Talk:Wikilegal

The subpages of this page are of extreme interest but this page is basically uncategorized and orphan and I'm not aware of any "advertisement" of the new subpages; how are individual "essays"/research questions postings notified to interested parties so that they know of it? Thanks, Nemo 07:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Nemo, I am glad you are interested! I try to keep these notes in Category:Legal notes, and I post a link in discussions that requested the note (often on Commons). I had some of the notes announced in the Signpost, and occasionally links are shared elsewhere. Any help de-orphaning or otherwise improving would be appreciated. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

How can one ask a "research question"? Thanks, Nemo 07:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Questions may be sent to liaisonwikimedia.org. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd like the legal team to address this. Discussion: Does (somewhat explicitly) permitting and hosting paid promotional content that doesn't meet legal disclosure requirements create significant legal exposure? It seems obvious to me that paid advocacy editing (PAE) generally constitutes an endorsement of a kind that cannot be made legally per US and other laws (unless we start letting paid editors add disclosures in article space, which we surely don't want to do!) Do we need en:Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) imposed by the WMF, or adopted via Village Pump notice or RfC process? --Elvey (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Still wondering. We now have Terms_of_use#paid-contrib-disclosure, in the ToU. That is progress. But PAE continues by editors who admit they know that their FCoI bars it and is not stopped even when alarm bells go off. I think we now have a ToS that (somewhat explicitly) permits paid endorsements of a kind that cannot be made legally per US and other nations' laws. --Elvey (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

With the server move to Virginia, but some servers still in Florida, which state law applies? I am asking per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which now states only Virgina and US law apply. (should we even make this claim there?) Thanks, --Dkriegls (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note: [1]. --Nemo 12:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mahitgar needs legal reassurances on the applicability of Creative Commons licenses in India. --Nemo 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Nemo. I don't know if any lawyers are watching this page in particular, but I'll alert them. Thanks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've seen it. I'm going to look into the issue, though I'm not sure what action we'll take yet. Thanks for flagging, Nemo. --Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, My fingures are crossed and would be waiting for the kind information.

Warm Regards -- Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there any relevant guidance already on this site (or elsewhere) on the legal position with regard to generic trademarks?

The Wikimedia Foundation trademark policy looked promising, but it's just about Wikimedia's own trademarks. Searches turn up hits in both that wiki and this one on the phrase you cannot use a trademark as a generic term which also looked promising, but these all also seem to refer to Wikimedia's own trademarks. Am I missing something?

English Wikipedia hasn't been too consistent on this IMO, so I'm just doing some homework before even thinking of suggesting we might revise our guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

See also General requests#Generic trademarks. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is also an independently started discussion at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Trademark mis-use Andrewa (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As you can see: c:Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Sweden#Swedish_FOP?. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply