Talk:Trademark policy

Archives Archives

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 policy comparison 2009 policy new draft policy origin policy Mozilla trademark policy Community consultation presentation follow Visual Identity Guidelines creating remixes on projects abbreviations & combinations on projects translating the marks (unless allowed by a Chapter Agreement) on projects trademark notice & symbol notice and symbol required only notice or symbol required high resolution images use of marks without permission on the projects not covered Community Logo license necessary to show membership in the Wikimedia community community-focused events license necessary outreach (incl. edit-a-thons and educational materials) license necessary fair use & nominative use briefly mentioned fully explained & broadly interpreted news reporting not covered personal blogs & social media not covered if not confusing artistic, scientific, literary, other non-commercial uses some allowed fully explained links to Wikimedia projects use on things that are not sold excluding high-resolution copies fully allowed use of marks with a license GLAM license necessary Wikilicense photo contests license necessary Wikilicense hackathons license necessary Wikilicense other events & conferences license necessary domain names & email addresses license necessary publications, movies, merchandise license necessary prohibited uses mimicking sites links to non-Wikimedia projects misrepresentation

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

1 What does this policy apply to?
Section 1 What does this policy apply to? 1.1 The "Wikimedia marks" This policy applies to all trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation. The trademarks are both registered and unregistered trademarks, including non-stylized wordmarks and the trade dress of each Wikimedia site. See also a non-exhaustive list of our trademarks. In this policy, we refer to them as the "Wikimedia marks" or just "marks." 1.2 "Use" of the Wikimedia marks This Policy applies whenever you want to use the Wikimedia marks. Section 2 of this Policy applies to all uses of the marks. Other sections apply only to uses that do not require separate permission, uses that require a trademark license, or uses under agreements held by chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups that are recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation. If some term in your trademark license is inconsistent with this Policy, you should follow the license terms. 1.3 "We" or the "Wikimedia Foundation" This Policy regulates the use of marks held by the Wikimedia Foundation. Sometimes, this Policy simply refers to the Wikimedia Foundation as "we." 1.4 "You" This Policy applies to "you" if you want to use the Wikimedia marks and explains how you may use them. You may be a Wikimedia community member, chapter, thematic organization, or user group. You may also be an unrelated individual or organization. 1.4.1 Community members The Wikimedia community includes everyone who contributes to a Wikimedia site in furtherance of our mission. It also includes members and staff of chapters, thematic organizations, user groups, and the Wikimedia Foundation. The members of the Wikimedia community share a common mission of creating and distributing free educational content. They are the core of the Wikimedia movement. Accordingly, community members may freely use the Wikimedia Community logo. They are also free to use all Wikimedia marks on the Wikimedia sites and for community-focused events, as well as outreach work without a trademark license. Community members can also easily fill out a Wikilicense for certain other community uses. And we generally give priority to community requests for uses that require an ordinary trademark license. 1.4.2 Chapters, user groups, and thematic organizations Chapters, user groups, and thematic organizations recognized by Wikimedia Foundation are called movement organizations. They are independent from the Wikimedia Foundation and support and promote the Wikimedia sites. These groups enter into agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, which allow them to use certain Wikimedia marks. Any use should primarily further Wikimedia's mission. To use the marks beyond the specified scope of its agreement, an organization can ask for a separate trademark license or simply comply with this policy when the use does not require a license. An organization can, of course, always select its own names, logos, and domain names. It does not have to use our marks. 1.4.3 Other organizations or individuals Wikimedia sites are so well known that authors and script writers frequently want to portray them in books and movies. Similarly, other companies may want to reuse content from Wikimedia sites in web or mobile applications. In doing so, these individuals and companies may want to display our marks in movies, books, apps, or other media. As long as users are not confused about the source of those works, this type of use can promote the Wikimedia sites and mission by expanding the reach of free knowledge and potentially recruiting new Wikimedia community members. But it's important that the Wikimedia marks are not misleadingly used to market others' products because that will confuse Wikimedia users. We therefore have to be careful when licensing the marks for these purposes. For example, when licensing the marks to an organization that has its own logo, we need to make sure that it doesn't display any Wikimedia mark more prominently than its own logo or name. It's helpful to always have a proper separation between the organization's name and logo and any Wikimedia mark. Users should clearly see that the organization's products or services are provided by that other organization rather than the Wikimedia Foundation. And such use is never allowed without a trademark license. 1.5 "Mission" The Wikimedia marks should only used for activities that promote our mission, which is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Discussion:

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

2 How to use the Wikimedia marks
<!--- This text is used for the discussion around the trademark policy. Please only make changes here that have met with consensus and been approved by the legal team. ---> Section 2 How to use the Wikimedia marks Please follow the Visual Identity Guidelines whenever you use the marks whether with or without a trademark license. Whenever you use the Wikimedia marks, note the following: 2.1 Proper form You may use the wordmarks as a proper name (e.g. "Wikidata is great") or as an adjective (e.g. "the Wikimedia sites are awesome"). This includes any of the official translations and transliterations of the Wikimedia marks. On the Wikimedia sites, you can use the marks in any form. You can create remixes of the wordmarks and logos, abbreviate them, and add to them. Outside the Wikimedia sites, you may only use Wikimedia wordmarks in their full form and properly capitalized (e.g. "Wikibooks"). The logos should also not be modified without separate permission from the Wikimedia Foundation. We need to make sure that the logos remain distinctive from other marks. 2.2 Notice or trademark symbol When reasonable, please include this notice when you use a mark outside of the Wikimedia sites: "[Wordmark / name of logo as listed here] is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation and is used with the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are not endorsed by or affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation." The notice should appear near the first use of a Wikimedia mark. One notice is enough if you display multiple marks, provided the notice refers to all of them. You don't need to display this notice if you are using the Community logo under Section 3.4. If the mark will primarily appear on a mobile screen or another medium with limited visual space, you may instead use a trademark symbol (™) with the mark to show that it is a Wikimedia trademark. For size and location of the trademark symbol, please see the Visual Identity Guidelines. When you use a symbol due to limited space and there are additional pages to your material, please include the notice in the text of a prominent page (e.g. most mobile apps have an "about us" section and may display terms during installation). Regardless of whether you use a notice or a trademark symbol to identify your use of Wikimedia marks, make sure that your use does not suggest endorsement by or affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Discussion:

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
Section 3 When you may use the Wikimedia marks without asking us 3.1 Use of trademarks on the Wikimedia sites You may use and remix the Wikimedia marks on the Wikimedia sites as you please. 3.2 Community-focused events You may use the trademarks for events that promote our mission and are intended to be predominantly attended by Wikimedia community members. These are events like hackathons, editor meetups, photographer excursions, and WikiCons. For example, you can put the Wikipedia puzzle globe logo on banners and posters at an edit-a-thon you've organized. GLAM initiatives and photo contests require a Wikilicense under Section 4.1. This provision also does not allow you to use the marks for fundraising. 3.3 Outreach and recruiting new contributors You may use the marks consistent with our mission to educate people about the Wikimedia sites and to recruit new contributors, as long as you make it clear that you do not work for the Wikimedia Foundation. You can create educational material or banners to decorate a public fair stand or to publicize an edit-a-thon. But, please don't sell any of them. This provision does not allow you to use the marks for fundraising. 3.4 Community logo use The Wikimedia Community logo can be used freely. But you may not file trademark applications incorporating the logo. The Wikimedia community wants to ensure that the logo remains available for all to use. 3.5 Discussing something other than Wikimedia sites (fair use) Wordmarks can sometimes have a primary meaning, in addition to representing a brand (like the words "apple" or "facebook"). Our wordmarks were not real words before our projects were created. But we will interpret fair use broadly to include the use of our wordmarks when you really mean to talk about something other than the Wikimedia sites. 3.6 Refer to Wikimedia sites (nominative use) You can use the non-stylized wordmarks (e.g. "Wikipedia") to describe: A Wikimedia site or another aspect of the Wikimedia movement in a text (e.g. "I love reading about coal balls on Wikipedia"). A derivative work of Wikimedia content in a way that is not misleading (e.g. "the encyclopedic content on this site is derived from Wikipedia"). You may also use all Wikimedia 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). Here are some other specific cases of nominative use: 3.6.1 News reporting You may use the Wikimedia marks to make truthful statements about the Wikimedia sites in news reports and commentary. 3.6.2 Personal blogs and social media You can use the Wikimedia marks to make truthful statements about the Wikimedia sites in personal blogs and social media. But please don't do it to imply endorsement by or affiliation to the Wikimedia Foundation. To avoid confusion, don't use the Wikimedia logos in the background, as your profile image, or in the header of your blog. You should also not use the marks in the name of your blog or in your social media username. This section is not meant to restrict your use of the Community logo under Section 3.4. 3.6.3 Artistic, scientific, literary, political, and other non-commercial uses You can use the Wikimedia marks to discuss the Wikimedia sites in artistic, scientific, literary, and political work. But please send us a request if you want to place a Wikimedia mark on the cover of your book, display a Wikimedia mark in a movie, or organize an event or presentation that could be interpreted to be endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please see Section 4. You may also use the marks in satire or jokes. To avoid confusing users that your work is affiliated with the Wikimedia sites, it may be helpful to mark your work as "satire" or "parody." 3.7 Make your own branded stuff You may create things with the marks for your own use. These can be t-shirts, caps, desktop wallpapers, lanyards and even cakes! But please don't sell them, and make sure that your design follows the Visual Identity Guidelines. If you want to sell your branded stuff, you can request a license under Section 4.6.

