but I do not want the trademark leveraged as a tool for separating the Wikimedia community from the resources it needs to function. I do feel that the community complaints asserted are supporting evidence that harm to the community was a significant risk caused by the WMF's initial attempt to trademark the community logo in the way that they did. I wish for a mutually beneficial outcome to the opposing interests of the Wikimedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation, in this and all such cases in which interests are not aligned. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Per Seraphimblade 26Isabella (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
21. This whole business seems very strange to me. I am surprised that the WMF wants to trademark this logo against his creator's opinion, and an important part of the community. While the stated purpose seems to be good, there is not enough information to know what a collective mark would achieve. Many active supporters could not use the logo because they don't edit the wikis. Further more, this collective trademark would only exist in the USA, while there still would be a plain TM everywhere in the world. The Wikimedia community is a world-wide movement, people outside the USA should not be discounted. Yann (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Abandon all trademark registration

Should we abandon Wikimedia trademark rights in this mark (including collective trademark), with the understanding that others will be free to register it as a trademark and WMF will withdraw resources in protecting it going forward?

Support

[ edit this section ]

1. Its creator stated (and recently reiterated) a desire for the logo to be "totally free", in direct and specific opposition to the trademark restrictions on other restricted WMF logos. It should, accordingly, remain entirely free, and as Wikimedia volunteers, we should have confidence in free content and free culture. Seeking to lock up works is antithetical to what Wikimedia stands for. Seeking to lock them up in defiance of their creator's wishes for them to be free is so far beyond the pale I don't know what to say. Seraphimblade (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
2. At least for the time being. For such a process to proceed we should have close to full consensus. This is not the case just now, and we in the community should then be given ample time to contiue this discussion, and if no consensus is reached, we should not go for trademarking it. Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
3. the entire point of this logo was to have a logo that was entirely free of restrictions. It should be usable by someone even if the wmf thinks that person is evil. If wmf want to protect meta's logo, then we should change meta's logo back to the wmf logo. A situation similar to the trademark of the linux logo might be acceptable, but the above proposed community use policy Is not anywhere near specific enough to be evaluated. Bawolff (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry for the inline comment, just wanted to clarify what you meant by a similar situation to the trademark of the linux logo (while try to be open like we do my understanding is that they are actually very protective and trademarked). Jalexander (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   I just wanted to confirm that it is indeed a registered trademark, which is enforced by the Linux Foundation. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   You guys are presenting an incorrect picture here. The WMF could learn a lot from the Linux trademark, which is extremely permissive to volunteers and re-uses, and very open and transparent to commercial institutions that which to use the Linux brand as part of their own branding. The FAQ is a good starting point http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark/faq#Do_I_need_a_sublicense ; and the lawyers should also read http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark/sublicense-agreement for the win. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   Also, this request for consultation is about the community logo rather than a product/project logo. A better comparison is the w:Tux logo, which is used to represent the linux community, and is unencumbered by trademarks. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   Tux is an excellent comparison. See this 2004 thread. –SJ talk  11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, I originally meant Tux the penguin, not the word Linux. I appreciate that the legal team is trying to meet people half way on this, but I still feel that the logo, created by someone outside the foundation in order to be used by Community members and not as something official, should not be protected by the foundation. While I have no doubt the foundation has the best of intentions in trying to do this, I do not think it should be the foundations role to protect this logo, any more than it would be Google's (or insert random entity X)'s role to protect the logo. So my vote here is still  Support. Bawolff (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

