 Ahoy-hoy. Welcome back to the channel. Today we are going to talk about a brief history of the SCP logo and how it interacts with the current trademark case in Russia and how things are maybe not as cut and dry as people might expect them to be. So the SCP Wiki is Creative Commons share alike attribution. A Creative Commons license is fairly simple in that it just you the particulars of the license in this case share alike and attribution tell you exactly what you need to do with it. Share alike means you have to share all derivative types all derivative content created from original content that was under the license under the same license. So if you make something you have to distribute it under Creative Commons share alike attribution license and an attribution means you have to attribute the original creator of the thing that you've derived your content from. For the SCP Wiki that's easy you just say the SCP Wiki or if you are writing about something specific in particular you can always say you know this person came up with this here's the original article. However the SCP logo is a little bit complicated and there's a strong argument actually to be made that it's not itself under a Creative Commons license. So the SCP Wiki's current logo was created and I say current because there were previous logos when they when the oldest ones I believe was Josie the half cat actually the SCP Wiki's current logo was created sometime in 2008 late-ish 2008 by a fella called Fartu. Now it has been very very difficult to find original information on this on which post or where exactly it was because a lot of the old images from those days are gone but we can piece together some of it from context. So what I know about Fartu from his statements on the Wiki is that he was a graphic designer and he used his expertise on the Wiki mostly to create things like logos and images for people. He didn't spend very he's been on the Wiki for a very very long time but he didn't he didn't stick around for very long he has a few articles up I am positive I've seen his name on something that I remember but off the top of my head I cannot recall anything that he's written so but that's not important to the current talk here the current logo which I'm going to put on the screen right now was created by Fartu sort of see and this is important when we talk about the timing the logo was created in late 2008 and the logo is a slightly altered version of a piece of clip art from the 2007 adobe illustrator suite now I'm going to put that image up on the screen right now so you can see exactly what I'm talking about and you can see the difference and you know maybe I'll put side by side it's going to be a little bit hard to blow one of them up and it'll be a little pixelated but you can see side by side what the two images are the current logo and the adobe illustrator clip art piece so first of all under the general terms of license for the adobe illustrator suite there's likely something in there about once you purchase it you're allowed to distribute the things as you'd like but they aren't they almost certainly don't transfer to you the ability to then transfer it to other people so adobe likely and I'm saying likely because it's this is a long time ago who knows what's happened to those assets legally and elsewise but unless they have explicitly given them away and put them into the public domain those assets are likely still owned by adobe um and we can even see um so this is a far two thing that's not the original logo I did up the original is below I just ran it through photoshop's photocopy filter and then there's an image of the logo though the image is gone because the file is from 2008 it's 12 years ago I used the symbol that symbol to make it look like the shield or badge used by law enforcement's agencies and also because the arrows indicate moving inwards containing threats so we don't have the image but we have enough context here to see that this is him claiming to have created the original logo and if you think about what's what I'm gonna again put up on the screen here if you take that and you make it black and white you have the scp logo so that's where we that's where we are now in I want to say let's double check here the years are important here so the origin of the Andre Dixon problem goes back to I believe 2015 originally so he created um he's been creating scp related content since at least that amount of time and the Russian the Russian branch of the scp wiki had some issues and trouble with that also I don't remember the exact year maybe in 2016 or it may have been earlier than that but the important thing to remember is that the Russian scp the Russian wiki and the scp wiki actually had a bit of a tiff during around these times because the Russian wiki had a no commercial clause added into their license and I'm not going to get into the weeds here but the term share alike is very specific you can't add or subtract elements so adding non-commercial and saying that content created from the Russian wiki's content can't be distributed commercially is a violation of the Creative Commons license and it took a really long time to convince them of that but eventually after consulting with lawyers on their end they capitulated and uh changed the license on the on the scp Russian branch but Andre Dixon's thing was going on around this time as well and um he'd been making he's been making stuff since 2015 and then in summer of 2017 he claimed claimed that a filmmaking company had contacted him specifically and offered to release a series based on the scp foundation and then he in turn offered to be a point of contact for those for the filmmaking company and have the scp the Russian scp wiki create content that could be used for this film company but at the same time refused to give them access to each other there was no he was to act as the soul go between and to take half of any generated funds that would have gone towards the creators of the content so essentially he was acting as a an agent taking a 50 share as you can imagine things got a little dicey from there geek funko a shop an online shop actually was contact the scp Russian wiki and said that they had been receiving a a block on scp foundation branded merchandise based on the request of an unknown trademark holder the trademark holder of course was Andre Dixon um the Russian wiki didn't know this at the time but eventually they did find out and uh he actually used the excuse that the shopping question was scamming people and that's why he was taking the stuff down which really or if not the shop the people selling stuff in the shop weren't sending