Discussion:

Links to Wikimedia sites

3.6 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)

Replied to the same point in German here. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Before closing 3.6, please see the section Use of marks in conjunction with QR codes below. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has concluded and, unless you remove this template, will be archiving this topic soon. If you disagree, please edit this section and remove {{ArchivingSoon}}. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Free as in beer for a piece of cake

If I wanted to make and sell a cake that had a bunch of art on it (e.g., browser wars or something), and include a small WMF logo that was not the main focus of the cake's decorations, then I would like to have the free-as-in-beer right to do so. As I read it, I think such a use is prohibited. (I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere; I searched the page and didn't find anything that discussed this possible use) For § 3.17, 3.19-.24, I would like to see something similar to the license for "icon" or "graphics" collections one finds around the net:

One is permitted to use whatever logo in any product for sale as long as:

1. The logo is not the largest graphic element in the work,
2. The logo/WMF is not the subject of the work,
3. The logo is not the only graphic element in the work,
4. The work must not promote or endorse illegal or patently offensive acts (as defined by __insert legal jargon here__),
5. The work must not imply endorsement or affiliation with WMF in any way, and
6. (optional) The work includes the words "_____ logo courtesy of Wikimedia Foundation" or their translation

Summed up: you can't sell WMF stuff unless it is a small part of your stuff; don't use our stuff on stuff that will make us look bad; don't lie and tell anyone we're best friends; kindly give credit where credit is due.

— Safety Cap (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Safety Cap: We don't explicitly talk about this sort of use case, but like other commercial uses, someone trying to do this could reach out to us under Sec. 4.6 and get a license. There are a few reasons we don't think it is a good idea to include an explicit section covering this sort of thing:

• none of us can remember ever seeing any requests for anything like this;
• if we included six-point tests for every speculative use, the policy would quickly grow very, very long, which has a real cost to people trying to understand the policy;
• in practice some of these uses will be permitted under other aspects of the policy, like nominative use; and
• if someone wants to do this in a serious way, and are significantly concerned, there is a pretty low barrier to getting a license under 4.6.

Like I said to 74 above, if we do start seeing a lot of requests of this sort, we can clarify or update the policy as necessary, but until then, it seems premature. —LVilla (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has concluded and, unless you remove this template, will be archiving this topic soon. If you disagree, please edit this section and remove {{ArchivingSoon}}. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of marks in conjunction with QR codes

The draft policy mentions QRpedia, but only in the FAQ and then not very clearly. Following the acquisition of the QRpedia IP by WMUK last month, for free use by the community, we expect QR Codes to become much more widely used on signs and printed materials to provide a quick and easy way for a user with a smartphone to go straight to a Wikipedia encyclopedia article in the appropriate language. In order to encourage wide usage of QRpedia codes, it's important that organizations such as local government bodies, GLAMs or local history societies who want to provide local signs can do so without having to ask specific permission or have to negotiate an individual trademark licence with the Foundation. Many such local bodies or societies are not able to afford lawyers and will shy away from anything that looks even remotely problematic. It's therefore of some practical importance that policy covers this area clearly and with explicit examples.

There are two specific use cases that we hope could be covered: (a) Where the Puzzle Globe or the 'W" mark is embedded within a Wikipedia-directed QR Code (ie is printed or displayed in the centre of such a code); and (b) where the Puzzle Globe or the 'W" mark is printed or displayed immediately adjacent such a code. Such indications of use are needed to reassure users that when they scan the code they will not be taken to a commercial or an advertising site.

May I suggest the addition of a new example, as section 3.6.4 along the following lines:

3.6.4 Machine-readable codes that direct to Wikimedia websites

You can use the Wikimedia marks to indicate that a machine readable code such as a QRpedia QR Code or the like serves the sole purpose of directing a scanning device that reads the code straight to a Wikimedia website. You may indicate the purpose of the code by embedding a Wikimedia mark within the code, for example by displaying it in the center of the code, or you may display the Wikimedia mark immediately adjacent the code (but not elsewhere).

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC) (WMUK Chair)

Hi MichaelMaggs! Thanks for your comment. We are discussing this issue in the legal team and will respond here shortly. Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs:, thanks for seeking to clarify the policy! The current draft permits free use of unstylized marks with QR codes, without the need to request permission. But a license under Section 4 is needed to use the stylized marks. To further promote the open use of Wikimedia marks by the community, we could modify the current GLAM Quick license to allow community members to use the stylized “W” mark with QR codes and clarify this in Section 4.1.2 of the policy. What do you think about that? YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi @YWelinder (WMF): thanks for looking into this. It's an issue that is becoming increasingly important for GLAMs. You mentioned the the stylized “W” mark, but it's actually the globe logo that the partners of WMUK (and probably others as well) really want to use. That is much better recognised as the indicator of origin for Wikipedia, and I would hope that any policy changes could include that mark as well.

A noticeboard using the globe mark

I can understand your legal preference for the Quick license approach as that both allows you to set out specific terms in more detail and also provides you with feedback on where the marks are being used. That seems a good approach in the common current situation where a GLAM or a local government authority wants to put up notices such as the one in the image which include both a QRpedia code and also the globe logo. There are many ways the code and the logo could be positioned, and you might well want to restrict what can be done to avoid for example the mark being mixed up with a lot of extraneous advertising material. That was the reason I had suggested above that the mark should be "immediately adjacent the code (but not elsewhere)". Whatever you decide, I think that would work pretty well.

I need to push back, though, on the other opinion, of the globe or 'W' mark being displayed/printed in the centre of a QRpedia code. That seems to me to be a different situation where you could allow limited free use without requiring users to sign a licence. As I mentioned, many local government bodies, GLAMs or local history societies are really fearful of anything that looks overtly 'legal' (read "OMG, we are going to have to pay a lawyer, get insurance and risk being sued"). By requiring what is effectively a binding signature by an authorised officer on a legal contract you will be in practice be significantly restricting the extent to which QRpedia codes will actually be used. An official signature is fine for a large, well run and staffed GLAM, but is really scarey for a local history society that is run entirely by volunteers.

