User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2007 March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Animal Awards?
2 Community noticeboard discussion
3 Cross post
4 Sockpuppet
5 Essjay
6 New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division
7 Thought you might like this one
8 Credentials
9 Logo copyright
10 Checkuser
11 Betacommand
12 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

[edit] Animal Awards?

Hi, did you ever get round to handing out any Paypal awards for animal FAs? (from the co-author of Diplodocus and Triceratops). Someone got Mourning Dove up recently too. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaaah - just found your reply on your January 2007 archive (PS: Not in the archive directory) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the word reward? Ooooo do I get 1? I've written 4 FA's, Cas has written 3 I think. Do we get 1???? I'm deserving I'm deserving... (A way to put someone off giving you an award...) ;) What is all this talk of rewards? Hmmm... Spawn Man 09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community noticeboard discussion

Kelly Martin, I've started a Community thread about this. Please join in. (→Netscott) 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross post

As someone who has been critical of Essjay's situation and actions (Not Essjay himself), I thought you might be interested in a couple of other diffs I found. Some have been discussed before elsewhere, so you must forgive me if I am way behind the times. (mostly posted originally on geni's talk page):

[edit] Sockpuppet

Hi, I don't really care all that much, but when I saw this [4] in my watchlist, it got my curiosity up. Please forgive me if this is an "open secret" - I have been doing my best to stay out of drama lately so I don't necessarilly keep up with such things. If KittyBlue (talk · contribs) is your sock puppet, you should openly admit this, rather than claiming on that user's page to be merely a long-time lurker. This is especially important if you are seeking to return to a position of community trust - if the community is to trust you, we ought to know who it is we are being asked to trust. --BigDT 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For someone who is supposedly trying to "stay out of drama" you are not doing a very good job of it. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to say anything about this other than disagreeing with the messenger? 82 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Just wondering. 82 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay

"The comments I made at the top of Essjay's talk page were for the benefit of the community." This is your opinion. I interpreted them as an attempt by a noted critic to assume a position of authority on someone's talk page, even as they announce their retirement. "Your act of moving them defeats their purpose." Certainly. "I have received numerous comments on how they were beneficial and a good idea." No doubt others share your view but the issue isnt of their usefulness, or if the view is right or wrong, its rather an issue of place. I read your blog entry. You were not the person to help Essjay sort his parting comments. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. So you don't disagree with the message, just with the messenger. Got it. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You can interpret it that way. Another way to interpret it is that your offsite comments and your talk page directions represent a combined message - one which was unnecessarily critical at a point when Essjay had already left. -Ste|vertigo 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Stevertigo, when you moved her message you said you were merely putting them in time order. I thought it was odd that you moved only Kelly's and not any other out of order message, but I assumed you just made a simple error. The above causes me to believe that you misrepresented your intentions by claiming a less controversial reordering rather than admitting to the more controversial quasi-censorship you actually intended to perform. Am I misreading the situation? --Gmaxwell 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you might like this one

{{user degree?}}. >Radiant< 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that in the discussion on Jimbo's subpage. Feel free to add it to my user page, if you haven't already (I haven't looked). Kelly Martin (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials

Please keep asking this question [5] as it really is the most worrying part of the whole Essjay incident. I tried on Jimbo's talk page [6] but it was ignored and archived unanswered. The credential verification is just window dressing and will be pretty unworkable (but hey if it pleases the press then let's give it a go) but access to checkuser steps into the realm of personal security so there must be no anonymous access to this info. Sophia 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As a former checkuser myself, I am sensitive to the security considerations of checkuser. I argued that the Foundation's counsel, at a minimum, needed to know who the checkusers were for legal reasons, but no policy was imposed basically because it would mean that Essjay would have to resign. This is basically an example where force of personality overrode common sense. My main concern is that I believe Jimbo's statement that "Checkusers have already for a long time been required to disclose their real identity to the foundation" is simply false; it was certainly not the case well into 2006 when I was administering the checkuser-l list, nor was it the case in April of 2006 when the issue was discussed without conclusion on the Foundation-l mailing list. I don't know what Jimbo considers a long time, or if there has been a change in policy since September (when I stepped down as a checkuser), but I rather doubt it. I am very much looking forward to an answer from Jimbo as to when the policy was changed and whether it is retrospective to checkusers already appointed. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good to know someone is on the case. I agree that Jimbo's statements don't add up as if all checkusers were know for a long time then he has also known for a long time that Essjay was not who he claimed to be. The main thing though is to make sure that anonymous checkuser access ceases immediately. Sophia 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I share your concern and am actively lobbying for such a requirement. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo copyright

Kelly, you recently stated on another talk page that I was mistaken about whether or not Logos are copyrightable (in addition to being trademarked).

