We're telling users the images are in the public domain. Some of them might even know what that means and have expectations based on it. So, we should check that we're not leading them astray. For 0.11 I set aside (in the failed files) some that I believed to have trademark issues. For 0.14 and 0.15 I set aside some I had license questions about. For 0.16 I set aside some that are believed to have copyright issues, including most of the Tux images. For 0.17 I have additionally set aside no just the FreeBSD daemon images (the copyright status of which had just come up), but (after discussing it on IRC with rejon) all of the logos, because I believe there are probably more similar cases lurking there. If we review the logos, however, we may find that some of them are okay, and can be added back in for 0.18. We also really need to go over the whole collection, paying special attention to things like logos, marks, cartoon characters, and such, that are likely to have either trademark or copyright claims. I don't want to be in the position of claiming that things are public domain when they are not. It's all well and good to say that the submitters checked the checkbox, but I think we know at this point that not all of the submitters are adequately careful about this. Receiving Bart Simpson in incoming leaves little doubt of that.
Got one: http://openclipart.org/clipart//computer/aviso_sergio_luiz_araujo_01.svg This is from the gnome icon theme
hmm, got another one: http://openclipart.org/clipart//computer/otto_02.svg
This Otto mascot is NOT a trademark of OpenOffice.org, it is the winner of a contest and was made by a kid. AFAIK, it is not used in any official material. It was supposed to be the mascot of OOo Schools Project but it generated a very large controversy (because a hand gesture, which may be interpreted as offensive is nome cultures). The images submited here is a redrawing made by Alexandro Colorado, from the spanish community of OOo.
As long as we are clear that Otto can be released under our license, that is fine.
Releasing Otto in the public domain is fine, but what about the OOo flying birds in the background? They should be deleted as they are part of the copyrighted OOo logo.
I think this one may be a violation as well.... http://openclipart.org/clipart//people/don_t_panic__dan_gerhard_01.svg
'Velocette' is a registered trademark, according to the banner in the central image at http://www.velocette.org. So, we should reather remove http://openclipart.org/clipart//logos/velocette_frank_warttig_01.svg I am still not sure about the other logos. BTW: You do a great work!
'velocette' was a trademark in 1945. It is expired.
(In reply to comment #8) > 'velocette' was a trademark in 1945. It is expired. 1945 + 70 = 2015. It will expire in 2015 for me after 70 years...
(In reply to comment #9) > > 'velocette' was a trademark in 1945. It is expired. > 1945 + 70 = 2015. It will expire in 2015 for me after 70 years... Patricia, sure you do not confuse trademark and copyright? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trademark_law It seems a trademark does not expire after a number of years, it expire when the owner cease protecting it.
Nicu, In fact, this trademark is still in use... http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number (Number : 1249363) The owner is : David Matthew Scott And the first company closed in 1971. So as a trademark, we may use it in our documents, papers, web... instead for a commercial use. Like openclipart is only for PD license, I guess we should remove it. Only repository with non commercial license would be able to show this trademark. Patricia
Yes, we need to do this really bad! We could do this prior to import, but after import will be easiest.
Closing all openclipart bugs as openclipart is now on launchpad, as per request from Jon Philips.
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.