As I see it, the main purpose of your TM licences are (1) to protect the marks against misuse and (2) to provide you with feedback on where your marks are being used. Where the mark is printed in the centre of a QRpedia code, you can be guaranteed that it is not being misused provided you require that such a code must always send the scanner straight to a Wikimedia page and not to some external landing page. That can be achieved by some wording such as I suggested. And your need for feedback could be achieved in ways other than asking for a signature on a licence. For example, if WMUK were to undertake to modify the QRpedia software, it should not be difficult to automatically tag all scans that have been made of codes that have one of your marks printed in the centre. That would actually get you better feedback than a simple licence signature as it would provide you with near real-time actual usage data.

So, what I would hope is that we could have a new Quick license for the 'associated with QRpedia code' uses, and a new section 3.6.4 for the 'embedded' uses. Suggested new wording:

3.6.4 Embedding Wikimedia marks within machine-readable codes that direct straight to Wikimedia websites

To indicate that a machine readable code such as a QRpedia QR Code or the like serves the sole purpose of directing a scanning device that reads the code straight to a Wikimedia website, you may embed a Wikimedia mark within the code, for example by displaying or printing it in the center of the code. Other uses may be possible by signing a GLAM Quick license.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (WMUK Chair)

I just want to say that Michael's points have matched my experience when working with GLAMs too: smaller ones are unlikely to sign any agreement that looks vaguely legalistic - and smaller GLAMs are the ones who really need our support. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern that small GLAMs are unable to sign complicated legal documents. Unfortunately, licenses are not just there to prevent misuses and provide us with feedback. Failure to license can sometimes result in the loss of a trademark. Given that the uses of marks with QR codes would mostly be appearing in a non-community environment, they need to be subject to a license, whether they are embedded in the QR code or not. Having said that, we want to facilitate work that is important to the community. That is why we are designing simplified Quick licenses that are written in plain language, are much shorter than standard trademark licenses, and include an explanatory key on the left side of the document. Hopefully, this format will make it easier for GLAMs to use the marks with QR codes. And when they absolutely want to avoid any document, they will still be able to use the unstylized wordmark.

While we generally need to avoid broad outward-facing uses of the puzzle globe without a standard trademark license (such as for QR codes), I think that we can reconsider that position if it’s something that is important to the community.

Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi MichaelMaggs and Chase me!

I wanted to make sure that your comments were addressed given that this consultation is scheduled to close on January 19. To reflect our discussion here, we have deleted FAQ Section 4.4, which stated that the Quick license could not be used for QR codes.

There is currently only a sample Quick license and we will prepare more Quick licenses before the final policy is launched on Foundation wiki. When we do that, we will prepare a separate GLAM Quick license for QR codes as we discussed here.

Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am rather concerned we were not able to complete our discussions before the nominal closure of the consultation, and I hope it will be possible to finalize this with a short chat. This is indeed important to our community of volunteers, but perhaps most important to the Chapters that are trying to work with small GLAMs for whom a scary signed legal agreement is out of the question. WMUK is particularly concerned to get this right, as we have had many queries about using QRpedia codes since we took ownership of the QRpedia IP. I'd like to discuss if we could the well known legal principle that 'failure to license can result in the loss of a trademark', as it appears you may be restricting that dictum to signed licences, whereas a licence offered to the world (eg a new section 3.6.4) requiring no signature is just as much a licence as one that has to be signed. Such a licence can perfectly well be used to control use of the marks to avoid unpoliced misuses and hence loss of rights. It's not the signature but the policing that is critical. I will email you tomorrow with a suggestion for a telephone call. We should be able to speak at a detailed legal level as I am by profession a patent attorney. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (WMUK Chair).

Hi MichaelMaggs, that sounds good. I'm happy set up a call to discuss this. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has concluded and, unless you remove this template, will be archiving this topic soon. If you disagree, please edit this section and remove {{ArchivingSoon}}. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about section 4 (Special uses that require permission)

