Sigh[edit]

This is fair use under parody. It is original work that incorporates the Foundation's logo, with other elements, in a collage used obviously for purposes of parody. Any party may be assumed to know that there is no 1937 edition of Wikipedia nor a My First Book of Wikipedia and that therefore no attempt is made to use the Foundation's symbols for improper purposes. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Law. If this image appeared as a parody on another website, the Foundation would no position whatsoever to demand its removal. It it was, publications such as Mad Magazine could not exist.

If the Foundation or its agents are so pedantic as to demand the removal of material from their own project which is (1) clearly permitted by law and (2) aids the project, the solution is not deletion but for the Foundation to grant permission for use - which is not required, but which should certainly satisfy the no-fun brigade. What is the procedure for this. Herostratus 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more about fair use parody[edit]

To go into a bit more detail on parody: these images, any informed and rational person would concede, are not used in a way such as to constitute a serious usurption of the Foundation's mark: no informed and rational person would believe that there actually was a 1937 print edition of Wikipedia, or that there is a My First Book of Wikipedia. No, these are intended to (gently) poke fun at the Wikipedia by parodying its attitude of grandiosity and claim to universality. This is parody, and it is specifically protected. The Foundation has exactly the same right to request the removal of these images as they would to prevent Mad Magazine from printing this type of parody image, which is to say, no right.

OR in other words, the sovereign entity Wikimedia Foundation may not say to the (for this purpose) sovereign entity English Wikipedia "You may not make fun of me."

(Now, there is the interesting side issue that en.wikipedia.org is not a parody site. The board of the English Wikipedia (as distinct from the Wikimedia Foundation, the owner of the rights to the logo) could, in theory, say "we do not engage in parody, therefore remove this unencyclopedic parody material". I suppose that there might be some mechanism for the Wikimedia Foundation to order the English Wikipedia to do that. But that's an entirely different issue, one of corporate governance and chain of command rather than copyright and trademark. And since they haven't done and won't do that, it's not an issue here.

Now, if the Board were to decide that fair use images are not allowed on the Wikipedia, that also would possibly be a different matter (not legally, but as a matter of corporate governance). But they haven't done that, either

I am not a lawyer, but I think that your only case is to argue that these images are not parody. If they are parody they are protected, I'm pretty sure. I'm not an expert on parody so I'm not certain that these images qualify as parody, but I think that they do. Herostratus (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jpeg artifacts[edit]

please clean away the jpeg artifacts (the little blotches all over the place) this is an encylopedia not a locker room —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storabled (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Storabled (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]