I have not scene anything that supports logos being copyrighted (only trademarked). Typefaces (like the Coke logo or the IBM logo are specifically NOT copyrightable). Could you please direct me to any sites that support logos being copyrighted? —MJBurrage • TALK • 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can cite to the casebook from my IP law class. Unfortunately, at the moment it's in a box somewhere, having recently moved along with the rest of my stuff. I would, however, point out to you that neither the Coke logo nor the IBM logo is a "typeface", although each of them does consist of characters rendered in a specific typeface. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's not too much trouble I would very-much appreciate the citation, or a link to someplace that I could find it online. Everything I have read has said that fonts (no matter how distinctive) are not copyrightable, and that a logo (in and of itself) has no inherent copyright protection. Now a company could use a copyrighted piece of art for it logo and said copyright would still exist, but when the logo is just a name in a distinctive font, since neither part (the name and the typeface) is copyrightable, the logo is not copyrightable. —MJBurrage • TALK • 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing the typeface from the rendering of some text in a particular typeface. The font in which the lettering of the IBM logo is rendered may not be copyrighted. However, the specific rendering of the letters "I", "B", and "M", in a specific color, with specific kerning and so forth, may well be copyrightable. Certainly the old Coca-Cola logo (the ribbony one) would be copyrightable except for the fact that it is likely in the public domain; there is definite creative content in the placement of the ribbon tails in the logo. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Has such a copyright claim been upheld by a court ruling? If yes, could you provide a link? Eltra Corp. v. Ringer makes it clear that both the IBM logo, and the Mountain Dew logo cannot be copyrighted, since they are made up solely of letters which cannot be copyrighted regardless of the creative work that went into them. —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The case you cite has nothing to do with the copyrightability of the IBM or Mountain Dew logos; rather, it has to do with the copyrightability of an entire typeface, such as Arial or Helvetica. You continue to confuse typefaces with text rendered in a typeface. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find a law and/or legal ruling to support that argument? —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The "creative bar" under US copyright law is really low. All one has to show is that one's work contains a bare minimum scintilla of creativity in order to claim copyrightability. I think it's incumbent on you to find a legal ruling to support your assertion. Unfortunately for you, Eltra isn't such a case; that case is entirely off point as it relates to copyrighting entire typefaces, which under US law are treated as "industrial design" and therefore excluded from the scope of copyright by the doctrine that one cannot copyright the utilitarian aspects of a work. In the case of a typeface, the entirety of the creative aspect of the work is the utilitarian design. This is the same reason why you can't copyright a Ford Festiva. However, the mere fact that a work which is entitled to copyright has been used as a trademark in no way impairs the copyrightability of the original work. (There's a precedent for this one; see Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_2 for more on this.) And in most cases where there is more to the work than a mere juxtaposition of ordinarily rendered letters (such as in the Mountain Dew logo, where several of the letters have been "sheared" so as to trail under other letters, some letters pass below the baseline in a manner which is not consistent with normal typography, and the entirety is typeset at an unusual slant), there is enough "creativity" to meet the minimum requirements of the Copyright Act.

Are you perhaps German? German law places a much higher bar of creativity on designs used in this manner, and in Germany a much larger proportion of logos are not copyrightable. It is a common error for Germans to think that their particular construction of copyright law is shared by others. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So I guess no book is copyrightable because they are "made up solely of letters" ? :) --Gmaxwell 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A book is copyrightable because of the artistic expression in its content, not because of the fonts chosen, or the way it is bound. titles, names, short phrases, and slogans may not be copyrighted (so Mountain Dew, IBM etc. may not be copyrighted). Eltra Corp. v. Ringer established that an entire font (no matter how creative) is not copyrightable since it is a “useful article” (I believe a font may have design patent however for its exact representation of letters); if an entire font is not copyrightable, than a collection of artistically drawn letters are not copyrightable.

So in the example of my public domain image of the words Mountain Dew, in a familiar style, any misuse in the commercial marketplace (putting it on a product for sale) would be trademark infringement, copyright just does not apply here.

Lastly, for the record, I am a Vermonter, and my arguments are based on U.S. case law. In the UK any logo is copyrightable, and—as I understand it—logos themselves are not copyrightable under German law, although elements within them may be.

Now if a case could be found in which logos were defined as not being “useful articles” under US law, then their copyrightability would be more akin to UK law, but under the US law for works of industrial design (US CODE: Title 17,102):

The test of separability and independence from “the utilitarian aspects of the article” does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable.

As to whether a logo even needs copyright protection to still be useful to it trademark owner, the Bass (beer) logo (copyrightable under UK law) is in the public domain due to its age. But Trademarks do not expire so the logo’s use in the commercial marketplace is just as protected as a brand new logo. —MJBurrage • TALK • 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Have you had an answer as to whether all checkusers have been formally identified? Sophia 12:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand

I am sorry if you see this request as beating up on betacommand. As the case proceeds, I plan to make it clear that I do not want to see him de-sysopped, however an assurance should his controversial actions recurr, he will be removed. Betacommand is a great editor, and I have no issue with him as an editor, only his actions, past and present. Even after the first mass deletion incident, I gave him a barnstar because I thought he had admirably handled the situation, stopped the action, and reverted the mistakes. The next day however, the actions continued. Overall, i hope you do not see my concerns as an attack on betacommand, however concerns about the wikipedia community as a whole. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)