4. I think there is a part of FUD here (or perhaps the analysis is US-specific). I doubt that trademarking a logo that is already widely used is legal in most countries, and, on the top of it, I doubt that such a trademark would decrease everyone's right to use it according to its copyright license. My opinion is that the WMF should leave some space for the community to exist outside of the WMF. If the WMF turns evil at one point or if someone forks Wikipedia, it is important to secure some ways for the community to survive. Arnaudus (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
5. It says it all "Having witnessed the complexity and lengthiness of the trademark authorisation process, we are quite sure that the mere fact of the logo being a trademark will have a negative impact on the community’s ability and freedom to use it." I think there is more good from not having the logo trademarked by WMF than having it trademarked even considering the risk of it being used by other organizations, which I don't really see how it could refrain the community from using it. Amqui (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
6. We the community are not a product to be controlled, monetised or protected. We are an open association. We selected a logo we wish to use to represent ourselves, explicitly intended to be distinct from the WMF trademarks, and unencumbered by copyright or trademarks. I can appreciate the WMF lawyers recommended that the meta project must have a trademarked logo. The model for this is already well established. A good example is the Debian logos; the restricted logo is the same as the open logo, except that the stylised word 'Debian' (see U.S. trademark serial no. 86037470: 'The mark consists of A spiral formed with the style of a paintbrush stroke with the word DEBIAN written below.'). Likewise, the meta project logo includes the word 'Wikimedia' written below. i.e. File:Wikimedia-logo-meta.png should be trademarked; File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg should not. John Vandenberg (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
7. The creator has wished that the logo remain free and I would like to see this respected (unless there was a specific understanding that WMF would have copyright on the logo before it was created). AroundTheGlobe (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
8. The question here is about: is this the community's logo that needs to be protected from misuse, or is it "just another PD image" which also happens to be used as a community logo? In my view, it is the latter. It is the creator's wish that this logo remain free. Although it is in WMF colours, there is no reason why someone else might not like to use it for their own purposes (even as a logo for some unrelated project), and presumably the creator is fine with that possibility. This is not a project logo (okay, Meta, but that hardly counts as a major content project), so I see no need for a trademark. This, that and the other (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
9. Support per Debian example. It's fine to trademark the globe with "Wikimedia" written under it, but if it's just the globe it's something that belongs to the community and not the WMF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
10. First of all, you should respect the creator's wishes, even if the work is PD (or especially because of that). You (the WMF and its employees) depend on the goodwill of the community, both for editing as well as financing. Second, the logo is not known enough to be used by third parties to identify themselves to the movement without using additional tradmarkes materials such as the "Wikipedia", "Wikimedia" words etc.--Strainu (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
11. It is unethical to trademark an image that was donated to public domain specifically to be freely available, and against the specific objections of the creator. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
12. As per all the above, especially John Vandenberg, Peter Southwood. Russavia (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
13. on the basis that this is what the author wanted the community logo to be. darkweasel94 (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
14. Mistakenly I wrote my opinion in oppose section- Now pasting the same here alongwith further comments by other users. Sorry for inconvenience. Please read on. --Manojkhurana (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