out the appropriate content and he felt that that threatened his own scp products so the idea is that if you can't trust creators of scp merchandise to actually legitimately send you your stuff then his business where he created an scp art book could be affected by it so he took a trademark out and then used that trademark to and i'm using this from the reasonable stance of you know well maybe that makes sense i it doesn't we'll get to that in a second but his stance is that since they are their scammy nature is affecting his possible revenue stream he's going to shut down the questionable stuff and it took a little while now this was this was actually in september of 2018 but it had been a while before he'd done this right the uh in the summer of 2017 when he was contacted about the film he filed a trademark then assuming the film thing was real he failed he filed a trademark then at the russian federal service for intellectual property right he failed his trade filed his trademark then and then for about a year didn't do anything with it really and then started to use it to enforce on other creators now of course like almost every that almost every film based thing and that's the real core of this is actually probably the film this is the original impetus for it um when a production company contacts somebody and it's like hey we're thinking about doing this thing the people who are contacted immediately think all right i've made it let's get this done and he files his right his trademark and everything but those projects are one in a hundred if that maybe even worse chances than that there's so many hey let's maybe do this thing out there uh so this film never materialized because it was never going to materialize it was just a thing and and the other thing is he got the trademark specifically to make it more likely for the film to materialize right the idea is that under a creative commons license nobody's going to invest say a hundred thousand dollars in the amount of money into a film when they know that it can just be redistributed for free because it's under a creative commons license so his thing is what if i own the license and can enforce it that becomes valuable that becomes useful to him and he could sell that if he can uh affirm his claim on it but the important part here is is that he doesn't own a copyright he has filed no copyright it's a trademark on specifically the scp logo right and the scp foundation is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place here and this is something i don't know if it comes up i don't know again we don't have a lot of details related to the legal case part of that may be russian privacy law which is fairly strict when it comes to legal cases and part of that may just be they don't want to give away the farm when it comes to their legal strategy i get that i wish they'd say that if that's the thing but i get that but they have to claim that an asset from adobe illustrator 2007 is a original product created by far too that that is under somehow no longer under the distribution license of adobe and is instead under a creative commons license of the sites creative commons license and then once they're done making that argument actually technically they're not it's it's consistent but they're it's it's a problem right they have to go in and say this logo is ours when there's a very strong case to be made that the logo isn't theirs right um but that case is unrelated to the problem of andre ducks which is uh yeah super problematic when it comes right down to it there's an unrelated more serious issue with the scp logo the scp content is clearly under creative commons license i i think it i again i'm not a lawyer i said that's in the last video that i did on this topic i'm not a lawyer but i'm fairly certain that the scp logo is under some sort of complex distribution uh license based on purchase of the scp 2007 illustrator suite and is not itself under a creative commons license at best it's under a public domain license which is a whole different thing um but i think ah man the idea that the scp logo is original is the issue here because that's what the scp foundation is arguing in court it seems from their argument from their gofundme page andre duckson has no legal re no legal ability to trademark it either the problem is the scp foundation doesn't really have a very strong argument to say that it is creative commons unless as i said and this is important and i'm going to look more into this later and you guys who are watching this video who are curious about it can probably look into it too an army of people looking into this may actually come up with a conclusion but i don't know for sure what the current legal status of that piece of clip art is right what happened to the adobe 2007 uh suites intellectual property and by the way that logo is very strongly derived from electrostatic sensitive device logo so it's not in and of itself original either but it's probably different and original enough to be considered an independent piece of art so it's a really big quagmire that we're in here uh and i don't really see and and again we talked about this the last time around uh they didn't invalidate andre duckson's trademark period and i doubt very highly that adobe trademark their one piece of clip art from a thing in 2007 it's unlikely that they did russia's first to file first person to file a trademark gets the trademark that's it now there's an argument to be made if the scp foundation had filed a trademark on it in another country that russia is um legally bound to recognize through their various trademark uh treaties then they could argue that the trademark's invalid then but no one had this is the first time as far as i know this is the first time anyone has registered this trademark that's a problem period and this is the complexities of the issue and i would love to talk more seriously about the uh full history of the scp wiki's problems with proper attribution and or uh plagiarism of images but we don't have time for that today anyway thank you very much for watching if you enjoyed the video or you'd like to see more stuff like this let me know in the comments down below and then head on over to patreon.com forward slash de samaritan and pledge at any level like everybody here on the screen already has including dr j redacted sin jerikey who have both pledged $100 and my dungeon master believe it or not i actually played dnd morgan who's pledged it $40 one of my favorite people and subscribe i'm talking to you christian yeah i see you out there it's nice to know that i'm alone out here and i will see you all again on thursday