Comments on: Wikipedia accuses Web site of trademark violation

By: Dianne

Dianne — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:21:01 +0000

Thoughtful post and well written. Please write more on this if you have time.

By: Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog

Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:41:57 +0000

I’ve been close to the Wikipedia Art story since day one. You might want to read my interviews with the two artists. Are the artists ‘trolls’as Jimmy Wales has called them? I don’t think so– not anymore than some of the longtime Wikipedia editors who mark articles about artists as not notable even though the subjects of the articles have exhibited in museums and so on.

On Wikipedia a baseball player who only played one game is considered notable, a politician who never won an election can be notable without question– but artists who have exhibited in a few museums often have articles about them questioned or speedy deleted unless they have been reviewed in the New York Times or one of the longstanding art magazines. That appears to happen often.

Read:

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/wikipedia-art-virtual-fireside-chat.html

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/04/art-space-talk-scott-kildall-and.html

By: conley

conley — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:31:47 +0000

Yes, this is why I think there needs to be a recognizable “free” license for trademarks, so that you can use it with an unmodified product without fear of being sued.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:55:32 +0000

If I remember correctly if your are not deemed as defending enough your trademarked brand, the trademark can be revoked (or something along thoses lines but IANAL ~ Does someone knows more ?). It could shed a new perspective of this case, even if it’s ethically arguable.
(and sorry for the bad english)

By: Rob Myers

Rob Myers — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:42:19 +0000

The disclaimer was added to persuade Wikimedia to stop demanding that the site be handed over to them.

Even without it the site is non-commercial, critical, artistic and very unlikely to confuse. It is protected speech, and Wikimedia seem to have ignored this fact *because* it is an art project rather than simple abuse.

By: implicit art » Wikipedia Art madness

implicit art » Wikipedia Art madness — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:07:39 +0000

[...] Technica Free Culture News NeoSeeker Geniosity TechDirt Tags: Links, art, art and tech, creative commons, me, milwaukee art, [...]

By: robmyers» Blog Archive » Wikimedia Hates Art

robmyers» Blog Archive » Wikimedia Hates Art — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:26:37 +0000

[...] http://freeculturenews.com/2009/04/23/wikipedia-accuses-web-site-of-trademark-violation/ [...]