    This is a typical trap that almost all good efforts fall into. Such kind of efforts are typically identified as "beginning of the end" for great institutions. Such kind of thoughts are the beginning points for - to use an example- turning democracy into autocracy, or say, waging war for peace. In the beginning the motives, intentions may be good, but eventually these "controllong measures" become weapons. First gathering a crowd for peace and when a huge mass is gathered, then saying- "ok, lets start killing people who do not want peace." Logically,it may be justified, motives are good, intentions are good. But we need to look at history and be clear that these are the traps where we unknowingly fall into. While writing all this, a very clear example has come to my mind- think of Socialism, it started as a movement for welfare of common man, people gathered and then slowly it got converted into dictatorships. Lets learn from history and do not deviate from the basic, founding principles howsoever logical the deviations may seem. --Manojkhurana (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    • • The above comment is describing a very (alas) common trait of any ideal organisation. The rot is inherent in almost all humans, an will - it seems inevitably - show up. The most classic example is early Christianity, with martyrs, compared with later developmental traits as crusades, inquisition, conquests and forcible christening. It is in my opinion next to impossible to guard against, even in the WP-community, Since we live in a world functioning like it does, methinks it better not to play the powerplay of PTB. --Bjørn som tegner (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC) (admin at noWP)
15. Slippery slope. Pleclown (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
16. The "counterargument" fully convinces me. Also per King of Hearts. --MF-W 20:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
17. Paelius (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
18. Per Seraphimblade. Legoktm (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
19. Against restrictions in general, and especially when the goal is to have no restriction… — Arkanosis ^✉ 07:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
20. For now at least, until the alternatives are well understood by the community. Craig Franklin (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC).
21. Per Seraphimblade. Tibauty (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
22. --Giaccai (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
23. --Fabexplosive The archive man 19:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
24. I think we shall respect authors' desires every time it is possible, so keep logos free. Also, per John Vanderberg's opinion.--Nickanc (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
25. Per John Vandenberg and SeraphimBlade; I think they sum this up nicely. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
26. As voiced by John Vandenberg, SeraphimBlade, This, that and the other, and Strainu. odder (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
27. --Mizardellorsa (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
28. --Fcarbonara (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
29. Per John Vandenberg (We the community are not a product to be controlled, monetised or protected... cit.) --Franciaio^{I'm listening you} 13:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
30. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
31. Per John Vandenberg --Atropine (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
32. --Triquetra (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
33. At the moment here, as I still don't know the answer for question asked here. BartłomiejB (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
34. --.mau. ✉ 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
35. (free as in "fork") --DracoRoboter (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
36. I've refrained from !voting till now because I wanted to give WMF the benefit of doubt: we didn't have enough information to judge the two options presented here and I am more interested in the opinion of the community than in mine.
    However, we are compelled to express our opinion within tomorrow and this is the only section where I can place myself, because it is now clear that the registration both adds more legal problems than it solves and is not supported by the community.
    1. The WMF legal team has been unable to answer a number of questions posed by community members on how this proposed trademark could work. There were no legal issues or concrete risks before this registration, while proceeding with it is a clear net negative, both in financial and legal terms: an expense of tens of thousands dollars was mentioned; a number of legal issues arise. Legally speaking, it's simply impossible for any community member to share into ownership of a WMF-registered trademark (except in USA if WMF was right and didn't set requirements in temporary resolutions); even if a way was found, it would be extremely complex and the current EU/international trademark should be abandoned (see #outlaw). Using the logo as we used to is the most effective protection for it; legal resources are better invested in proceeding on the traditional path originally chosen by the community.
    2. Even if we disregarded arguments and only looked at numbers, it's clear from this scarcely-participated consultation that the global community does not support proceeding with trademark registration. In fact, despite the WMF position above "legally bullying" us all, there is a clear majority for the abandonment of the registration; if we add the supporters of Reclaim the Logo (who self-proclaimed such opening a signatures section by themselves), this option is even more voted than the mythical unicorn-option for a "collective membership mark", which doesn't actually exist and anyway, as said above, would not contradict but rather require to abandon the current registration.
    3. Finally, even if the global community in this consultation asked the WMF to register i.e. take possession of the community logo, we can't forget that, in a poll twice as participated, the community of this Meta-Wiki decided, with a supermajority, to adopt an unregistered and completely free logo. That decision can't be ignored until reversed, i.e. until the WMF forcefully restores the registered Wikimedia logo on this wiki, or the community asks for the current logo to be registered, or the community picks another logo with the understanding that it will be registered. --Nemo 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
37. --Ermanon (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
38.  Support The desire of the creator is that the logo should be "totally free". The wording here is misleading, since the option 1 fail to state that WMF will still have the trademark over the logo and not the community. Béria Lima ^msg 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
39. support. WMF should try drawing their own community logo, it's really is not that hard. Siska.Doviana (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
40. Support.--22Kartika (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
41. Support we aren't exactly short of trademarked logos at this point.2.103.219.187 16:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
42. Support If the Wikimedia Foundation persists in using trademark registration in a way that causes harm to the Wikimedia community then the Wikimedia Foundation should cease registering trademarks and instead encourage a separate Wikimedia community organization hold the trademarks. The Wikimedia Foundation should seek to serve the community, and it should not advance interests which it has which diminish the well-being of the community. It may be the case that the WMF can find a way to establish trademarking practices which allow enough positive and helpful uses of the community logo, but without emphasizing that community needs come first and the primacy of the community, the WMF should not take such actions. It is completely unorthodox and nonsensical to not find a way to properly register trademarks in such a way that would benefit the community - I hope that a compromise can be found but until such time as actions can be executed without harming stakeholders, I wish that the WMF would consult Rory and recognize when no action is the best action. I look forward to the day when appropriate trademarks are applied and good practices are established for the use of marks, but good practices should be established first. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
43. I am surprised that the WMF wants to trademark this logo against his creator's opinion, and an important part of the community. While the stated purpose seems to be good, there is not enough information to know what a collective mark would achieve. Many active supporters could not use the logo because they don't edit the wikis. Further more, this collective trademark would only exist in the USA, while there still would be a plain TM everywhere in the world. The Wikimedia community is a world-wide movement, people outside the USA should not be discounted. Yann (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
44. Support. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
45. + me "4.14 Of course you can, and we would be happy to hear about it! But you shouldn't display the Wikimedia Marks on the cover of your book or on your product packaging without asking for permission." Why should I ask for permission WMF? Logo was created by my friend. Przykuta (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