4 Special uses that require permission
Section 4 Special uses that require permission All uses that are not allowed under Section 3 of this policy require a trademark license. This section discusses only the most common uses that require a license. When you use our marks under a trademark license, you need to comply with its terms as well as with this trademark policy. If some term in your license is inconsistent with this policy, you should follow the license terms. Movement organizations will only need a separate license when the use is not already authorized by their organizational agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation or this policy. 4.1 Wikilicense for special community uses A Wikilicense is a quick trademark license for common community uses, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki initiatives. It is available on Meta-Wiki. You can start using the marks as stated in the Wikilicense as soon as you email a filled-in Wikilicense to trademarks@wikimedia.org. There is no need to wait for approval. 4.1.1 Photo contests Photo contests allow people to submit freely licensed original photographs to Wikimedia Commons to compete for the best image. You can get a quick Wikilicense for flyers, posters, slide presentations, websites, and social media for a photo contest. If you are a movement organization, you may already have an agreement that covers photo contests. 4.1.2 GLAM-Wiki initiatives You may use the marks in a collaboration with someone outside of the Wikimedia movement with a quick Wikilicense. This license applies to collaborations with parks, museums, libraries, and other cultural institutions to share their information with the world through the Wikimedia sites. If you are a movement organization, you may already have an agreement that covers photo contests. Some GLAM initiatives include Wikipedians in Residence, which are Wikipedia contributors who work with a specific GLAM to develop the organization's relationship with Wikipedia. Please use a quick Wikilicense in order to represent yourself as a Wikipedian in Residence on online professional profiles, your personal blog, and on social media, as long as your work is consistent with the mission. 4.2 Domain names You need permission to register or use a domain name that contains a Wikimedia mark in it. Please don't register a domain that looks or sounds similar to a Wikimedia mark or includes a misspelled Wikimedia mark as that can confuse Wikimedia users. 4.3 Events and conferences You need a trademark license if you plan to host a public event or a conference that uses a Wikimedia mark. You should include the following information when requesting a license to use our marks in an event. What is the proposed title of the event? Who is hosting, sponsoring, or coordinating the event? Include contact information (and Wikimedia username if relevant) for the person organizing the event. Is the event organized for community members? What is the topic of the event? The location, date, and duration of the event. Include handouts, examples, mockups, or other descriptions of the proposed use. When you get a trademark license, it will only apply to the specific event in your request. You will need to apply for a new license if you want to host another event. 4.4 Publications You need a trademark license if you want to use a Wikimedia mark in a publication in a way that is not fair or nominative use under U.S. trademark law or other applicable foreign laws. You should include the following information when requesting a license to use our marks in a publication. What is the proposed title of the publication? Contact information (and Wikimedia username if relevant) for the applicant. Who is the author, editor, and publisher of the publication? For fiction, what is the storyline? How do you want to use and discuss the mark? Include screenshots of the pages in your publication that includes or discusses the mark. (For a book, where in the book will the mark appear?) If your publication will display a screenshot of a Wikimedia site, please include that as well. Will the publication be in hard copy, an e-book, or some other type of medium? What is the print run and distribution area for the publication? How many editions will it have? When you get a trademark license, it will only apply to the specific publication in your request. You will need to apply for a new license if you want to make another publication. 4.5 Movies & TV shows You need a trademark license if you want to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production. You should include the following information when requesting a license to use our marks in a movie or TV show. What is the proposed title of the movie or TV show? Contact information (and Wikimedia username if relevant) for the applicant. The names of the screenwriter, director, producer, distributor, actors, and any interviewees (for documentaries). How will the Wikimedia mark be displayed or discussed? Include a screenshot of any Wikimedia site that you want to show. Include a script and any footage that has already been created. Unless discussed in the script, specify the location of the film and whether it will advertise a product in conjunction with using the Wikimedia marks. Where, when, and how will the movie be distributed? How will it be advertised? Do you intend to display the Wikimedia marks on the advertisement? When you get a trademark license, it will only apply to the specific film, TV show episode, or online production in your request. You will need to apply for a new license if you want to shoot another film or TV show episode. 4.6 Commercial merchandise You may also make merchandise with the Wikimedia trademarks for commercial use, if: You get a trademark license from the Wikimedia Foundation; You follow our Visual Identity Guidelines; and You truthfully advertise to customers how much of the selling price, if any, will be donated to Wikimedia sites.

Discussion:

• See question above[1] about whether there is a loophole in 3.7 make-your-own-cake-shirt-pamphlet-etc, which allows bypassing the clear language of 4.7 sans-license-you-cannot-sell-cake-shirt-pamphlet-etc. 74.192.84.101 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• I believe this shall be replaced by an obligation to announce the use to WMF and an automatic licensing when WMF does not make objections within some period. The GLAM, Outreach and other activities are very important - and on the other hand, they are very demanding. Every volunteer shall be supported to the maximum extent, and he/she should not be asked to discuss anything with WMF if it is not really an issue. I agree it is good for WMF to know about all these activities, so I suggest the obligation to announce such use, but I think the need to ask for the license is another obstacle which can be the last straw to stop the volunteer preparing such an demanding activity. With the announcement obligation, the WMF receives all the information it needs and if it does find someething to object against, the Foundation shall itself make steps to avoid granting the license. --Okino (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hard to argue with an auto-grant-system, when talking about something like printing a batch of a hundred t-shirts for some wiki-bash, which has to be planned long in advance, no matter what. But a bake-sale? That can be "planned" in advance, by deciding to purchase an extra few cake-mixes while at the grocery store, on the spur of the moment. If there is a "thirty day cooling-off period" before I can hold the bake-sale... prolly there will be no wikipedia cakes at the sale, right?

  We already have the revocation-clause in 6.2, which can be used preventatively methinks. If the auto-grant-system is a zero-day-waiting period, with an auto-reply-bot that immediately grants all requests by default, then I can definitely sell my wikipedia-themed cakes at my first bake-sale. However, if I get the WMF a lot of bad press, by using sorbitol instead of good old-fashioned WMF-approved sweeteners, they can change the auto-reply-bot to deny my future requests. Maybe it can even be humans answering, piggybacking on OTRS or somesuch. Does this rationale make sense? 74.192.84.101 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello 74, in this hypothetical, if the cakes are sold commercially, then permission (and perhaps a little advance planning) is necessary. It is important to ensure that we can maintain trademark protection that is earned by the Wikimedia community of volunteers. Just as a cross reference, Luis responded to a similar question in a little more detail above -- as he explained, this is a point that can be refined after we have a little more information about how people wish to use the marks. Thanks! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of comments re: Section 4.4: the phrase "... in a publication in a way that is not fair or nominative use ..." is a bit clunky, in part because it's a definition of a negative. How about " ... in a publication that will be sold for profit," or something similar that is clear & unambiguous. (Of course you'll still want to address fair use). Also, in the collapsed section in which you list the information that must be supplied, ask for the price of the publication as well. This will make it clear whether or not the publication will be sold commercially. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.147.206.120 (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013‎

Hello 68, fair and nominative use, under trademark law in the U.S., depends on how the logos are used, not necessarily whether the publication itself is commercial. It's a complicated topic to include in the policy, but hopefully we can make it easier to understand. Do you think this is clearer?

You need a trademark license if you want to use a Wikimedia mark in a publication, unless your use qualifies as fair or nominative use under U.S. trademark law or other applicable foreign laws.

Thanks for the suggestion! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I incorporated this change in the policy. Thanks again! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• In section 4.5 you start with the following sentence: "You need a trademark license to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production." which indicates that a license is required per one TV episode. However in consecutive sentences and paragraphs you discuss obtaining the license for a TV show or series. Is the license per episode or for the TV series once and for all? I think this section needs to be rephrased. Thanks for your concern! Asaifm (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Asaifm. A member of the legal team will respond soon. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Asaifm: Good point. We will clarify section 4.5. A license covers only the episode described in the request. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has concluded and, unless you remove this template, will be archiving this topic soon. If you disagree, please edit this section and remove {{ArchivingSoon}}. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about section 5 (Prohibited uses)

5 Prohibited uses
Section 5 5 Prohibited uses 5.1. Misleading mirrors and mimicking sites Please don't create a website that mimics the ‘look and feel' of a Wikimedia site. This especially applies to imitated Wikipedia articles. If you have a good reason to create a mimicking site, please contact us at trademarks@wikimedia.org. You don't need to contact us if you just want to use the MediaWiki software to create a wiki or if your mimicking site is clearly a parody. If you create a mirror, make sure to comply with the relevant licenses for the content. Avoid copying links to Wikimedia policies and contact details. Please don't use the Wikimedia marks in a mirror of a Wikimedia site. 5.2 Linking to non-Wikimedia sites You may use Wikimedia marks to link to Wikimedia sites only. Please refer to Links to Wikimedia sites if you want to link to a Wikimedia site from your website. 5.3 Misrepresentation When you use a Wikimedia mark, do not create the impression that your use is in any way endorsed, or sponsored by, or part of the Wikimedia Foundation. This section also applies when you are granted a license to use a mark that doesn't permit you to suggest such an endorsement.

Discussion:

Section 5 prohibitions trump everything else

Section 5 prohibits certain uses of the marks, while sections 3 and 4 allow certain uses. For greater practical and legal certainty it would be sensible to make it clear that all of the s3 and s4 permissions are subject to the restrictions of s5. That's clearly intended but does not appear to be explicitly stated. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll clarify this in Sections 3 and 4. Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has concluded and, unless you remove this template, will be archiving this topic soon. If you disagree, please edit this section and remove {{ArchivingSoon}}. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about section 6 (Trademark Abuse)

6 Trademark Abuse
Section 6 Trademark Misuse 6.1 Reporting misuse Fighting trademark misuse is very important. We put a lot of effort into going after cases of trademark infringement because we want to protect the valuable trademark rights the community has created. If you see a mark being used in any way that could be infringing, please tell us! Just send an email to legal-tm-vio@wikimedia.org or report it here. We really appreciate your help! 6.2 Revoking permission for misuses We may revoke the right to use the Wikimedia marks under this policy at any time by providing notice in any manner if we determine that a trademark use is inconsistent with our mission or could harm community members, movement organizations, or the Wikimedia Foundation.

Discussion:

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

7 Revision and Translation of the trademark policy
Section 7 Revision and Translation of the trademark policy 7.1 This trademark policy can be revised as follows: We will propose major changes to the community in three languages selected by us. We will give notice of the proposed revision on the Wikimedia sites and in an email to WikimediaAnnounce-L or a similar mailing list. The community can then comment for at least 30 days. For minor changes or changes required by law, when possible we will provide three days' notice to WikimediaAnnounce-L or a similar mailing list. Minor changes include language fixes, administrative changes, or corrections of inaccurate statements. This section does not apply to the user-friendly summary, the FAQs, the purpose statement for the trademark policy, the trademark request form, and the violation reporting form. They are not part of this trademark policy and can always be revised without notice. 7.2 Translation of the trademark policy If there is any differences in meaning between the original English version of this trademark policy and a translation, you should follow the original English version. 7.3 Questions Please don't hesitate to contact us at trademarks@wikimedia.org if you are not sure whether your use is in compliance with this policy or local trademark laws.

