[UbuntuWomen] Ubuntu, women and artwork...

[Romana Branden]

On 5/6/07, Micah Cowan <micahcowan at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Vid Ayer wrote:
>
> >>  I'm fairly certain that
> >> you'll find such depictions to fall under the protected realm of parody,
> >> which is quite sufficient to prevent Canonical, trademark holders though
> >> they may be, from preventing it.
> >
> > Does it mean that the current TM-policy document actually encourages
> > the negative portrayal of women under the protected realm of parody ?
>
> It means that it does not /matter/ what the TM-policy document says.
> There is nothing legally Canonical can do, no matter how much it might
> speak against it in some document, to undermine that legal protection.
> At least, in my country and perhaps some others (this may be a very
> US-specific claim that I'm making; I know that parody is not protected
> in all countries, at least).
>
> Now, if it were truly clear-cut, from a legal standpoint, that the
> artwork presents a negative portrayal of women, you could possibly sue
> the creators on grounds other than trademark. But that would still have
> nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu; it'd probably need to be a
> class-action lawsuit on the behalf of womankind.
>
> >> This is completely different, assuming that they portray these as
> >> officially sanctioned, and AFAIK could absolutely be actioned against,
> >> as it would fall well outside of parody and into trademark breach. If it
> >> were to happen with a small, private group, amongst themselves as a sort
> >> of joke, though, it would probably still qualify as parody.
> >
> > ....  TBH, now I am confused if you are pro- (or against) such images
> > using the Ubuntu logos prominently *or* whether you are suggesting
> > that such images are normal and women should get used to being
> > portrayed as "objects", hence not complain ?
>
> Where in the world did you get such a notion? I am simply stating how I
> understand the law to apply to it (though, again, this is probably
> specific to the US).
>
> I have not once revealed my own views on the graphics, and given your
> apparent interest in arguing ad hominem, depending on what you discover
> my viewpoint to be, I hardly see how it would be constructive.
>
> What /is/ clear, however, is that there is a wide range of opinion on
> the graphics, and the very fact of its offensiveness seems to be
> controversial, as some women have already expressed the opinion that
> they don't find it particularly offensive/degrading.
>
> >> But until we
> >> actually have a known case of this happening that someone wants to
> >> object to, I don't see much point in debating the theory of whether or
> >> not it would be right/wrong/legal/illegal.
> >
> > Responses like "why should we do anything unless someone complains",
> > "its freedom/parody/humor/...", simply reiterates the "be silent,
> > don't question us" misogynist attitude towards women.
>
> Who is arguing any such thing? I'm not saying "we shouldn't do anything
> unless someone complains:" clearly, people are complaining (about the
> artwork). I'm saying we shouldn't do anything about things that haven't
> happened (passing this artwork off as official).
>
> To be crystal clear: I am not and have not been arguing about whether or
> not the artwork is demeaning, degrading, or offensive. I am also not
> arguing about whether or not Ubuntu or Canonical should permit it. What
> I have been arguing, is that Canonical has no legal authority to forbid
> it, and so it is moot to argue the other points.
>
> I am somewhat saddened that you seem now to have taken the tactic of
> reading into my words, whatever you wish them to say, rather than what
> they actually do say, and therefore I don't think it will be wise to
> continue discussing it with you. I really do wish you well, and hope
> that other conversations we may have, on this forum or others, will be
> more productive ones.
>
> - --
> Micah J. Cowan
> Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...
> http://micah.cowan.name/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGPPvj7M8hyUobTrERAiYCAJ0dJoCARlWPtgd1Zev13f+OzC8xmwCgh6h8
> jwHEP2vr7BHU6ibkeztNHlg=
> =yDhO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> ubuntu-women mailing list
> ubuntu-women at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women
>

I really really loathe the way these things ALWAYS degrade into this
kind of situation.

Can we not rise above this, and respect each other's opinion, despite
disagreeing? And turn it back into a debate?
-- 
   -o)    Romana Branden
     /\ \   Nothing - well, thats something.
  _\_V   http://timelady.com/blog/