[ edit this section ]

1. While I am opposed to the collective mark, as per several arguments, I am not certain what effects there could be if the registration is revoked. Probably, had it never been registered, there would be none. But like domain squatters who snap up lapsed registrations in hopes that something once valued will retain (or gain) value at some point in the future, I suspect there are trademark vultures. Since the damage has been done, we might want to think about how best to live with the existing circumstance. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 06:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
2. WMF shouldn't have registered it in the first place. But now that it has, I'm not sure it should stop given the recent prominence and possible danger (per Amgine), especially if I (or any Wikimedia editor) can use it for whatever purpose I deem suitable. Aurora 07:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

[ edit this section ]

1. Trademark only prevents fraudulent use of the image by persons that may try and imitate Wikimedia. It does not restrict all uses, including commercial. Anyone can use it to sell hamburgers but they can't use it to market wiki software or information websites.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   What about a fork, then? If the WMF starts to do things that some people may consider as "evil" (like ads, non-transparent commercial agreements with companies, or whatever else), forking can be consider as a legitimate outcome. I think it is our duty to allow the possibility for the community to split, and I dislike a lot the idea that the WMF could own the Wikipedia/media trademarks and to prevent a part of the community, perhaps even the majority, to use the logos and the name "Wikipedia". I understand that the WMF wants to protect the community against evil people who might want to appropriate Wikipedia, but who protects the community against the WMF? Arnaudus (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

   There is basically nothing we can do if a decision is made. The board owns/controls the servers and software. If the WMF doesn't trademark the logo then anyone else will be legally allowed to since it is public domain. Better 'the evil we know' in this case before Google or The Vatican trademarks it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

   But do you have any evidence that it is even legally possible that Google or the Vatican could trademark a logo that is already present on thousands of web pages, and that such a trademark could prevent the community to continue using it as before? AFAIK, in most countries, trademark registration has to follow some rules, including the fact that the trademark should not be designed to cheat anyone and to identify a product in a non-ambiguous manner. Arnaudus (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

   I like the idea of the papal seal being replaced by the community logo. :p

   On the more serious side though, Meta:Babel/Metawiki logo poll was filed for a reason. Meta logo used to be the Wikimedia logo. One of the main reasons the community decided to change the logo was that WMF logo wasn't free or was too official. This needs to be addressed too.

   -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 12:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

2. Since a "bad" situation already appeared better to to protect the visual sign of wikimedia: if all persons or compagnies play the free game following the rules this would not be necessary but as wikimedia had some problems we have to take some conclusions. Snipre (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
3. I really don't see the point here. To me the opposition seems to be a symbolic act which is outweighed by practical reasons to keep the TM. --Dschwen (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
4. To me, filing an opposition is fraught with perils and brings absolutely no benefit beyond some sort of "sticking it to the man" thing. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
5. I agree with reasons of Canoe1967. Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra Talk) 19:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
6. I agree with Canoe1967, and think that there should be some effort to prevent fraudulent use of this logo by other parties. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

   There is. We're opposing the trademarking of the logo by the Foundation, and are planning to oppose every other organization that will do so in the future. odder (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