Discussion:

Discussion about the Quick License (formally "Wikilicense")

Discussion:

Discussion about the FAQ

Discussion:

Discussion about the trademark "request a license" form

Discussion:

Community logo still mentioned in the policy

I've been assured by @James Alexander that, because the new policy will not cover the community logo, every mention of it will be removed before the draft is finalized. Yet, it hasn't been done to this day, and the consultation period appears to have finished (blog announcement). @YWelinder (WMF), AKoval (WMF), Philippe (WMF), LVilla (WMF), and Slaporte (WMF): can you please remove almost all mentions of the community logo from the policy before it is presented for Board of Trustees approval? I'm especially concerned about the parts which say that the new policy allows free use of that logo, because it doesn't.[2] I'm also pinging @Sj, Phoebe, and Raystorm: so that they're aware of this issue and can react before they vote on approving the new draft. odder (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey odder, I'm going to sleep (and we have a holiday tomorrow) so I am unlikely to respond right away but I'm a bit confused so if you could expand that may help the others answer in case they are as well. The new policy, as I read it, only mentions the Community Logo in a couple places to specifically call out that that it is available for free use ( "This logo can be used freely" , "The Wikimedia Community logo can be used freely." etc) with the only possible restriction being that it says that you shouldn't file a trademark registration for the logo.. which seems to make sense. I imagine that if someone attempted to reserve the mark for their own use (through a TM registration) and therefore taking it away from the community they would want us to defend it, I know I certainly would. I would also want the logo mentioned as it is (in a 'this is free to use' way) rather then not mentioned at all because if it is going to be free to use I think we have a bit of an obligation to make sure people know that instead of hiding it. It's obviously always possible I missed something so if there is a piece that looks different I'd appreciate some expansion. Jalexander--WMF 12:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for the fast response. I don't know whether the Foundation is planning to protect the community logo from malicious takeovers; I think someone already asked this question and did not receive an answer. I would certainly hope and expect the Foundation to act in community's interest should such a situation happen in the future, and would warmly welcome a statement from the legal team saying so.

As far as this new draft and its summary are considered, they mentioned that the community logo could be freely used as an effect of this new policy, which isn't true, since the logo is not covered by it. I personally don't think the community logo should be mentioned at all in this policy, just like you don't mention the Wiki Loves Monuments logo, the WALRUS logo, or other logos created by the community. To show what I meant, and in a wiki spirit, I removed some mentions of the logo from the policy and the summary (1, 2, 3); please do have a look at those edits. odder (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you wanted trademark protections removed from the community logo, but now you hope that the legal department will protect it from malicious takeovers? You can't have it both ways. You advocated for opening up the logo, now it's open. Don't go asking for legal interventions now... Anyway, I think you're being unhelpful by removing mentions of it. Do you want people to use the community logo or not? If so, then they have to learn about it somehow. It seems reasonable to assume people will learn about it via the trademark policy. Therefore, it seems like it would be in the best interest of anyone who actually wants the community logo to be used to leave mentions in there. Your over-interpreting of language is getting in the way of the actual goal here, I think. But, hey, whatever. -- phoebe | talk 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely can have it both ways, @Phoebe. If the Wikimedia Foundation aims to have the best interest of the community at heart, I think it is only reasonable that they would protect the logo against malicious takeovers should such situation arise. Of course, we at the community are perfectly capable of acting on our own, and the Foundation is not required for us to be able to effectively protect the logo. Reclaim the Logo has proven this beautifully, and if the Foundation does not wish to help the community in this case, I think they should make their stance known — it will definitely make it easier for us and our donors to decide whether it's best to donate money to the WMF or maybe choose a local chapter that is actually supporting the community that creates our projects.