7. Per Canoe1967. Moreover, the WMF is free to sue anyone ; I guess WMF would not prosecute a chapter or wikimedian for use without permission. - Bzh-99 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
8.  Oppose I don't want anyone to use this logo for purposes the WMF cannot controle within the rules we all choose to respect. --Laurent Jerry (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
9. Pundit (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I oppose abandonment. As long as it is a collective trademark, even a fork is not a threat. I think that we should resolve such issues by internal consensus-seeking, and not in court (however, clearly a signal that someone may file an opposition stimulated discussion quite vigorously).
10.  Oppose. Anyone who disagrees with the direction of the WMF and wants to start a fork is free to create their own logo for this fork. If you think about it, the only reason people want to have access to the use of the existing logo is because it has been imbued with meaning by the work that has gone into the project. Establishing meaning for another logo for another project would also take work, but if forking the content is worthwhile then so is the establishment of a new logo for the forked product. Incidentally, this is exactly what projects like Conservapedia and RationalWiki have done. BD2412 T 21:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
11. Trademarks are excellent recognition signs, the signature of an organization. Use them as you like it and be known  Klaas|Z4␟V:  09:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
12.  Oppose Honestly not seeing the point here. The solution offered by the staff seems ideal while maximizing community use of the logo. --LauraHale (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
13. Definatly no. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

     Oppose:This is a typical trap that almost all good efforts fall into. Such kind of efforts are typically identified as "beginning of the end" for great institutions. Such kind of thoughts are the beginning points for - to use an example- turning democracy into autocracy, or say, waging war for peace. In the beginning the motives, intentions may be good, but eventually these "controllong measures" become weapons. First gathering a crowd for peace and when a huge mass is gathered, then saying- "ok, lets start killing people who do not want peace." Logically,it may be justified, motives are good, intentions are good. But we need to look at history and be clear that these are the traps where we unknowingly fall into. While writing all this, a very clear example has come to my mind- think of Socialism, it started as a movement for welfare of common man, people gathered and then slowly it got converted into dictatorships. Lets learn from history and do not deviate from the basic, founding principles howsoever logical the deviations may seem. --Manojkhurana (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    • I am a bit puzzled by this comment. Surely if you hold this opinion you would be in the "Support" column? Maybe I'm missing something... This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    • • • @"This, that and the other" - You are right. It's my mistake I just read the proposition and jumped to the end to pen down my opinion; missing all the content in between. Thank you for pointing out and sorry for inconvenience to all. --Manojkhurana (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
        • The above comment is describing a very (alas) common trait of any ideal organisation. The rot is inherent in almost all humans, an will - it seems inevitably - show up. The most classic example is early Christianity, with martyrs, compared with later developmental traits as crusades, inquisition, conquests and forcible christening. It is in my opinion next to impossible to guard against, even in the WP-community, Since we live in a world functioning like it does, methinks it better not to play the powerplay of PTB. --Bjørn som tegner (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC) (admin at noWP)
14.  Oppose I agree with Canoe1967. --VT98Fan (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
15.  Oppose per Canoe1967. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
16. If the logo isn't registered, it could be stolen by a for-profit organization.--MisterSanderson (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
17.  Oppose FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
18.  Oppose As mentioned before, protecting the mark against third-party abuse is essential. Do not create opportunities to fraudsters /!\ Lotje (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
19.  Oppose Some kind of trademark protection for the logo is definitely useful in preventing confusion, which is after all the primary purpose of trademarks. Other websites need to adopt their own logos to clearly distinguish them from ours. The WMF could abuse its trademark, e.g. by suing sites that criticise the project and use the logo in doing so, but I don't really believe they would do such a thing. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
20.  Oppose Total free --Nemigo (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
21.  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)
22.  Oppose, unless the community votes our current logo out and chooses another one (whose author will agree to let the WMF make it a trademark). Elfix 14:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

    @Elfix: To me "unless the community votes our current logo out and chooses another one (whose author will agree to let the WMF make it a trademark)" seems to imply that you are opposing the trademarking hence you support to abandon the trademarking. May you, please, clarify your position?. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry for any lack of clarity. I meant that I preferred that either we kept the logo along with its trademark, or we chose another logo with the agreement of the author to use it as a trademark. Feel free to move vote if required. Elfix 13:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

23.  Oppose per Canoe1967. JKadavoor Jee 07:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
24.  strong oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
25.  Oppose trademark registration is a common sense measure widely accepted in open source World. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
26.  Oppose --valepert (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
27.  Oppose -- Yiyi (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)