I don't think I'm being unhelpful by removing mentions of the logo from the policy. That's just your opinion, and while you are entitled to it, please do notice that I did not remove all mentions of the community logo from the policy (such as section 3.4), but only those that were either misleading or simply factually incorrect. Also, please take into consideration that this logo isn't covered by the policy, so it doesn't make any sense from a legalese perspective to mention it; as I said before, the draft doesn't mention the logos of Wiki Loves Monuments, WALRUS, etc. But hey, whatever. odder (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you did ask me to give my opinion, so I did. -- phoebe | talk 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries James, this should make it clear: [3]. And please don't thank me, the past taught me I'd later have to pay you a high price for the honour. --Nemo 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Some recent edits by Philippe seem to imply that something is not clear yet about this matter. Everyone feel free to comment on talk. --Nemo 09:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What the fuck is going on ? If the community logo is not trademarked by the Foundation, why should the trademark policy of the Foundation speak about it ? Or is there any hidden agenda behind this ? I've got to admit that I'm quite pissed at how all this was done... Pleclown (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pleclown: be polite, please. @Nemo: As a board member I don't appreciate last minute editing of the draft; LCA closed the consultation in time for them to submit it to the board, on our calendar, before our meeting; given that, I would like a stable and legal-team approved version to read this week. Everyone had many months to read and consult, and I accept that it will never be perfect; you should too. -- phoebe | talk 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phoebe, thanks for stepping in. I've however no idea what you're talking about, the decision on the community logo (as regards the WMF staff) was taken over 40 days ago, way before the closure of this consultation. Its presence here was either a typo, or some misunderstaing, or a precedence issue on whether the staff should first wait for the board to confirm that they don't want WMF to register the community logo, or instead they can already proceed that way (including in this draft). As you've not yet commented on the issue, perhaps you may want to tell us if you/the board thinks that it takes an amendment to past board resolutions for the community logo not to be registered by WMF, and if yes whether and when the board will discuss the matter, and if yes if it will be decided together with this policy, and if yes where it can be written if not in the policy itself. --Nemo 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the matter was brought to us; I don't know if anything's been published yet, I'll have to look. Anyway, no one is arguing with the decision to withdraw trademark registration; that's not in dispute, and mentioning the community logo in the trademark policy doesn't imply that it is. As I noted above, I think mentioning the community logo as one option that is always open to people, in a description in the trademark policy of what people can do with the trademarks and what they can't, is perfectly reasonable. I don't think it's appropriate to keep making substantial edits at this late date, but mostly I certainly don't think it's worth edit warring over. -- phoebe | talk 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Phoebe, then we'll wait for info on how you plan to proceed on the matter. I agree that some parts of the page may name the community logo: see also my edit linked above and the comment below, 00:33, 22 January 2014. --Nemo 10:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, @Phoebe. I've been personally assured by @James Alexander that the legal team were working on re-writing the draft after the closure of the request for consultation that they started following our trademark opposition. Perhaps unwisely, I trusted James' assurance and did not look at this draft since — so you can imagine my surprise at seeing the logo still mentioned in it (for instance, "To further make it easier for community members to use the marks, this policy introduces some creative trademark solutions. For example, community members may freely use the Wikimedia Community logo", is just blatantly false), which, of course, resulted in my starting this discussion. odder (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey odder, it appears there may be some misunderstanding about my response to you on that. You asked me if we were going to remove all references to the Community Logo now that it wasn't going to be trademarked. You're right that I said I expected significant changes to be made to the document (and then talked about how it might take a bit of time given everything) but I also said that I expected the lawyers to want "something explicit in there about how 'this logo belongs to the community' too, so that it's obvious to others as well." That seems to be what they've done here. My comment about expecting final changes to take time "as people try to clarify etc" was meant to imply time for anyone within the community who didn't think the changes were clear enough to say so; I was hoping you'd continue to participate in that discussion in case anything was unclear. Jalexander--WMF 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jalexander: And I'm cool with that; as I wrote above in response to Phoebe, I'm not removing every mention of the logo from the policy (even though I don't think it should be there), only the parts that were false (see above) or misleading (such as links to a Commons category for community logo derivatives when talking about remixes of trademarked logos). odder (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet, @Philippe just revered my edit, bringing those links back. Let me repeat what I already said: linking to a category with files derived from the community logo—which isn't covered by this policy–while talking about remixing Wikimedia trademarks is totally misleading. (This is visible in Translations:Trademark policy/40/en and Translations:Trademark policy/50/en.) Please, please fix it. Thank you. odder (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

… anyone? odder (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have taken another look at this, and I believe it is appropriate for the policy to mention the free use of the community logo, which we have done, for example, in Section 3.4. That logo is the symbol that is on all the Meta-Wiki pages hosted by WMF, so we should explain that the community logo is treated differently from the other Wikimedia marks; as the community consultation showed on the issue, there were differing and strong views on the registration of the mark, so a clear statement in the trademark statement is appropriate to ensure we all move forward on the same page; and, finally, a clear statement will help ensure against any inadvertent registration in the future (after this debate is long forgotten). That said, I will remove the sentence that refers to the community logo in line 73 "(It allows community members to use the Wikimedia marks without a trademark license for Wikimedia community-focused events and outreach work.") since the context of that sentence is subject to different interpretations. We will also post the Wikimedia logo, in lieu of the community logo, in the summary section of the new trademark policy to avoid too much emphasis on the community logo. Geoffbrigham (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Mention the free use, why not. Linking to remixes of the community logo when speaking about remixes of trademarked logos of the Foundation, no. There is plenty others remixed Foundation trademarked logos on Commons to chose from. Pleclown (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Pleclown! We have replaced the links. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @YWelinder (WMF), this change is greatly appreciated. odder (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has concluded and, unless you remove this template, will be archiving this topic soon. If you disagree, please edit this section and remove {{ArchivingSoon}}. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Board review edits

I have done a final review of the trademark policy as we prepare its presentation to the Board for its January 31st meeting. Upon further reflection, to avoid confusion by community members and others, I want to underscore in the policy what we already say in the FAQ (FAQ 3.4) that Wikimedia marks should be used to represent only the projects for which they stand. Therefore, in Section 5.3 of the trademark policy, I am adding the following sentence: "When you use a Wikimedia mark under this policy, please use it to represent only the project for which it stands." Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We have also made a few editorial changes to the Trademark policy and the FAQ. Thanks, YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

<jocular>
...one Foundation under Jimbo, indivisible,...
</jocular> - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)